[The book HUJAJ-I-QAT’IYYA was written in the Arabic language by Abulberekât
Abdullah Suwaydî of Baghdâd. It was printed in Egypt in 1323 [A.D. 1905], and
reproduced by offset process in Istanbul. Its Turkish translation, by Allâma
Yûsuf Suwaydî, was printed in the Kurdistan printhouse in Egypt in 1326 [A.D.
1908]. Suwaydî Abdullah Efendi was born in Baghdâd in 1104. After performing
his duty of hajj in 1137, he was given an ijâzat (certificate, diploma) from
Abdulghanî Nablusî [1050-1143] (A.D. 1730) Damascus], and another ijâzat by Alî
Efendi of Istanbul [1099-1149]. He taught for years in Baghdâd. He wrote many
valuable books. His thirtieth grandfather is Abû Ja’fer Abdullah Mensûr, one of
the Abbâsî Khalîfas. Nâdir Shâh [1099-1160 (A.D. 1746)], an Iranian ruler,
convoked the scholars of Iran and Bukhara and commanded them to discuss and
come to a bilateral conclusion on which one of the Sunnî and Shi’î groups was
right, and they appointed him as president of the debate. The book
HUJAJ-I-QAT’IYYA, which gives an account of the talks made in this assembly, is
very valuable. After a long discussion with the Shiite scholars in this
assembly, he (Abdullah Suwaydî) proved that the Sunnîs were right. The Shâh
liked this and congratulated him. He passed away on the eleventh day, Saturday,
of (the Arabic month) Shawwâl in 1174 [A.D. 1760]. He was buried near the tomb
of Hadrat Ma’rûf-i-Kerhî ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’, who had passed away in 200 [A.D.
815].
When Shâh Huseyn Safawî, the ninth and last king of
the Safawid dynasty in Iran, was killed by the Afghans in 1142 [A.D. 1729], a
state of chaos began in Persia. The Shâh’s son, Tahmâsib II, was an incompetent
and pleasure-seeking person. Therefore his vizier named Nâdir took over. He
expelled the Afghans out of Iran and recaptured the capital, Isfehân. He
besieged Baghdâd, which was then governed by Ahmad Pasha. Eight months later an
army commanded by Uthmân Pasha, whose nickname was Lame, arrived from Istanbul
and repelled the Iranian army.
Nâdir Shâh became the Shâh of Iran in 1148. He captured Delhi. He
shed very much blood. Then he captured Afghanistan and Bukhâra. He was given
the nickname (Shâhinshâh). He sent ambassadors to the Ottoman State and
proposed to arrange a scientific discussion to decide which one of the Sunnî
and Imâmiyya groups was the right one. Organizing a great army, he moved
towards Baghdâd and Musul. Unable to capture them, he
In order to eliminate the disagreeing principles of
belief between the Sunnîs and the Shi’îs and to unite the two groups in one by
adhering to the right one, scholars from both groupscame together upon the
order of NÂDIR SHÂH. Abdullah Efendi made such detailed, scientific, mental and
documental speeches in front of the whole assembly that the Shiites were short
of answering him. [The questions asked and the answers given by both sides were
compiled in a book and published with the title (HUJAJ-I-QAT’IYYA)].
Ahmad Pasha, Governor of Baghdâd, sent for me. When I
went there Ahmad Agha, one of the officials of Ahmad Pasha, met me and said
that the Pasha wanted to send me to Nâdir Shâh. I asked him why. He said, “The
Shâh asked for a Sunnî scholar. You are to conduct a debate with the Shiite
scholars to find out whether the Shiite tenets are right. If so, Shiism will be
proclaimed as the fifth (true) madh-hab.”
“O Ahmad Agha,” I said. “Don’t you know that the
Persians are obstinate, headstrong people? Do you think they will admit my
words? Especially their Shâh is cruel and proud. How can I state the documents
showing that their way is wrong? How can one ever talk with them? They already
deny the hadîth-i-sherîfs I am to put forward as documents. They reject the
religious books. They interpret the âyat-i-kerîmas in such a
manner as will suit their purposes. How can I prove to them the fact that it is
permissible to make masah[1] on mests[2] when making ablution? This facility has been
made permissible by the sunnat-i-seniyya. The hadîth-i-sherîf
stating this permission has been narrated by more than seventy Sahabîs. One of
them is Hadrat Alî ‘ker-rem-Allâhu wejheh’. If I tell them these facts, they
will say that more than a hundred Sahabîs have reported that this facility is
not permissible. If I tell them that the statements they look on as hadîth-i-sherîfs are mawdû’, that is, they have been fabricated afterwards, they
will tell me the same thing. They will say, ‘Whatever you say, we will say it
back to you.’ For this reason, I beg Hadrat Pasha to excuse me from this duty.”
He said, “This is impossible. The Pasha has chosen
you for this duty. You have to obey him. Don’t you ever object to his command.”
---------------------------------
[1] To wet the hands and rub them gently
on mests.
[2] Light, soleless leather boots worn
with overshoes.
The following morning I had a long conversation with
Ahmad Pasha. He said, “Go and get to it. May Janâb-i-Haqq give effectiveness to
your tongue and argumentation! If they show obstinacy and vanity during the
debate, talk briefly. Yet do not let them go without an answer! If they admit
the facts and talk reasonably, do not hesitate to state all the facts that you
know! Never be the losing party! Nâdir Shâh must be in Nejef now. Be there by
Wednesday.” I and a few other people set out. Throughout the journey I thought
about the answers I was going to give and the evidences I was going to furnish.
People I met on my way said that the Shâh had convened almost seventy Shiite
muftis.
I thought to myself. It would be wrong to refrain from stating
the facts in front of them. And yet there was fear that they might make changes
in my statements before reporting them to the Shâh. The best thing to do would
be to request that the Shâh attend the debate. We were two hours from Nejef,
when somebody came and said, “Why are you lingering here? The Shâh is waiting
for you.” I asked if it was the Shâh’s habit to send men to meet his guests on
their way. He said, “No. You are the first person the Shâh has ever sent a
message to and said to hurry up.” Upon these words I said to myself, “The
Shâh’s purpose is to force me to admit the Imâmiyya (Shiite) tenets. He is
going to press upon me, maybe he will compel me. Yet I am not going to let them
corner me; I am not afraid of them. I shall not hesitate to state the truth
even if I know they will kill me. Muslims have been in a difficult situation
twice so far. The first one was when Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ passed away. Then Abû Bekr-i-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ came to their rescue and relieved them. Second; Hârûn-ur-reshîd’s son,
Me’mun, the Khalîfa, [his mother was a jâriya. He was born in 180 and passed
away in 218. His grave is in Tarsus], liked the Shiite group. He said that Qur’ân al-kerîm was a creature. Ahmad bin Hanbel
[164-241, Baghdâd] ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’ saved Muslims from this fitna
(instigation, mischief). And now it is seen that a third fitna is cropping up.
If I make a mistake or falter, it may hold on till the end of the world. That
is, Islam’s improvement or impairment depends on some means. Now I am going to
be the means for the elimination of this fitna.” I decided to exert myself and
be perseverant. I ventured even my life.
Two flags appeared in the distance. When we came
nearer, I saw the royal tents. The Shâh’s tent was set up on seven big posts.
There were thousands of sentinels. Someone met us. He asked about
Ahmad Pasha and the begs (officials under the Pasha’s command), mentioning
their names one by one. I was surprised at his way of asking as if he had known
them. “I served as the Iranian Ambassador to the Ottoman State. I served Ahmad
Pasha, too. My name is Abd-ul-kerîm Beg,” he explained. Then nine other people
came. Abd-ul-kerîm Beg stood up respectfully when they came. I knew they were
people of high positions. We greeted each other. They said, “We invite you to
take presence with the Shâh,” and raised the curtain in front of the big tent.
Walking through a passageway, we entered the Shâh’s room. When Nâdir Shâh saw
me, he said, “Abdullah Beg, merhabâ (hello)! Come nearer.” We took ten steps,
and he said again, “Come nearer!” I walked on, so that there was only one or
two metres between him and me when I stopped. He was seated. You could tell he
was tall. There were exuberantly ornamented ribbons on his head, around his
neck and arm. He was proud, contented. He looked tired and aged. His beard was
dyed black, and he had lost his front teeth. His eyes were beautiful with his
eye-brows like open bows. He was an imposing, yet at the same time affable,
person. When I saw him the fear I had had in my heart diminished. He said, in
Turkish again, “How has Ahmad Pasha been?” “He is well, in good health,” was my
answer.
[At that time Sultan Mahmud Khan I, the twenty-fourth Pâdishâh
(Emperor), was on the Ottoman throne. Yet Ahmad Khân III, the previous Sultan,
was still alive. He was born in 1083 and passed away in 1149 [A.D. 1736]. He is
in the mausoleum of (Turhan Sultan), his paternal grandmother, which is at
Bahçekapý, between Yeni Câmi’ (New Mosque) and Mýsýr Çarþýsý (Market). He
ascended to the throne in 1115. He was dethroned upon the Janissary
insurrection. His brother’s son, Sultan Mahmud I, took his place. The defeat of
Petro (Peter) the Crazy and the lynching of Ibrahim Pasha of Nevþehir in 1143 took place during his reign.
It is stated as follows in the first volume of the
book Sijill-i-Uthmânî: Ahmad Pasha is Eyyûbî Hasan Pasha’s son. He became the
governor of Konya in 1129, the governor of Basra in 1130, the governor of
Baghdâd upon his father’s death in 1136, and then he was sent to Iran as the
Serasker (Commander-in-chief). In 1149 he became the governor of Baghdâd again.
He passed away in the (Arabic) month of Zilqa’da in 1160. His two-time
governorship of Baghdâd lasted for twenty-two years.]
He said, “Do you know why I wanted you here?”
I said, “No, I don’t.”
He explained, “As you know, my country is of two
divisions. One of them is Turkistan and Afghanistan. People in these provinces
assert that Iranians are disbelievers. It is not something good for people under
my command to call one another disbelievers. I appoint you my deputy. You shall
confer with them and determine the right party. You shall do away with this
segregation. Let me know whatever you see and hear at the place of meeting!
Report to Ahmad Khan, too.”
Upon his permission I left his presence.
I’timâd-ud-dawla, i.e. the Grand Vizier, ordered me to be his guest and to meet the
head Molla, that is, Chief of Religious Affairs, after early afternoon prayer.
I was very happy when I left the place. At lunch time they took me to the Grand
Vizier. The Vizier acknowledged my salutation, seated as he was. He did not
stand up or show any respect. When I sat down, he stood up and said, “Welcome.”
According to their custom, the host would stand up after the guest sat down.
Because I did not know about this, I felt annoyed first. In fact, I was going
to ask the Shâh to punish the Grand Vizier for irreverence to a religious
scholar, as the first step in eliminating the acts of disbelief, which was the
Shâh’s command. However, when I learned about this custom of theirs, I knew
that he had been respectful. After lunch we mounted animals and set out to see
the head Molla. On the way I met an Afghan. He saluted me. When I asked him who
he was, he said, “I am Molla Hamza, the Afghan Mufti.” “Do you know Arabic?” I
asked. He answered positively. I said, “The Shâh has commanded me to correct
the heretical principles of belief and wrong deeds held and practised by the
Persians. But what should I do if they obstinately stick to their disbelief or
conceal some of their tenets? I do not know much about these people. Tell me
whatever you know, so that I shall act accordingly.”
He said, “Do not trust the Shâh! He sends you to the
head Molla so that you will speak with him alone. Be extremely circumspect
during the conversation.”
I said, “I fear a probable treachery.”
“No,” he said. “Don’t be afraid as to that! The Shâh
posted men he could trust at every step to report the talks to him. It is
impossible to misinform the Shâh.”
I approached the head Molla’s tent. He walked out to
meet
me. He was short. He showed me a seat which was by him and
somewhat above him. In the midst of the conversation he said, “Today I saw Hâdî
Khodja, the Afghan Mufti. He is an ocean of knowledge.” Hâdî Khodja was the
Qadi (Judge) of Bukhara. He was very profoundly learned. He was called
Bahr-ul-’ilm (Ocean of Knowledge). He had been here for days previous to my
arrival, with six other scholars from Bukhara.
He (the Molla) said, “How could he ever think the
name (Bahr-ul-’ilm) becoming himself? He is quite devoid of knowledge. If I
gave him two evidences proving the fact that Imâm-i-Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was
the first Khalîfa by rights, he would not be able to find an answer. Not only
him; even if all the Sunnite scholars came together, they would not be able to answer.”
“What are those unanswerable evidences of yours?” I
said.
1- He said, “First, I should like to ask you a
question: Hadrat Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ stated as follows
about Alî ibn Ebî Tâlib ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’: ‘Whatever Hârûn (Aaron) was in relation to Mûsâ (Moses), you are the same with
relationto me. The only difference is that no Prophet shall
come after me.’ You, too,
know this hadîth.”
“Yes. In fact, it is widely known,” I said.
He said, “This hadîth-i-sherîf shows
that Imâm-i-Alî should be the Khalîfa after hadrat Prophet.”
“How is that,” I asked.
He said, “It is pointed out that the position of
Imâm-i-Alî in relation to the Prophet is identical with that of Hârûn to Mûsâ. The only
exception is stated to be “Yet no Prophet shall
come after me.” For this
reason, hadrat Alî should be the first Khalîfa. Had Hârûn’s lifetime not ended,
he would have succeeded Mûsâ.”
“You assert clearly that these statements have a
general reference according to the knowledge of logic. How do you reach the
conclusion that they have a general meaning?”
“In exceptions, annexation implies a general
meaning.”
“Hârûn ‘alaihis-salâm’, like Mûsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’,
was a Prophet. On the other hand, as you, too, know, hadrat Alî
was not a Prophet; neither before, nor afterwards. Furthermore, Hârûn
‘alaihis-salâm’ was Mûsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ real brother. On the other hand,
hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ is not Rasûl-i-ekrem’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wasallam’ real brother. Exception in something general refers to supposition in
the knowledge of logic. Therefore,
the meaning of the statement must be sought as to a position, a
station. Accordingly, the letter (t) at the end of the (Arabic) word ‘menzila’
(position) indicates a singular meaning. The izâfet (annexation) ‘like the
position of Hârûn’ is an izâfet-i-ahdiyya, as is the case with most types of
annexation. In other words, it does not indicate a general meaning. And the
word ‘Only’ means ‘Yet’. Then, the statement bears a suppositious meaning, not
a definite one. In statements such as this, something which is uncertain can be
understood with the help of some other information. That is, as the relation
between the words ‘menzila’ and ‘Hârûn’ indicates that he was the Khalîfa only
for the Sons of Israel, so it indicates that hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was
left in Medîna-i-munawwara as the Khalîfa during the Holy War of Tabuk.
“Being left there as the Khalîfa shows that he is
more virtuous. He must be the first Khalîfa,” he said.
I said, “Then, Abdullah ibni umm-i-Mektûm
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ must be a Khalîfa, too. For Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ left him, as well as others, as the Khalîfa, that
is, as his representative, in Medîna-i-munawwara. Now, for what reason do you
choose hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ as the first Khalîfa instead of conferring
the honour on one of the others; for instance, on this one (named above)?
Moreover, if being left as a representative were a cause of superiority, Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ would not have expressed his anxiety by complaining, ‘Are
you going to leave me here with women, children and the incapable?’ And our
Master Fakhr-i-âlem ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ would not have consoled him
by stating, ‘Don’t you like to have a position with me like
that of Hârûn with Mûsâ?’ ”
“According to the Sunnite (branch of) knowledge
(called) Usûl, the important thing is not the dissimilarity between the causes
but the generality of the statement,” he said.
I said, “I am not treating the dissimilarity between
the causes as a documentary evidence. Yet I am stating that the indefinite
element in this hadîth-i-sherîf is a token suggesting its specificity.” He was
silent.
I went on, “Furthermore, this hadîth-i-sherîf cannot be put forward as a document. For it has not been reported
unanimously. Some of the scholars have stated it was sahîh, some of them have
said it was hasan, and others have declared it was a dha’îf[1] hadîth.
---------------------------------
[1] Kinds of hadîth-i-sherîfs are explained in full detail in the sixth chapter of Endless Bliss.
Ibn-ul-Djawzî, for instance, says that it is mawdû’. [Abulferedj
Jemâl-ud-dîn Hâfiz Abd-ur-Rahmân bin Ali-yyul-Djawzî ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’ is a
great ’âlim (savant, profoundly learned scholar) of hadîth. He was born in
Baghdâd in 508 and passed away there in 597 [A.D. 1201]. He wrote more than a
hundred books. His tafsîr (explanation of Qur’ân al-kerîm),
titled Mughnî, is
well-known]. How could this (hadîth) prove that Imâm-i-Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’
was the first Khalîfa, despite the fact that a document should be widely known
nass (an âyat-i-kerîma or hadîth-i-sherîf which has been stated clearly)?”
He said, “Yes, that is right. This (hadîth) is not
our only evidence. The hadîth, ‘Salute Alî as the Emîr (Ruler) of Believers,’
is an evidence. It is an irrefutable fact that this hadîth-i-sherîf signifies Alî’s right to be the first Khalîfa, if not his
prophethood.”
I said, “This hadîth-i-sherîf is
mawdû’ to our knowledge. The books of the ’Ulamâ (savants) of Ahl-as-sunna
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’ do not contain a sahîh hadîth of this
sort.” He mused (for a while). Then he said suddenly:
“I am going to state another evidence, which is
impossible to interpret otherwise. The âyat, ‘Come on! Let us call
your children and our children!’, is my evidence,” he said.
I questioned,
“How can this âyat-i-kerîma, which is the sixty-
first âyat of Âl-i-’Imrân sûra,
be an evidence?”
He said, “When the Christians coming from Nejran to
Medina disbelieved, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ said to them, ‘I challenge
you; let us imprecate Allah’s condemnation on the party which is lying.’ And then he came forward, taking Alî, Fâtima (his
daughter), Hasan and Huseyn (his two grandsons) with him. Certainly, a person
who joined (the Prophet) in this invocation is more virtuous than one who
did not.”
I said, “What you have just told is an episode. It
does not signify superiority. For there is an episode that is ascribed to each
of the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ and which
distinguishes him from the others. History readers are quite familiar with this
fact. Furthermore, Qur’ân-i-azîm-ush-shân was revealed in the Arabic language.
For instance, supposing two tribes were about to fight each other and the chief
of one of them said, ‘I shall take the brave ones of my tribe with me. And you
must select the brave ones in your tribe;’ this statement would not prove that
neither tribe contained any brave men other than
those who came forward. Being with one’s immediate relations
during an invocation is (an indication of) a broken heart and it is intended
for the acceptance of the invocation.”
“This shows abundance of love,” he said.
I said, “This is a kind of love innate in one’s
nature. It is like one’s loving oneself, one’s children. It is out of place to
look for superiority in this.”
“One more thing: The Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ put hadrat Alî in the same place with himself,”
he asserted.
I said, “You are not aware of the knowledge of Usûl; perhaps you
do not even know Arabic! The word ‘enfus’, which you presume to be an evidence,
is jem’i qillat (plural of paucity). It has been attached to (the word) ‘Nâ’,
which is an element of plural. When one plural is placed against another
plural, it causes the division of (the number) one by a thousand. For instance,
to say that ‘the cavalry company have mounted’ means to say that all the
horsemen in the company have mounted their horses. Jem’ means more than one.
The twenty-sixth âyat of Nûr sûra, which purports, ‘These
are not as they have said’, points
to hadrat Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ and Safwân ‘radiy-Allâhu anh.’ Likewise,
the expression ‘their hearts’, in the fourth âyat of Tahrîm sûra, is plural,
yet according to the knowledge of logic it means ‘two hearts’ because it is
attached to a pronoun signifying ‘two’. By the same token, the expression ‘our
children’, said about Hasan and Huseyn ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’, and the plural
reference ‘women’, made to hadrat Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ alone, are
hyperboles. If this âyat-i-kerîma indicated that
hadrat Alî should be the first Khalîfa, then Hasan, Huseyn and Fâtima should
have been Khalîfas respectively. However, hadrat Fâtima could never be a
Khalîfa.”
He said, “I have another proof. The fifty-eighth âyat
of Mâida sûra purports, ‘Verily, thine protectors, thine owners
are Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Messenger and
Believers.’ As it is
unanimously stated by scholars of Tafsîr (Islamic branch of knowledge involving
explanation of Qur’ân
al-kerîm), hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’, as he was performing namâz, gave his ring as alms to a poor person,
whereon this âyat-i-kerîma was revealed. The phrase ‘inna-mâ’ in the âyat-i-kerîma means ‘he, alone’. That is, it refers only to him. And the word
‘Walî’ (in the âyat-i-kerîma) means ‘the one who is best disposed to governing’.
What is your opinion of the Sahâba-i-kirâm?”
“Our knowledge about them is such that they are true
in person and in words,” was my answer.
2- He said, “Many an âyat in Qur’ân
al-kerîm reproaches them. There are a number of âyats declaring that
they are hypocrites, that they harassed and annoyed Rasûlullah.
Examples of this fact are the fifty-ninth âyat of Tawba sûra and the eighth
âyat of Mujâdala sûra and the first âyat of Munâfiqûn sûra and the sixteenth
and twentieth and twenty-ninth and thirtieth âyats of Muhammad sûra. Moreover,
as is pointed out in the hundred and second âyat of Tawba sûra and in the
eleventh and twelfth and fifteenth âyats of Fat-h sûra and in the fourth âyat
of Hujurât sûra, so clandestine were the hypocrites in Medina that our master
Fakhr-i-’âlam himself, let alone other people, was unaware of them. It is
stated in the Enfâl sûra, ‘Verily it is them who opposed Rasûlullah, who
evaded the renowned Holy War of Bedr and returned before seeing theenemy, and
who refrained from the honour of that day forwhich Believers gave up their
lives.’ It is for this reason that Allâhu ta’âlâ ‘jalla jalâluh’, who is aware of
secrets, reveals the hypocrites’ evil intentions in the sixth âyat of Enfâl
sûra. It is these hypocrites, again, who escaped from the Holy War of Huneyn
and who relied on their being superior in number and thus caused the revelation
of the tenth and hundred and sixteenth âyats of Âl-i-’Imrân sûra. In the
catastrophe of Uhud they ran away into the mountains, leaving hadrat
Fakhr-i-kâinat in the hands of the enemy. They caused the wounding of his
blessed face and martyrdom of two of his teeth and his falling down from the
mare. In fact, when they were asked to help they pretended not to hear and were
therefore reproached by Allâhu ta’âlâ in the
hundred and fifty-third âyat-i-kerîma of
Âl-i-’Imrân sûra. On account of the infamous behaviour they showed in Tabuk,
they were reprimanded and threatened through the thirty-ninth âyat-i-kerîma of Tawba sûra.
(He went on), “As all these facts show, the Prophet’s
As-hâb disobeyed him, opposed him. The âyat-i-kerîma about their
desertion purports that all of them ran away, not only a few of them. For the
forty-third âyat of Tawba sûra declares plainly that they incurred torment and
censure. And they caused the revelation of the forty-fourth âyat-i-kerîma of Tawba sûra, which scolds the Fakhr-i-’âlam ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wasallam’ because he allowed them to rejoin the Believers. Moreover, during the
Holy War of Ahzâb, or Hendek (Trench), which took place during the eleventh
month of the fifth year of the Hijra (Hegira), they were
reprimanded and censured through the thirteenth and fifteenth
âyats of Ahzâb sûra and through many other âyats. How could such people ever be
said to be true people? How could their actions and words ever be of
documentary value in religious matters? It is neither reasonable nor scientific
to believe or trust them.”
I took my turn: “All the âyat-i-kerîmas
that you put forward as documents in order to vilify the As-hâb-i-kirâm
‘alaihimur-ridwân’ were intended for munâfiqs (hypocrites). No one doubts as to
this fact. In fact, Shiites also unanimously acknowledge this fact. It would be
quite incompatible with justice and reason to attempt to heap the reproaches
stated in these âyat-i-kerîmas which are known
to have been revealed to reprimand the hypocrites on the As-hâb-i-kirâm, who
have been praised and lauded through âyats, and thus to try to defame these
great people. Formerly there were many hypocrites. Later on they began to
decrease in number. Towards the end of the blessed lifetime of our master
Fakhr-i-’âlam ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ the hypocrites were separated from
the true Believers. With the hundred and seventy-ninth âyat-i-kerîma
of Âl-i-’Imrân sûra, Allâhu ta’âlâ severed the
good from the vicious. Our master, hadrat Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ stated, ‘As the fire in the smith’s
forge severs the iron from its dirt, soMedina severs the good people from the
bad ones.’ [That is, as the forges
used by blacksmiths and blast-furnaces separate the scum called dross from the
iron, so Medina city separates good people from bad ones.] How could it ever be
justifiable to impute (the contents of) the âyat-i-kerîmas
describing the hypocrites to the As-hâb-i-kirâm? The hundred and tenth âyat
ofÂl-i-’Imrân sûra purports, ‘You have been the most
beneficent, the best of ummats.’ How
could those people, who are praised and lauded through this âyat, be equated
with the hypocrites?
(I went on), “Allâhu ta’âlâ
praises the As-hâb-i-kirâm through many âyat-i-kerîmas.
It is written in all the books of Tafsîr that the fifty-ninth âyat of Tawba
sûra descended about Ibni zil Huwaysira bin Zuheyr, who was the chief of the
(Khawârij) tribe. It is not worthy of a man of knowledge to impute (the evils
purported in) this âyat-i-kerîma to the
Sahâba-i-kirâm ‘ridwânullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’. It will be appropriate at
this point to paraphrase the passages explaining this event in the book
Bukhârî-yi-sherîf. Abû Sa’îd-i-Hudrî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ narrates: I was with
our master Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wasallam.’ I
was
enjoying the pleasure of seeing his blessed luminous face. He was meting out
the booties taken from the disbelievers in the Holy War of Huneyn. Huwaysira
from the Benî Temîm clan came in, and said, ‘O Rasûlallah! Observe justice!’ Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ stated, ‘Shame
on you! If I do not administer justice, who does? If I did notdispense justice,
you would suffer much harm!’ At that
moment ’Umar-ul-Fârûq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ stood up and said, ‘Please give me
permission to kill that nescient.’ He (Rasûlullah)
stated, ‘Leave him! For this man has friends. They perform namâz
like you. They fast, read Qur’ân al-kerîm with
you.Yet the word of Allâhu ta’âlâ does
not go down their throats. They leave the religion (Islam) like an arrow leaving the bow. When he looks at
his arrow and at the target and at the bottle, he cannot see any of them. Yet
the arrow has reached the bottle, pierced it, and shed the blood. Among them
will be a person, whose colour is black. One of hisarms is like the udder of an
animal. It drips ceaselessly.’ As Abû
Sa’îd-i-Hudrî narrates, hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ made war against the
Khawârij during his caliphate. We saw a man of this sort among the captives. He
was exactly as our master Rasûlullah described
him. It has been reported that the reason for the revelation of this âyat-i-kerîma was due to the following statement made
by a hypocrite named Abulhawât: ‘O my friends! Why don’t you look at your
owner! He wants to make a show of justice by giving what belongs to you to
shepherds.’
(I went on), “Also, the eighth âyat of Mujâdala sûra
was revealed for the Jews and hypocrites. For they were organizing meetings
hidden from the Muslims among themselves, and trying to deceive the
As-hâb-i-kirâm with eye and eye-brow gestures. The Believers, on the other
hand, would feel pity for them, thinking that they were apprehending a certain
calamity that was going to befall them and talking secretly among themselves
lest others should know about it. Yet the prolongation of these talks revealed
their real purposes. The As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihimur-ridwân’ complained to our
master Fakhr-i-’âlam ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ and petitioned that these
malevolent secret meetings should be put an end to. Therefore he (Rasûlullah) commanded that such meetings should be discontinued. Yet the
hypocrites disobeyed him and carried on their sedition. Upon this the eighth
âyat of Mujâdala sûra was revealed, which purported, ‘Have
you not seen those who were prohibited from holding secret meetings?They
have met again despite the prohibition.
They havebeen meeting for
sinning, for (stirring
up) enmity, opposition to Rasûlullah.’ Their disobeying the prohibition and meeting again
means opposition.
(I went on), “The blessed meaning of the eighth âyat of Mujâdala
sûrâ is, ‘When they greet thee, they do not do so(in the same manner) as Allâhu
ta’âlâ greets thee.’ Jews
are reproached in this âyat-i-kerîma. Whenever
Jews met Rasûlullah they would say, ‘May
sam be to you,’ instead of saying, ‘May
salâm be on you.’ And Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ would reply, ‘And
the same to you!’ Thus, instead of saying,
‘salâm’, which means ‘safety, security’, they would say, ‘sam’, which means
‘death’. They thought they could deceive Fakhr-i-kâinât, who is the highest of
all creatures and of all the past and future human beings. When they left him
they would say that they had deceived him and that if he had been a Prophet they would have incurred (Allah’s) scourge on
account of this atrocity of theirs. It is for this reason that it was declared,
‘Their calculation shall add up to torment in Hell’, at the end of the âyat-i-kerîma. (Bukhârî)
states in his book that when Jews entered
the presence of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ
alaihi wasallam’ they would pronounce their doubtful, wicked word of greeting,
as it was their vicious custom. Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ understood this and
became angry. Our master, Rasûlullah, stated
that there was no reason for becoming angry and that his invocation, ‘May
the same be to you!’, was accepted (by Allâhu ta’âlâ).
“The expression, ‘When the munâfiqs (hypocrites) come to thee...’, in the first âyat of Munâfiqûn sûra, refers to
Abdullah bin Selûl and his friends. It has nothing to do with As-hâb-i-kirâm.
(I went on), “The meaning of the sixteenth âyat of Muhammad sûra
is, ‘Of them, the ones who listen to thee; when they leave thee...’ This âyat-i-kerîma, too, was
revealed for the hypocrites. The hypocrites would appear in the presence of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’, hear his
statements, and yet they would be unwilling to understand what he was saying.
Imâm-i-Muqatil [Of Belh; passed away in Basra in 150] states as follows in his
Tafsîr: As Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’
preached during the Khutba, they would pretend not to understand, asking
Abdullah ibni Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’, ‘What does this man want to say?’
Abdullah ibni Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ reports that they would ask him from
time to time. Allâhu ta’âlâ, who is the (real)
owner of justice, revealed the sixteenth âyat of Muhammad sûra, thus
distinguishing the faithful
Believers
who were serving whole-heartedly from the hypocrites. The blessed meaning of
this âyat is, ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ has sealed their hearts shut.’ Then, revealing the next âyat, He (Allâhu
ta’âlâ) gave the Ashâb-i-kirâm the good news of hidâyat (guidance to the
right way) and najât (salvation). Sa’îd bin Jubeyr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ states:
The expression, ‘Thou hast seen those with ailing hearts’, purported in the twentieth âyat of Muhammad sûra, uncovers the
hypocrites explicitly. For there are three kinds of hearts: The first one is
the Believer’s heart, which is pure and attached to
Allâhu ta’âlâ with love. The second kind of heart is rigid and dead. It
will never feel mercy. The third kind is
the ailing heart. This ailment is the singular property of hypocrites. Allâhu ta’âlâ describes all these three kinds of
hearts in the fifty-first âyat of Hajj sûra. Two of these three hearts are in
torment. One of them shall attain salvation. The Believer’s heart is Selîm. Allâhu ta’âlâ praises and lauds the heart that is
Selîm. The eighty-eighth âyat of Shu’arâ sûra purports, ‘That
day, property and childrenshall do no good. Only those who come with a heart
that isSelîm shall attain benefits.’
“The Benî Anber tribe were disbelievers. It would be
wrong, both mentally and scientifically, to place them among the Ashâb-i-kirâm.
“As for the Holy War of Bedr; as it is explained both
in your books and in our books, it took place as it is stated in the first âyat
of Enfâl sûra.
(I went on), “The dispersal that took place in the
Holy War of Huneyn was not a desertion. It was a precaution, a tactical
stratagem. Every war embodies retreats as well as forward movements. After all,
those who dispersed were not the greater ones of the As-hâb-i-kirâm. They were
the slaves who had been emancipated after the conquest of Mekka a few months
earlier. It was for certain that the result was going to be a victory. In fact,
that this withdrawal brought about victory is informed in the twenty-seventh
âyat of Tawba sûra, which purports, ‘Then He conferred serenity on
His Messenger and on the Believers.’Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ was aware of this. For this reason he did not
rebuke those who had dispersed. He was not offended with any of them. Then,
would it be proper for us to censure them? Since it is stated, ‘It is
permissible to desert the battle when one’s life is in danger,’ in the book (Kitâb-ush-sharâyi’)
which was written by Abulqâsim
Shi’î, a Shiite scholar, would it not be necessary to hold one’s tongue about
the Sahâba
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ who retreated during the Holy War of
Huneyn?
“As for the desertion in the Holy War of Uhud; it
took place before its prohibition. It is declared in the hundred and
fifty-fifth âyat of Âl-i-’Imrân sûra that Allâhu ta’âlâ has
forgiven them.
“It is explained in all books of Tafsîr that the good news
purporting, ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ has forgiven thee,’ which is before the hundred and fifty-third âyat-i-kerîma of Âl-i-’Imrân sûra, is attached to this
âyat, which follows it.
“The meaning of the ninety-ninth âyat of Tawba sûra
is, ‘O those who have had îmân! What happened to you whenyou were said
to go out for Jihâd?’ This
does not mean to censure or rebuke them. Yet it means to inform them that they
have been slack. And this information includes all of them. It has not been
stated that hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, who was among them, was an exception.”
Upon this the head Molla began to talk:
3- “Would it be something right to make a person
Khalîfa while his caliphate was a matter of controversy? The Benî Hâshim
(tribe) were the notables of the As-hâb-i-kirâm. Only after long hesitation and
upon insistent coersion did they acknowledge his caliphate. Is this the way of
accepting a Khalîfa?”
I answered, “All the Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ unanimously agreed on the caliphate of hadrat Abû
Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’. Anyone without prejudice will acknowledge this
fact. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ and a few other Sahâbîs ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ were late to acknowledge their obedience, not
because they were opposed, but because they had not been invited to the election
and therefore had not attended it. Besides, a few people’s opposition could not
have turned the preferrence of the majority to the other way round. Had such a
thing been possible, it would have been possible when hadrat Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu ta’âlâ wej-heh’ was elected the (fourth) Khalîfa (afterwards), and
consequently his caliphate would not have been rightful.”
4- The head Molla changed the subject: “Abû Bekr
deprived hadrat Fâtima of her right by violence. Putting forward the hadîth-i-sherîf, ‘We Prophets do not leave inheritance behind
us. What we leave will become alms,’ he did not give her her dues. During the battle of Hayber, Jebrâîl
(Gabriel) ‘alaihis-salâm’ brought the command which purported, ‘Give
the person who is
close to thee his right.’ When our master the Prophet asked, ‘Who
is the person close to me?’, he was told that it was Fâtima. It has been reported by
Umm-i-Eymen and Esmâ bint-i-Umeys and Alî ibni Ebî Tâlib that upon this event
Fâtima was given the date orchard called (Fedek). Despite these witnesses, he
deprived her of her right with a hadîth-i-sherîf
reported by him; what is this, if not cruelty? Is it compatible with Islam to
accept a Khalîfa whose conduct and deeds are like this?”
I answered: “There are two possible reasons for hadrat Fâtima’s
demanding for the date orchard called Fedek. She might have said that she had
inherited it. Or she might have claimed it was her property because it had been
given to her before (her father’s death). Your assertion denotes that she asked
for it because it was her property. None of the scholars of Ahl as-sunna has
said that the orchard named Fedek had been given to Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu anha’
or that it was her property. Nor is it written in any Islamic book. All books
say that she asked for it because (she thought) it was an inheritance from her
father. How could this event, which is narrated clearly in the book (Bukhârî-i-sherîf),
be changed into ‘it was taken away from her
by force’? Hadîth-i-sherîfs are plain enough not
to tolerate such distortions. For the date orchard named Fedek was in the
possession of our master the Prophet. When he
passed away it went under the control of Abû Bekr, his Khalîfa. When hadrat
Fâtima asked for it as an inheritance, he answered her as it was stated in the hadîth-i-sherîf, and swore that he held Rasûlullah’s relatives higher than his own. These
facts are written in the book (Bukhârî-i-sherîf). It is completely wrong to say that this hadîth-i-sherîf
was reported only by Abû Bekr. This hadîth-i-sherîf
was reported also by ’Umar, ’Uthmân, Alî, Talha, Zubeyr, Abd-ur-Rahmân, Abbâs,
and the blessed wives of our master Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’. It is written in Bukhârî-i-sherîf. Imâm-i-Ismâîl
Bukhârî states: Is-haq said to me: I have heard this hadîth-i-sherîf
from Mâlik bin Enes. (He said) he had heard it from Shahâb-i-Zuhrî, who (had
said he) had heard it from Mâlik bin Ews. I visited Mâlik bin Ews and asked
him. He said to me: One day before noon I was sitting in front of my house,
when one of hadrat ’Umar’s men came and said that the Khalîfa wanted to see me.
I went there and entered the Khalîfa’s presence. The Khalîfa was sitting on a
couch. There was not a mattress on the couch. He was leaning back on a cushion.
I greeted him, and sat down. He said to me, ‘A few people from your tribe were
here. I ordered that they
should
be given some money. I sent for you because I would like you to divide this
money and distribute it to them. Take it and mete it out!’ I requested the
Khalîfa to excuse me and have someone else carry out this order. But when he
insisted I could not refuse him. At that moment the door-keeper entered and
said that ’Uthmân, Abd-ur-rahmân, Zubeyr, Sa’d ibni Ebî Waqqâs ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhum’ requested admittance. He (the Khalîfa) said they could come in. So they
entered and sat down. Some time later the doorman came in again and said that
hadrat Alî and Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ were waiting outside for admittance.
Given the permission, they entered, and sat down. Hadrat Abbâs began to talk,
saying that ‘Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ and I are here for the settlement of a
disagreement between us concerning the property of (Benî Nadr), which Allâhu ta’âlâ gifted to Rasûlullah.’
He wanted this matter to be discussed so that those who had come earlier would
feel satisfied and pleased, too. First the Khalîfa began to talk, saying, ‘I
ask you (to tell the truth) for the right of Ulûhiyyat (being worshipped) and
Izzat (Honour, Glory) of Allâhu ta’âlâ, who has
created the earth and heavens and who allows them to maintain their existence
every moment: Did Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wasallam’ make the statement, (We Prophets do not leave
inheritance behind us! What we leave behind will become alms)? Do you know that he uttered this hadîth-i-sherîf?’
’Uthmân and his friends, who had arrived there earlier, said, ‘Yes, we know
about it. He (the Prophet) said so.’ Then the
Khalîfa turned to Alî and Abbâs and repeated the same question. Both of them
replied in the affirmative. ‘Then you must be ready to listen to the decree
enacted in this respect: Jenâb-i-Rabb-ul-’âlamîn ‘ta’âlâ wa taqaddes’ has given
this property as a ghanîmat. That He has made this gift only upon His
Habîb-i-ekrem, and no one else has been qualified with this concession, is
pointed out in the sixth âyat of Hashr sûra. Our master the Fakhr-i-kâinât
spent all such property, distributing it in a manner compatible with Islam,
leaving behind what exists today. Setting apart the legitimate needs of his
household from that ghanîmat, he would give the rest to those who were granted
an allowance from the Beyt-ul-mâl. What do you say about this? Would Rasûlullah not do so?’ Upon this question of the
Khalîfa, all the people being there replied in the affirmative.
“Hadrat Khalîfa went on with his discourse: When Rasûlullah passed away, Abû Bekr as-siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ took control.
He followed Rasûlullah’s example and did the same. Until his death, he
carried on a faultless administration. Now you two are there to have me talk,
to ask from me. Since both of you ask the same question, there must be one
answer for both of you. You, hadrat Abbâs, are here to ask about the right of
your brother’s son, Alî, and you, hadrat Alî, are here to ask about your wife’s
right, which is an inheritance from her father. I have quoted to you the hadîth-i-sherîf, ‘We do not leave inheritance behind us...’, which you admit to have heard. Then I have informed
you about the policy followed by Abû Bekr-i-Siddîq, who was the rightly-guided
Khalîfa of our master the Rasûl-i-ekrem. The very day I became the Khalîfa I
assigned the task of carrying on this business to you, making it a stipulation
that you were to follow the same policy as before.’ Thus, in the presence of
hadrat ’Uthmân and his friends, he (the Khalîfa, hadrat ’Umar) answered hadrat
Alî and Abbâs’s question, stating that they had been given this duty under that
stipulation. (And he went on), ‘Now, if you have come here to ask for
permission to do something contrary to this stipulation; I swear by the
greatness of the Creator of earth and heavens that I shall not give permission
to do something counter to the wishes of Allâhu ta’âlâ and His
Messenger. If you are incapable to execute this task, return it to me! I shall
provide your needs for you.’ When Urwa-t-abn-i-Zubeyr was asked about this
event, he repeated that he had heard it from Mâlik bin Ews ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’
as it was. And he added a narration reported byhadrat Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhâ’, the blessed wife of our master Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wasallam’: One day the Ezwâj-i-tâhirât (the Prophet’s pure
wives) ‘radiy-Allâhu anhunna’ sent me to my father (hadrat Abû Bekr-i-siddîq)
to ask my father, who was the Khalîfa at that time, about the portions they
were to receive from the ghanîmat. He stated, ‘Don’t you fear Jenâb-i-Haqq? Our
master Rasûlullah’s hadîth-i-sherîf, (We Prophets do not leave inheritance), shows that you do not have any portions. Do you
remember this hadîth-i-sherîf?’ Upon this refusal, I remembered the hadîth-i-sherîf and went back.
“In order to explain that those who are vulgarly obstinate
despite all these clear evidences must be malevolent people, I have quoted the hadîth-i-sherîf in the book Bukhârî-i-sherîf exactly
as it is. Hadrat Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ heard this hadîth-i-sherîf from our master Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’. It is the most dependable document for him. For
there are three ways of learning something: First, by perceiving it;
second,
by hearing it from all people; third, by hearing it from Rasûlullah. Hadrat Fâtima’s not having heard about
this hadîth-i-sherîf does not signify its
nonexistence. Hadrat Alî and Abbâs’s confirmation and the Prophet’s blessed wives’ stoppingasking for their
rights upon hadrat Âisha’s dissuation, leave no doubt as to its authenticity.
And you are wrong to say that hadrat Fâtima brought two women as witnesses. She
proposed hadrat Alî and Umm-i-Eymen ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum’ as witnesses.
Only one of these witnesses, i.e. Umm-i-Eymen, was a woman. This fact is also
written in the book (Nehj-ul-haqq), by Ibn-ul-Mutahhir Hasan bin Yûsuf Hullî, a Shiite scholar. After
all, this could not be an Islamic way of argumentation. The following event
will explain why it is not: Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ sued a Jew for a coat
of arms, and proposed hadrat Hasan, (his son), and Qanber, his slave, as
witnesses. Qâdi Shureyh, who was the judge, dismissed the action because it was
not Islamic for a person to be a witness for his father. And Imâm-i-Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’, the Khalîfa as he was at that time, followed Islam and reason by
acquiescing in the decision.
[Ibni Mutahhir-i-Hullî was born in 684, and passed
away in 726 [A.D. 1226]. He was one of the scholars of Imâmiyya group. He wrote
hundreds of books. Qâdi Shureyh was appointed the Qâdi of Kûfa by hadrat ’Umar
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’. He served as a judge there for almost sixty
years. He passed away in 87, when he was one hundred years old. He should not
be mistaken for Qâdi Shureyh, who was a friend of Imâm-i-a’zam Abû Hanîfa.
Mensûr, the Khalîfa (at that time), appointed him the Qâdi of Kûfa. He was born
in 95, and passed away in Kûfa in 177 (A.D. 793)].
“Supposing all these evidences are disignored and it
is still presumed that the Khalîfa Abû Bekr as-siddîq took the date orchard
called Fedek by force; then why did hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ not give the
date orchard to hadrat Hasan and Huseyn when he became the Khalîfa and
everything was now in his hands, under his command? Why did he not change what
had been done by the three Khalîfas previous to him? Hadrat Alî’s following the
same policy as had been followed by the previous three Khalîfas concerning the
date orchard is a plain evidence for the fact that it had not been taken by
force by Abû Bekr.” Upon this the head Molla said:
5- “Would it be sahîh (acceptable) for a person who
has attempted to reject Rasûlullah’s commandment to become the Khalîfa?”
He said, “How did it come to be sahîh that ’Umar, who had beaten
Abû Hureyra ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ and prevented him from carrying out the command
he had been given, became the Khalîfa? Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ gave Abû Hureyra his blessed sandals, and said to
him, ‘Go with these! Give the good news that those who believe in the
Kelima-i-shahâdat shall enter Paradise!’ As
Abû Hureyra was going to carry out this commandment, he met ’Umar. ’Umar asked
him where he was coming from and where he was going. When Abû Hureyra told him
about the duty he was going to do, he knocked him down with a blow on the
chest, and told him to go back. Abû Hureyra was badly offended. Going back, he
told Rasûlullah (what had happened). As is
written in the book (Al-Jam’u beyn-as-sahîhayn), by Hâfiz [person who is profoundly learned in the knowledge of
Hadîth] Muhammad bin Ebî Nasr Hamîdî Andulusî Mâlikî [passed away in 488 (A.D.
1095)], Abû Hureyra says: Abû Bekr, ’Umar, and I were sitting with Rasûlullah. The Fakhr-i-kâinât stood up and left. He
did not come back. We were anxious. We went out to look for him. I was ahead of
the others. I walked on till I reached the wall of (the house that belonged to)
Benî Nejjâr, who was one of the Ensâr. I began to walk around, looking for the
door. I saw Rebi’a go in through a small door, and followed him in. I saw Rasûlullah inside. He told me to go near him. He gave
me his blessed sandals and said, ‘Go with these! Give the good
news to all those you meet that those who have îmân in the Kelima-i-shahâdat
shall enter Paradise!’ I went out to do
his command. First I met ’Umar. He asked where I was going. When I told him
that I was going to give some good news to Believers, he hit me and told me to
go back. I went back in tears. As I was telling Rasûlullah,
’Umar came there, too. He listened. Rasûlullah
asked ’Umar what he had done. He said: ‘O the Messenger of Allah! I am ready to
sacrifice my parents for you! Did you give your blessed sandals to Abû Hureyra
and tell him to give the good news of Paradise to those who have the îmân of
Kelima-i-shahâdat in their hearts?’ When our master Rasûlullah
said, ‘Yes, (I did)’, ’Umar said, ‘O
the Messenger of Allah! Please do not do this! I fear that those who hear this
will put their trust in this and become slack in doing the (worships that are)
farz and wâjib. Please leave them to themselves!’ So Rasûlullah
stated, ‘All right, leave them!’ When
due attention is paid, doesn’t this behaviour of ’Umar’s mean to reject the
commandment of Allâh
and His
Rasûl (Messenger) ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihi wasallam’? Isn’t this behaviour
opposing the commandments? How could it ever be permissible to make such a
person Khalîfa and to deliver Muslims’ matters into his hands?”
I answered: “This behaviour of hadrat ’Umar’s does
not mean to reject Rasûlullah’s command. Nor does it signify disobedience. He
submits his opinion, his apprehension to Rasûlullah. His
opinion will be either accepted or rejected, depending on Rasûlullah’s final, irrevokable commandment. By saying, ‘O the Messenger of
Allah! I am ready to sacrifice my parents for you,’ which is a sign of utter
courtesy, mildness, and deep reverence, he shows that he is ready to do his
commandment anyway. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’, on the other hand, does
not rebuke hadrat ’Umar on account of this behaviour of his, but, instead, he
accepts his opinion, considering it useful for Muslims. He orders Abû Hureyra
to ‘Leave the sandals, and do not say so!’
This kind of behaviour is not peculiar to hadrat ’Umar only. Most
of the As-hâb-i-kirâm did similar things, and our master the Prophet accepted most of them. It is written in the
books Bukhârî and Muslim that our master, Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’, stated, ‘Every person that comes to
the world has a place allotted for him (or
her) either in Paradise or in Hell.’ One
of the audience said, ‘O the Messenger of Allah! Then, might we as well wait
and go to the one where Allâhu ta’âlâ has
allotted a place for us instead of worshipping?’ Our master Rasûlullah said to that person, ‘Do
not give upyour worships. For those who are to go to Paradise will be made to
do the deeds that will take them to Paradise. And those who are to go to Hell
will do what will lead to Hell.’ Then he
recited the fifth âyat of Wel-leyli sûra. Hadrat ’Umar’s statement is similar
to this answer of Rasûlullah’s. In fact, hadrat
’Umar made this statement relying on this hadîth-i-sherîf
of Rasûlullah’s. That is, he meant to say, ‘O
Rasûlallah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’! We have learned from you that it
would not be right to give this kind of good news to the ignorant. I am afraid
most of them may rely on the Kelima-i-shahâdat and neglect the worships that
are farz and wâjib and slacken in their adherence to Islam.’ It was accepted
(by the Prophet) that hadrat ’Umar’s pure
intention was only this and therefore his dissuasive request was welcomed.
Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-allâhu anh’ also made many such
statements as this which could be considered irreverence. In fact, the group
called Nawasib (a subdivision of Khârijiyya group) speak ill of
him on account of these statements. Abd-ul-Hamîd Nâji attempted to
belittle Imâm-i-Alî by quoting these statements with documents in his book. Alî
bin Ahmad ibni Hazm (384-456 [A.D. 1064]; wrote some four hundred books), an
Andalusian scholar, in his book (Tafsîl), and Sherîf Murtadâ, a Shiite scholar, in his book (Tenzîh-ul-enbiyâ),
answered these (vilifications)
and rebutted Nâji. If you wish, I can give you many examples of these
(answers).” The head Molla did not say anything. He shifted to another
question:
6-“Is it fair for a person who calls himself the
Emîr-ul-Mu’minîn to prohibit something which has been made halâl (permitted) by Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Messenger?”
“What is that?” I questioned.
He said, “ ’Umar prohibited the (Mut’a nikâh),[1] which had been made halâl by Allah and His
Messenger and which is declared in the Book (Qur’ân al-kerîm) and
the Sunna (hadîth-i-sherîfs). If this is not opposing the commandment of Allâhu ta’âlâ, how can it be explained otherwise? Can such a person be called a
Muslim? Can he be the Emîr-ul-Mu’minîn?”
I gave the following answer to the head Molla: “As is
explained in the well-known book (Musnad) by Ibni Mâja, a hadîth scholar, [Muhammad bin Yezîd
was born in Qazvîn in 209, and passed away in 273 (A.D. 886). One of the six
books of Hadîth is his book (Sunan)], ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, as he was the Khalîfa, said,
‘Fakr-i-’âlam ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ made the mut’a nikâh halâl
(permitted) for us three times, and he made it harâm (forbidden) three times.
Wallahi (I swear in the name of Allah), if I hear that a married person has
confined a woman (in his house) by way of mut’a nikâh, I shall carry out
Islam’s commandment by Rejm, that is, by having him stoned to death.’ This
statement does not show that mut’a nikâh was forbidden by hadrat ’Umar. It
shows that he would not permit mut’a nikâh as it had been forbidden by Rasûlullah. All the As-hâb-i-kirâm, with the exception of hadrat Abdullah
ibni Abbâs, supported this statement of the Khalîfa’s. No one except him was
opposed to this. And later on he, too, agreed, it thus being a unanimous
decision of the As-hâb-i-kirâm. The book Bukhârî says in its report of a
narration coming from hadrat Alî that, hadrat Alî said to Abdullah ibni Abbâs,
‘You are wrong. Our master the Fakhr-i
---------------------------------
[1] Nikâh means marriage contract as prescribed by Islam. Mut’a nikâh is a kind of temporary marriage practiced among Shiite Muslims.
-’âlam prohibited mut’a nikâh.’ Upon this statement of hadrat
Alî’s, Abdullah (ibni Abbas), too, agreed with this decision and admitted that
mut’a nikâh had been made harâm afterwards.
(I went on), “Furthermore, Suleymân bin Ahmad
Tabarânî, a great hadîth scholar, [who was born in Tabariyya in 260, and passed
away in Isfahan in 360 (A.D. 971)], and Suleymân bin Dâwûd Tayâlisî, [who
passed away in 202 (A.D. 817)], quote in their books Saîd bin Jubeyr as having
said: I said to Abdullah ibni Abbâs, ‘I could never say that mut’â nikâh was
halâl. And you shouldn’t have said it was halâl, either. Can you imagine the
harm that will arise from saying so? When you say that it is permissible, it
will spread everywhere and others will use this statement of yours as a
document for the justification of mut’a nikâh.’ Upon this Abdullah said, ‘By
saying so I did not mean that mut’a nikâh
would always be halâl for everybody. I said it would be permissible only in
case of indispensable necessity to prevent some harm which would otherwise be
inevitable. I said so thinking that, inasmuch as Allâhu ta’âlâ gives
permission to eat as much lesh,[1] blood or pork
as will eliminate harm in case of indispensable necessity, mut’a nikâh should
be permissible (in case of strong necessity).’ As will be understood from these
explanations, that mut’a nikâh was always permissible for everybody was not
Abdullah ibni Abbâs’s opinion, either. His opinion was that it would be
permissible to gratify some indispensable necessity which would otherwise be
harmful, as is the case with all the things that are harâm. Abû Bekr Ahmad bin
Huseyn Beyhekî [384-458 (A.D. 1067)], a Hadîth scholar, explains clearly that
Abdullah ibni Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ anhumâ’ changed his opinion. It
is reported by Tabarânî and Beyhekî again that Abdullah ibni Abbâs said, ‘Mut’a
nikâh was halâl formerly. Yet it was made harâm after the revelation of the âyat-i-kerîma which purported, ‘Your mothers are harâm for
you.’ The âyat-i-kerîma that purports, ‘Only your wives and the
jâriyas that you have are halâl,’ in Mu’minûn sûra, emphasizes the fact that mut’a nikâh has been
made harâm. For it is inferred from this âyat that only wives and jâriyas are
halâl and others are harâm.’
“That mut’a nikâh was harâm has been reported by most
of the As-hâb-i-kirâm including hadrat Alî. It is written in the book
---------------------------------
[1] Kinds of meat Islam prohibits to consume are called lesh. They include putrifying meat as well as that of an animal killed not in the manner prescribed by Islam.
Bukhârî-i-sherîf that ‘hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ told Abdullah
ibni Abbâs that Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ prohibited mut’a nikâh
and consumption of donkey flesh during the Holy War of Hayber.’ On the other
hand, it is written in the book (Muslim-i-sherîf) and in Ibni Mâja’s book that our master the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihi wasallam’ stated, ‘O Muslims! I gave you
permission to marry women with mut’anikâh. Yet now Allâhu
ta’âlâ has made it harâm. If anyonehas been keeping such a woman
he should let her go andshould not take back the property he has given her!’ Also, it is written in the books called (Sahîh)
by Bukhârî and Muslim that ‘Our
master Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ made mut’a nikâh halâl
three times. And he made it harâm three times.’ ”
I asked the head Molla, “Could a woman married by
mut’a nikâh be an heiress to the man? And supposing this woman had children by
this man; could these children inherit from their father?”
“No, they couldn’t,” was the head Molla’s answer.
“Then this woman is not a wife. Nor is she a jâriya. What would
you say about the âyat-i-kerîma, ‘Believers
keep away from women other than their wives and jâriyas?’ That is, this âyat-i-kerîma makes
only the wife and the jâriya halâl. It states plainly that one cannot come
together with any women except these two. Wouldn’t it mean to oppose this plain
commandment of Qur’ân al-kerîm to assert that it
would be halâl to cohabit with a woman who could be called neither a wife nor a
jâriya and with whom one has made a (temporary marriage) contract called mut’a
nikâh? And wouldn’t this in its turn mean to strive obstinately, intentionally,
and vainly to deviate from the right way?
“Furthermore, you make such preposterous statements
as could by no means be justified. For instance, one of your scholars, a man
named Alî ibnil’âl, has written that it would be permissible for a woman to
have sexual intercourse with twelve men in one night and that, in case she
conceived, the child’s father would be determined by holding a lottery. What
other turpitude or enmity could be more destructive than this to Islam?” This
answer of mine petrified the head Molla. He thought for a long while. Hoping to
escape the quandary, he asked another question:
7- “It is wâjib for everybody to obey the Khalîfa and
to comply with all his commandments. And the person to be obeyed should in his
turn be sinless, faultless. Besides, it is unanimously acknowledged by both
sides, (by Shiite and Sunnite scholars), that
the imâm (religious leader) is an innocent person. Everyone with
reason will say so, too. For imâm means (person who is obeyed). As a shirt
which is worn is called ridâ, so a person who is obeyed is called imâm. If the
imâm were expected to say or do something wrong, he could not be trusted; he
would be expected to say or do something that would lead others to disasters
and abysses and which would run counter to the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Since obedience to the imâm is a commandment of Allâhu ta’âlâ, fallibility of the imâm would mean that Allâhu ta’âlâ commanded (us) to obey something which might be wrong. And this,
in its turn, would be something quite polar to reason and religion.”
I answered him as follows: “Your assertion that there is
unanimity in the innocence and infallibilty of the imâm and that this is
Islam’s commandment, is an altogether wrong and depraved behaviour. For one
thing, you Shi’îs do not cherish Ijmâ’ (unanimity of the As-hâb-i-kirâm). You
say that Ijmâ’ cannot be a document to show Islam’s commandment. According to
your belief, ijmâ’ is not a delîl-i-sher’î (a document in religious matters).
For this reason, your argumentation based on ijmâ’ is at loggerheads with your
credo, which is the basis of your belief. On the other hand, if by ‘unanimity’
you mean that the Shi’îs also agreed in this belief, this time all the ijmâ’s
before the appearing of the Imâmiyya group should have been untenable, wrong.
In addition, since there was nothing in the name of Shi’îsm by the time hadrat
Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu ta’âlâ wejheh’ was elected the Khalîfa, the unanimity that
effected this election should have been corrupt, wrong, which in turn means
that he should have been made the Khalîfa unjustly. For the caliphate of hadrat
Muâwiya was recognized by hadrat Hasan and all the other Muslims including the
Shi’î group. Yes, (imâm) means the person who is obeyed. Yet there is no
document stating that he has to be innocent or infallible. Any evidence put
forward to prove this assertion would be easily refuted by the following five
antitheses:
I. It is wâjib[1] only to obey
the commands of an Emîr (Ruler, leader of Muslims) or a hâkim (Muslim judge).
It is not necessary for a person who is obeyed to be infallible in whatever he
does.
II. According to the Shi’î group, a muftî is not
innocent, that is,
---------------------------------
[1] Commandments that are plainly stated in Qur’ân al-kerîm are called Fard, or Fardh, (pl. Farâidh). If it has not been stated clearly whether something is a commandment, it is called Wâjib. In other words, a wâjib is a kind of commandment next to fard in importance.
infallible. Yet it is wâjib for everybody to comply with the
commands of the muftî.
III. A hâkim (judge) will accept as a witness anyone
who is considered to be impartial. A witness on whose evidence the judge bases
his verdict is not necessarily an infallible person.
A slave has to obey all
his owner’s commands unless they are harâm (deeds, actions, statements,
behavious forbidden by Islam). Yet this does not necessarily mean that his
owner is sinless.
Throughout the namâz,[1] the jamâ’at
have to follow the imâm. Even if the imâm performs this namâz for some worldly
advantage or makes the rukû’ (bowing posture in namâz) and the sajda
(prostration in namâz) for someone (or something) else rather than for Allah’s
sake, the jamâ’at will still have to follow him.
Thus the people who are obeyed and followed in these
five instances are not necessarily sinless people.” Upon this, the head Molla
began to talk:
“We did not consider these meanings of obeying or
following. We considered its meaning pertaining to the obedience that could be
said of obedience to things with a certain degree of strength. The strongest of
them is our master Rasûlullah’s saying, ‘Am I not ewlâ (better, more valuable) to you
than your life is?’, to those who
were around him. When they said, ‘Yes, (you are), o the Messenger of Allah,’ he
(Rasûlullah) stated, ‘Then, for whoever I am the
mawlâ, Alî, too, must be his mawlâ.’ Therefore, obedience (in this context) means to make (someone)
your master. Even if we were to take it in its general meaning as in the five
items you have just stated, it would still not be as you think it is. Yes, it
is wâjib to obey commanders and judges, yet (it is wâjib to obey) only those
who have been appointed by the sinless imâm, [that is, by the Khalîfa]. It is
not wâjib to obey those who are not so. The Shi’îs’ saying that muftîs are to
be obeyed is not intended to mean obedience to the muftis themselves. This
obedience originates from the fact that they have been appointed by the sinless
imâm
---------------------------------
[1] Islam’s most important commandment is the namâz, which is performed five times daily and in a manner prescribed by Islam. When a group of Muslims perform namâz together, one of them leads, conducts the prayer, and the others follow his actions. The person who conducts the namâz is called imâm, and the Muslims who imitate his movements are called jamâ’at.
(the Khalîfa). Since they are his representatives, their command
is the imâm’s command. However, it is not necessary to obey their own commands.
“As for obeying others; it is necessary to obey them
only when their commands are permitted (by Islam), because this obedience has
been commanded by Allah. However, obeying the imâm, [that is, the Khalîfa], is
more general than the abovementioned examples. It therefore cannot be compared
to them.”
My answer was as follows: “Obeying or following does
not harbour doubt. This word is one of those words called mutawâtî. [What
muttawâtî means is explained in full detail in the fourth chapter of the second
part of the (Turkish) book (Se’âdet-i Ebediyye)[1]]. For obedience means for the follower to follow the
one whom he obeys. If a person follows a superior person, the follower is
called (tâbi’), and that superior person is called (metbû’). This act of
following varies, depending on the degree and the duration of obedience, but
the essence of the act of following will not change with the increase or
decrease in the degree or the duration of obedience. In other words, its
essential attribute called mutawâtî will not change. For it is stated
unanimously by the scholars of Usûl and by others that the difference that
causes teshqiq is the difference in the essence of the matter. This difference is
not based on time or amount. [Teshqiq is explained detailedly in the (Turkish) book (Se’âdet-i
Ebediyye)[2]].
(I went on), “If you infer the meaning of (iqtidâ)
from the word ‘following’, this, again, is mutawâtî. For iqtidâ means to
---------------------------------
[1] Se’âdet-i Ebediyye (Endless Bliss) has been partly translated into English and published in fascicles. For those who have not had the chance to read that book, we shall make a brief definition of the word mutawâtî: it is an attribute commonly and equally shared by all the members of a species. Like the attributes, or characteristics, of being human or animal. The highest of mankind and the lowest man are equal in being human. For instance, there is no difference between a Prophet and a disbeliever in being human.
[2] As it is explained in the book (Se’âdet-i-Ebediyye), Musheqqiq means an attribute, a quality, a characteristic which does not exist in equal amounts in all the members of a species. An example of this is knowledge, which is possessed in different amounts by learned people. The word teshqiq, used in the text, is the noun form of the adjective musheqqiq. Please see Endless Bliss, Second Fascicle, Chapter 4, Explanation of Wisdom.
follow in everything. If the (following) person does something by
himself, be it something important or quite insignificant, he will not have
done iqtidâ. Following only in one respect may be said to be iqtidâ in itself;
yet the person (who has done so) cannot be said to have fulfilled iqtidâ in its
full sense. Hence, your thesis, ‘the person followed is loved very much by the
follower’, which is the center of gravity in your argument, is idle; it is like
a rowing exercise. For this does not mean ‘following’ at all. Nor does the
meaning you have stated have anything to do with he optional love that is
commanded by Islam and which is similar to the love we should have for our
master Rasûlullah as it is stated in the hadîth-i-sherîf, ‘Unless one of you loves me more thanloving
himself and his child(ren) and
his parents and allother people, he shall not have had îmân in its full sense.’
You mistook the love stated in
this hadîth-i-sherîf for choosing the Khalîfa and compared the Khalîfas
to our master Rasûlullah; this comparison is vain from all points of view.”
The head Molla was silent. Then he shifted to another subject.
8- He said, “It is a widely known fact that our
master Rasûlullah was very compassionate over his Ummat (Muslims) and
that he tried to protect their rights and peace. It is not even necessary to
say this. It is due to this compassion of his that when he left the city of
Medina and went to another city, he would appoint someone to take his place in
his absence. While this is the case, how could it ever be possible for him not
to have appointed an imâm, a representative to conduct the businesses of this
Ummat and to meet the needs of all these people who have reached millions in
number after his death, and to have left them uncontrolled till the end of the
world? On the other hand, as it is understood from the Khutba called
(Ghadîr-i-Hum), which is written in your sahîh (acceptable, authentic) books,
and from other reports, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ appointed hadrat Alî
to take his place after his death both by making clear statements and by
implications. As a matter of fact, because it was wâjib for Rabb-ul-’âlamîn to
appoint an imâm, towards his death he wanted to make a written will in order to
carry out this important task and to prevent the obstinate from evading this
task. He asked for a pen and some paper. ’Umar, who was one of the audience,
dissuaded him by treating the Messenger of Allah with such an insulting and
abhorring statement as could not be made by vulgar people.” [Hum is the name of
a well situated outside Mekka. Ghadîr-i-Hum is the name of a place that is near
this well and somewhere between Mekka and Medina].
I answered, “Your saying that ‘it was wâjib (compulsory,
necessary) for Rabb-ul-’âlamîn to appoint an imâm’, is identical with the
Mu’tazila group’s thesis that ‘it is wâjib for Allâhu
ta’âlâ to do things, not doing which would run counter to the hikmat
(ultimate divine wisdom of Allâhu ta’âlâ).’ This
statement of yours is corrupt, wrong. For we know that, though all the deeds of Allâhu ta’âlâ are suitable with hikmat and always
useful, it cannot be wâjib for Allâhu ta’âlâ to
do something because it seems to be suitable with hikmat and useful. The Koranic
verse which purports, ‘He cannot be questioned on what He has done.
His born slaves shall be questioned on what theyhave done,’ shows clearly that your statement is wrong. If it were wâjib for Allâhu ta’âlâ to appoint an imâm, humanity would
necesarily never have been without an imâm. It is a must for the imâm to be
known by everybody, to have strength and power, to possess qualifications of an
imâm, to be able to extirpate evil deeds and offensive customs, to effect good
deeds, and to protect Muslims from harms. While asserting that the earth cannot
be without an imâm and nominating only a certain number of innocent people
including hadrat Alî for the position, you on the one hand presume that it is
wâjib for Allâhu ta’âlâ to make them imâm, and
on the other hand maintain that none of them has the qualifications of an imâm.
You state that they all lived in a state of weakness, incapability, trouble and
oppression, without being able to do anything or have any effect. What kind of
use or hikmat could be expected from making imâm such an incompetent person who
has to submit to others’ power so incapacitantly?
“This stubborn insistence of yours means to make Allâhu ta’âlâ weak and incapable – may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect
us against such a belief! For, (according to your thesis), He has been unable
to do something. Allâhu ta’âlâ
is far and free from such
suppositions.
“Another way to refute your thesis is this: Is being
suitable with hikmat or being useful always necessary or not? If you say that
being suitable with hikmat is not always good, you will have agreed with us. In
that case we may say that the hikmats you have cited above did not exist at the
time when Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ was about to pass
away. For when it is said that existence of hikmats makes no difference, their
existence cannot be better than a situation in which they do not exist. On the
other hand, if you say that existence of hikmats is better, this time these
hikmats should exist either in Allâhu ta’âlâ Himself
or elsewhere. If they do not exist in Him, then something other than Allâhu ta’âlâ will have compelled Allâhu ta’âlâ; which is
impossible. If hikmats are (supposed to be) in Allâhu ta’âlâ, this
time some creatures will have settled in Allâhu ta’âlâ; and this is
quite impossible.
“As it is seen, your saying that it is wâjib for Allâhu ta’âlâ to appoint an imâm is an altogether
wrong and nonsencial statement. Yes, as the Ahl-i-Haqq, or the Ahl-as-sunnat
(scholars) state, men need an imâm, a president for the protection of Islam,
for the chastisement of offenders, for the protection and restitution of
rights, and for the execution of (the very important tasks of) emr-i-ma’rûf and
nehy-i-anilmunker (advising and motivating people to do the commandments of
Islam and warning them against doing its prohibitions and dissuading them from
doing them); it therefore is wâjib for us to have an imâm, a president. Yet it
is not wâjib for Allâhu ta’âlâ to appoint one.
For this reason, when our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wassalâm’ passed away the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihimur-ridwân’ came
together and unanimously elected Abû Bekr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ as their
imâm. Thus the Islamic religion was protected against a disturbance.
(I went on), “According to the Mu’tazila group, the important
thing is whether mind finds something beautiful or ugly. They leave it to mind
to judge what things Allâhu ta’âlâ has created
are beautiful and which of them are ugly. They say that
Allâhu ta’âlâ has to create the ones that are found beautiful. No
assertion could be so loathsome or so corrupt as saying that Allâhu ta’âlâ has to create the things which the
human mind finds beautiful. Your assertion is similar to this. As it has been
explained in detail, Allâhu ta’âlâ creates
whatever He wishes (to create). He does not have to create anything. All the
things He has wished (to create) are suitable with hikmat and useful. None of
them is ugly. According to the Mu’tazila group, wâjib means an obligation which
necessitates punishment when neglected. Accordingly, if a person could not be
blamed for not doing something, it could not be said to be (wâjib for him to
do). To say that Allâhu ta’âlâ has to create a
certain thing would mean to say that it will be necessary to censure Him, to
punish Him if He does not create it. And this in its turn would mean to that
Jenâb-i-Haqq (Allâhu ta’âlâ) is defective and
imperfect and will become perfect and escape punishment only if He creates it.
No other defiance a
person
might insolently perpetrate towards Allâhu ta’âlâ could
be more daring than this and no other statement contrary to His Attributes of
perfection could be more repugnant. This sordid statement of yours could be
refuted by many other answers as well. This statement of yours means to compare
the Creator to His creatures, to apply the same criterion as we assess them
with. And this, in its turn, is by no means possible.
Allâhu ta’âlâ is not like anything, nor is anything like Him in any
respect. Furthermore, if it were wâjib for Allâhu
ta’âlâ to keep a sinless imâm, then it would be wâjib for Him to send a Prophet in every century, to keep a sinless imâm in
every city, and to make every Ruler just and true. Yes, any person, whether he
is good or bad, would not like to see an environment where Allâhu ta’âlâ has left His born slaves to themselves
without a guide or an imâm and where they lead an ignorant and aberrant life
tumbling in darkness.
“To this end, Allâhu ta’âlâ has
revealed a book that will guide to happiness and peace and endowed man with
enough mental capacity to apprehend its value. If you say that Allâhu ta’âlâ has always sent the sinless imâm, the owner of the time and
entrusted the management of His born slaves’ affairs into his hands, this will
be another senseless and ridiculous assertion. Aside from the farcicality that
this sinless imâm should have stayed alive throughout these thousand years
during which all his children, grandchildren and kith and kin have died, how
could he have been useful by remaining secret despite the increased number of
Shiites, instead of coming forward to guide people to the right way, to awaken
them from unawareness, and to promulgate Islam? How could he be said to have
had such duties as guiding all people to the right way, making rights reach
their owners, and many others? What else could be as eccentric and as devious
as such a belief? If Allâhu ta’âlâ
does not endow a person with the
right way, no one can guide him to the right way.
“As all these facts show, Allâhu ta’âlâ does not have to do, or not to do, anything. As is written in your
book (Nehj-ul-balâgha), hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ stated this fact plainly in the
khutba he made during the combat of Siffîn. He said, ‘Since I manage your
affairs, I have rights on you. And you in turn have rights on me and on one
another. When there are rights that a person owe to others, there will also be
rights owed to him. Allâhu ta’âlâ
is the only being who does not
owe any rights though there are rights owed to Him. For He can do everything.
Everything He
does has justice. The right that Allâhu ta’âlâ has on
His born slaves is their worshipping Him, obeying Him. Being kind, He gives
thawâb (rewards) in return for this.’ If you pay attention to this khutba, you
will see that your statements contradict hadrat Alî’s statements.
“Your statement that our master Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ enjoined that hadrat Alî should be made the
Khalîfa, is wrong, too. Alongside the farz (Islam’s commandments), the As-hâb-i-kirâm
had to do Rasûlullah’s commandments as well.
Your statement comes to mean that they neglected this duty of theirs by
concealing this commandment of Rasûlullah’s. On
the other hand, it is out of the question for such a great number of people to
have agreed on wrongdoing. Moreover, contradicting the hadîth-i-sherîfs,
your statement cannot be correct.
(I went on), “It was declared as follows in a hadîth-i-sherîf,which has been reported from Enes bin Mâlik by Ibni Ebî Âsim and
Elqâ’î, two Shiite scholars: ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ has protectedmy
Ummat from making an agreement on aberration.’ It was declared in another hadîth-i-sherîf, reported by the hadîth scholar Hâkim Uyayna ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
aleyh’ [who was born in Kûfa in 107 and passed away in Mekka in 198 (A.D.
813)]: ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ will not bring this Ummat together on
heresy.’ And the word ‘hand’
in the hadîth-i-sherîf, ‘Allah’s hand is with the jamâ’at (congregation of muslims)’, means ‘power’, ‘help’. As
is shown by these hadîth-i-sherîfs and many other hadîth-i-sherîfs
similar to these, the Ummat-i-Muhammadiyya (Muslims) can never form a unanimity
in aberration. To say otherwise would mean to deny these hadîth-i sherîfs.
“You allege that our master, Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’, asked for a pen and paper in order to make a
written will. This last statement of yours belies your former allegation on the
(Ghadîr-i-Hum) khutba. If he had delivered such an injunction, he would
consider it unnecessary to make a written will in addition. This comes to mean
that the (written) will which you allege Rasûlullah
wanted to make during the khutba he made at the place called Ghadîr-i-Hum, is a
pure invention. The truth is that all the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
anhum ajma’în’, including hadrat Alî and all the Sons of Hâshim, unanimously
elected hadrat Abû Bekr the Khalîfa. This unanimity proves in the light of the
above-mentioned hadîth-i-sherîfs that his
caliphate was rightly-guided and that your statements are null and void. If there
had been such a will; during the caliphates of the other
three,
(i.e. hadrat Abû Bekr and ’Umar and ’Uthmân), who in that case would have
wronged hadrat Alî, he would demand that they give him his right back, and
would take action against them if otherwise. As a matter of fact, when (later)
he was elected the Khalîfa he drew his sword and fought against those who
disobeyed him, as it was Islam’s commandment (for the Khalîfa) to manage
religious and worldly affairs. As we all know, he made wars that cost
devastation to numerous cities and bloodshed to thousands of Muslims. A
powerful and honourable person who was so harsh with those who would not obey
him is now alleged to have remained silent though he saw he was forcefully
debarred from the right vested to him by Islam and to have joined the jury to
decide on the question of who the right was to be given; is this believable at
all?
(I went on), “If it is claimed, as is alleged in the
Shiite book, that hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ gave up demanding justice
unwillingly because he did not have enough men to support him, (may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from saying so), he will have neglected the commandment
of Allâhu ta’âlâ and disobeyed Him because he was afraid to fulfil the
requirements of the task assigned to him by Allâhu ta’âlâ and His
Messenger. It is a universally known fact, however, that hadrat Alî
‘kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’, who was Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihi wasallam’ paternal first cousin and son-in-law and the
lion of Allah, would have rather faced the risk of death than let anyone smear
him with such a shameful and humiliating stigma as cowardice, no matter whoever
his opponent might be, be it anyone from all over the world, let alone from
Arabia only. So you think such a base and ugly act would be worthy of the
Emîr-ul-Mu’minîn hadrat Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’, who was a master of ours.
This statement of yours directs hostility towards him, rather than expressing
your love of him. I therefore deem it a debt for my part to consider that
exalted imâm to be far and pure from such a defect as well as from all other
sorts of doubt and defect, and to state this fact here.
(I continued), “Also, your statement that when Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihi wa sallam’ asked
for a pen and paper in order to write a will ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ dissuaded
him, is untrue, since there is not enough authentic evidence to prove that this
exalted person (hadrat ’Umar) would have exhibited such behaviour. For Abdullah
ibni Abbâs says, as is narrated in the Meghâzî section of the book Bukhârî: It
was Thursday, when our
master Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ illness
became graver. He stated, ‘Fetch me (some) paper! Ishall write a book; so that after me
you should never leave the right way.’ The
people being there began to talk. He (the Prophet)
stated, ‘It is not suitable to talk aloud in the presence of the Prophet.’ It was asked (someone asked) ‘Is he in a delirium? Ask him.’
Again, Abdullah reported: Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ was ill. There were a few of us with him. He
stated, ‘I shall write a book for you; so that after me you should
not leave the right way.’ Some of us said,
‘His pains have augmented. We have the Qur’ân al-kerîm
with us. The Book of Allah will be enough for us.’ We could not come to an
agreement. Some of us said, ‘Let us bring (some paper). Let him write it so
that we shall not lose our way later.’ Others stated other things. Different
statements were on the increase, when he (the Prophet)
stated, ‘Stand up!’
“So, as it is reported in (Bukhârî),
our second most valuable and
dependable book after Qur’ân
al-kerîm on the earth, the so-called
objection was not raised by a certain person. A few people wondered whether it
should be better not to do what was asked. For Bukhârî’s account of the event
is in plural form, ‘They said,’ which indicates that those who reacted were
more than one. It would be wrong to attempt to use this event as a ground for
reproaching hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ only. If there were people to be
blamed in this event, all the people present there would equally share the
supposed blameworthiness. Alî and Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ were among them.
Therefore, they, too, would be reproached. Now, on whatever grounds the Shiites
would defend hadrat Alî and Abbâs, we would like to suggest the same reasons to
defend hadrat ’Umar.
(I continued), “The scholars of Hadîth give varying accounts of
the khutba that was made at Ghadîr-i-Hum. Be it as it may, this khutba does not
support your thesis. In addition, your allegation that the seventieth âyat-i-kerîma of Mâida sûra which purported, ‘Communicate
the commandments that thine Rabb (Allah)
hath revealed down to thee! Otherwise, thou will have neglected
thine duty as the Prophet. Allâhu ta’âlâshallst
protect thee from (other) people,’
was revealed at Ghadîr-i-Hum, is wrong. For
this allegation of yours gives the impression that Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ did not communicate the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ to his As-hâb (may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from saying so)! In this
case, it would come to mean that, as he did not want to communicate this
commandment and
therefore
requested Jebrâil (Gabriel) ‘alaihis-salâm’ to ask
Allâhu ta’âlâ to excuse him through this khutba, he should have
abstained from doing this commandment for fear of his As-hâb. There is no doubt
as to the fact that our master, the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wasallam’, was innocent of things of this sort.
“Our second evidence is that (your allegation implies
that) Allâhu ta’âlâ had not protected Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihi wasallam’ against other people until this khutba, which he
made sometime towards his death. On the other hand, it had been known a long
time before this khutba of his that Allâhu ta’âlâ had
been protecting him. Then, your allegation is wrong because it is contradictory
to a known fact.
“As a third proof we say that (your allegation bears
the meaning that) Allah’s Messenger ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihi wa
sallam’ had been afraid of disbelievers until that day, and that he was afraid
of the As-hâb-i-kirâm as well. On the other hand, it is a known fact reported
through various narratives that the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihimur-ridwân’, our
masters, never hesitated to sacrifice their own lives and their parents for Rasûlullah’s sake. It would be paradoxical both with reason and with Islam’s
teachings to suppose that they might have come together to make a threat to
Allah’s Messenger. Since it is known how fearlessly, how valiantly our master Rasûlullah endeavoured to promulgate Islam obeying the âyat-i-kerîma which commanded, ‘Teach (people) (the things) that
have been commanded!’, in the
beginning, when he was so lonely and his adversaries and the unbelievers of
Qoureish were so merciless; it would be a very ugly, an exceedingly abominable
slander obnoxiously offensive to that respectable Prophet
embellished with superior attributes to say that he was afraid to communicate
Allah’s commandments during the event of Ghadîr, after Mekka had been
conquered, the number of people coming in large groups from all directions and
becoming Muslims had increased, all those heroic people called the Sons of
Hâshim and the Sons of Abd-ul-muttalib had become Muslims, the sûra of
(Izâjâeh) had been revealed to give the glad tidings of (new) conquests and
victories, and at such a place where the Muhâjirs[1]
---------------------------------
[1] Those Meccan Muslims who left their hometown and migrated to Medina with the Messenger of Allah. This migration of the Prophet is called Hijrat (Hegira) and is accepted as the beginning of the Muslim Era.
and the Ensârs[1] and the Sons
of Hâshim were an absolute majority. Especially, to say that he was afraid of
the As-hâb-i-kirâm would mean to deny the hundred and tenth âyat-i-kerîma of Âl-i-’Imrân sûra, which purports, ‘You
are the most beneficent of ummats. You are the select of people.’ It could by no means be justifiable.
“Fourthly, (your allegation means that) our master, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’, after disobeying Allâhu ta’âlâ in communicating His commandments to his As-hâb, came to Medina
and, becoming ill, appointed hadrat Abû Bekr to take his place as the imâm for
a couple of days, thus ignoring the commandment of Allâhu ta’âlâ a second time by leaving hadrat Alî behind although, according to
your claim, Allahu ta’âlâ had commanded him to appoint hadrat Alî as the imâm.
Inasmuch as he (Rasûlullah) appointed Abû Bekr the imâm after having been
commanded through the âyat-i-kerîma (supposed to have been) revealed at Ghadîr-i-Hum
that he should tell his As-hâb to make hadrat Alî the imâm (after him), this
âyat must have been revealed not at the so-called place as they suppose, but at
(the place called) Arafa, and its revelation was intended not for the
As-hâb-i-kirâm, but for the polytheists of Qoureish, as is unanimously stated
by great scholars. If Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ had known that hadrat
Alî were to be the first Khalîfa, he would certainly have stated it. There was
no reason to be afraid to state it. Because all the Meccans, particularly the
Sons of Abd-ul-muttalib were kith and kin to him, they would have been happy
and no one would have suffered any fear or harm.
“Aside from all these facts, when the shallow and mediocre
phraseology used in this khutba is studied with a critical, unbiased, impartial
and reasonable eye free from recalcitrance, it is impossible that these
statements should have been uttered by an average person aware of the Arabic
literature, nonetheless by the blessed mouth of that Prophet,
who was unique in eloquence and rhetoric. This means to say that all these
statements are lies fabricated by outsiders. Even if the statement, ‘Then,
for whoever I am the mawlâ, Alî, too, must be his mawlâ,’ which is one of these statements, were a (true) hadîth-i-sherîf, it would not signify that hadrat Alî
were to be the (first) imâm. For the word ‘mawlâ’
---------------------------------
[1] Muslims who lived in Medina during the Hegira and hosted the Muhâjirs.
has
many different meanings. Twenty of these meanings are written in (the Arabic
lexion called) Qâmûs. In
what meaning a word of this sort is used (in a certain text) should be
indicated by means of a special sign, denotation or connotation. It would be
wrong to interpret it without such a sign. It is not certain whether it would
be correct to give it all or some of its meanings; yet most (scholars) have
said that it would be wrong. Supposing for acquiescence’s sake we said it would
be correct. We agree with you in giving the meanings ‘lover’ and ‘helper’ to
the word ‘mawlâ’. Yet we do not consider it appropriate to give other meanings.
In such cases, it is better to give meanings agreed on. It is for this reason
that Abd-ul-ghâfir bin Ismâil Fâris (451-529 [A.D. 1135]; in Nishâpur), in his
explanation of the word (welî) in his book (Mejma’ul-gharâib), quotes this hadîth-i-sherîf as, ‘If a
person loves me and knows me as his helper, he should know Alî as his helper,
too!’ When the matter is pondered over
carefully, it will be seen that this hadîth does not signify better fitness for
caliphate, or superiority at all. For it would not be correct to explain the
word ‘welî’ as ‘awlâ’, neither lexically nor from the Islamic point of view.
That it would not be Islamic is plain. As for its lexical aspect; words belonging
to the (mef’al) category have never been used in the (ef’al) category (in
Arabic).” Upon this the head Molla said:
“Abû Zeyd, a scholar of lexion, states that they are
used in the Tafsîr of Abû Ubayda. And he interpretes the expression ‘(He) is
your mawlâ’ as ‘(He) is more suitable for you.’ ”
I said, “His statement cannot be a document. For none
of the Arabic scholars has approved this statement of his. If they were
synonymous expressions, it would not be wrong to say, ‘So and so is mawlâ (a
helper, a lover) for you, instead of saying, ‘So and so is ewlâ (better, more
suitable) for you.’ However, they (scholars of lexicon) have said that it would
never be correct. Abû Ubayda’s statement is refuted by other ways as well. We
have seen that the word ‘ewlâ’ cannot be used instead of ‘mawlâ’. Supposing we
were to say it could be used, it still could not be used to mean ‘to have’, ‘to
use’. Possibly, ‘ewlâ’ means ‘more suitable for respect and love’. Even if it
were admitted that it meant ‘to use’, it would be disagreeable with the meaning
of the âyat-i-kerîma. Could the word ‘ewlâ’ in the sixty-eighthâyat of
Âl-i-’Imrân sûra, which purports, ‘To Ibrâhîm the ewlâ of
people,’ be said to mean ‘to use
(Ibrâhîm ‘alaihis-salâm)’? ‘Ewlâ’ in this context could mean ‘more suitable to
love him’ for the very most.
“Furthermore, the word (Wâli) used at the end of the hadîth-i-sherîf means (to love). If it meant ‘being
more suitable to be used, with respect to Rasûlullah,’
then he (Rasûlullah) would have said, ‘Whoever
is more suitable for being used.’ Since he did not say so, it (the expression
used in the hadîth-i-sherîf) means, ‘to love
hadrat Alî and to avoid hostility against him,’ and not ‘to be suitable for
being used.’ In fact, Abû Nu’aym Ahmad bin Abdullah ‘rahima-hullâhu ta’âlâ’,
[who passed away in Isfahan in 430], reports from Hasan, the son of hadrat
Hasan: Hasan was asked about this. They said, ‘Does the hadîth-i-sherîf (... for whoever I am the mawlâ, ...) show that hadrat Alî must be the (first) Khalîfa?’ His answer was
that ‘If Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wasallam’ had meant to say by this hadîth-i-sherîf
that hadrat Alî must be the (first) Khalîfa, he would have stated, ‘O men! This
person is the walî of my duties (my trustee who will take over my duties). He
is to be the Khalîfa after me. Hear and obey (this)!’ I swear by the name of Allâhu ta’âlâ that if Allâhu
ta’âlâ and His Messenger ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ had wished that
Alî be the (first) Khalîfa, then Alî would have disobeyed Allâhu ta’âlâ by not trying to carry out His
commandment in this respect, which would in its turn have been a very grave
sin.’ When one of the listeners said, ‘Why, didn’t our Prophet
say, (For whoever I am the mawlâ, Alî, too, must be his mawlâ)?’, Hasan said, (No. Wallahi (I swear by the name of Allah that),
if Rasûlullah had wished Alî to be the (first)
Khalîfa, he would have commanded this as clearly as he commanded (Muslims) to
perform the namâz and to fast.’ So these statements of Hasan, an outstanding
member of the Ahl-i-beyt and a grandson of hadrat Alî, reveals clearly that
your statements are wrong and corrupt.” The head Molla was silent. Then he
changed course:
9- “What will you say about the hadîth-i-sherîfs
pointing out the fact that on the Judgement Day every Muslim will be questioned
on whether he loved Alî and his children as well as on (his behaviour on) matters
pertaining to this world and the Hereafter? For Alî bin Muhammad ibni
Sabbâgh-i-Mâlikî, (who passed away in 855 [A.D. 1451]), in his book (Fusûl-ul-muhimma),
derives from the book Al-manâqib and quotes
Ibn-il-Muayyad as having said: Abû Burayda reports: One day I was sitting in Rasûlullah’s presence. Our master Rasûlullah stated, ‘I swear by Allâhu
ta’âlâ, whose power holds my soul, that on the
Judgement Day the first (set of) questions
human beings will be
asked are: How did you spend
your lifetime?What did you wear out your body doing? Where did you earn your
property, and where did you give it? Did you love My Messenger?’ Hadrat ’Umar, who was by my side, said, ‘What is the token of
loving you, O the Messenger of Allah?’ He (Rasûlullah)
put his blessed hand on the head of hadrat Alî, who was sitting by his side,
and declared, ‘Loving me is loving this (person) after me.’ As is written in, again, the same book, hadrat Alî said, ‘Wallahi
(I swear by the name of Allah that) our master, Nebiyy-i-ummî ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’, stated that those who loved me were Believers and those who
did not love me were hypocrites.’ So, don’t you think a person about whose love
everybody will be questioned on the Judgement Day must be more virtuous than others
and he and his offspring are more rightful to caliphate than others are?”
I answered, “Ibni Sabbâgh, whom you call ‘Mâlikî’, is
not in the Madh-hab of Mâlikî.[1] His books and
writings show that he is in the madh-hab of Shi’î. It is a fact stated by all
scholars that Ibni Muayyad, notorious with his nickname ‘Firewood of Hârezm’,
is a Shiite, too. Besides, there is no need to look for other documents. Some
Shiites change hadîth-i-sherîfs and give them the name of a great scholar of
hadîth. They try to mislead Muslims with such lies. It is obvious that a person
who changes and misrepresents a hadîth-i-sherîf which
is written in its true form in books, must be a liar. Here, the true form of
this hadîth-i-sherîf is quoted as follows by Imâm-i-Muhammad bin Îsâ
Tirmuzî, (who was born in 209 and passed away in 279 [A.D. 892]): ‘Man will be questioned on
four things. He willbe asked how he spent his life time; what he did with his
knowledge; where he earned his property; how he wore away his body.’ Tabarânî, too, quotes this hadîth-i-sherîf; yet the final clause reads as follows: ‘how he spent his youth.’
So the true form of this hadîth-i-sherîf is quoted as such. Love for the Ahl-i-Bayt[2] or the name of hadrat ’Umar is not mentioned
in it. This comes to mean that Ibni Sabbâgh and Ibni Muayyad were liars.
Nevertheless, it would have nothing to do with
---------------------------------
[1] One of the four right and authentic groups of Sunnî Muslims. The other three are the Madh-habs that are called Hanafî, Shâfi’î, and Hanbalî.
[2] The Prophet’s immediate relatives: hadrat Alî, his son-in-law and paternal first cousin; hadrat Fâtima, his daughter; hadrat Hasan and Huseyn, his grandsons. caliphate. Even if we were to accept the misrepresented form of the hadîth-i-sherîf
as true, it would signify love for the Ahl-i-Bayt at the very
most. The Sunnî Madh-hab also commands us to love all the members of
Ahl-i-Bayt, every one of them with a love symmetrical with the position they
occupy, being neither too frugal nor too inordinate in this respect. Being
Sunnî requires loving the Ahl-i-Bayt in a manner suitable for their honour. But
you make statements contrary to Islam in order to wage loving them; a person
with the least îmân in his heart could not make such statements. You say, for
one, ‘If a person loves Alî, no wrongdoing will harm him.’ Likewise, some of
you fabricate hadîths. For instance, could we ever believe a person who slanders
our master the Prophet by saying that he (the Prophet) said,
‘Alî’s Shî’a (group) shall not be questioned on the Judgement Day, neither on
venial sins, nor on grave ones. Their evils shall be changed into goodnesses’?
Ibni Bâbawayh fabricates a hadîth in which he quotes Ibni Abbâs as having said
that our master the Prophet stated, ‘Allah will not burn Alî’s lovers in Hell.’
Another hadîth which they fabricate in order to mislead others is, ‘A person
who loves Alî shall enter Paradise, even if he is a Jew or a Christian.’ Isn’t
it injustice to slander our master Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ by fabricating such statements in the name of
hadîth?
[The real name of Abû Ja’fer bin Bâbawayh is Muhammad
bin Alî. He is one of the four renowned men of Fiqh and Tafsîr in the Shiite
group. He has a book of Tafsîr and a book of Fiqh, which is highly esteemed by
the Imâmiyya group (the Imamites). He was born in Khorasan, and died in 381
(A.D. 991)].
“Calumniation is neither Islamic nor reasonable. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the hundred and twenty-second âyat of Nisâ sûra, ‘The
wrongdoer shall be punished.’ The last âyat of Zilzâl sûra purports, ‘He
who does the smallest evil shall pay for it.’ The unfounded slanders run counter to these âyat-i-kerîmas.
“Furthermore, it is a worship to love the Ahl-i-Bayt. And this,
in its turn, depends first and foremost on having îmân, as is the case with all
types of worship. The ninety-fourth âyat of Enbiyâ sûra purports, ‘The
good deeds performed by the Believer...’. It
is not Islamic to say that people who have not attained the honour of îmân,
e.g. Jews and Christians, will enter Paradise only by loving the Ahl-i-Bayt, or
to believe that love of these people will change venial and grave sins into
goodnesses and thawâb. It is written in the Shiite books that our master Alî
‘kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’ would always give the following advice to his
Ahl-i-Bayt: ‘Do not rely on your ancestors! Keep up with your worships and
prayers!
Do not swerve from doing the commandments of Allâhu
ta’âlâ in the slightest degree!’ The statements you have made are of no
value because they contradict this advice of hadrat Alî’s and many other
reports. Inasmuch as attainment of happiness in this world and in the Hereafter
and the orderliness of worldly matters are dependent on dissuading and
deterring people from committing sins and prohibitions, it is entirely
paradoxical to say that ‘sins will change into thawâb.’ This statement will
incite malevolent people and even Shiites to doing evils, sins and atrocities,
which in its turn will demolish Islam. It is obvious that a person with a
certain mental capacity will, let alone believing such statements, not even
turn to look at them.”
After these words of mine, the people who attended
the meeting proposed that the questions already prepared be asked and answered.
But some of the Shiites said to the head Molla, “Beware from contending with
this man. For he is a scholar who is as profound in knowledge as the sea. He
has refuted all the evidences you have furnished. It is probable that you will
lose your fame and honour.” Upon this, the head Molla looked at me, smiling. He
said:
“You are a superior scholar. You could answer any
other questions as you have answered these. Yet the Bahr-ul-’ilm of Bukhârâ
could not rebut my arguments.”
I said, “At the beginning of the conversation you
said the scholars of the Ahl-i-sunnat ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’
could not refute you. It is this statement of yours which has impelled me to
talk.”
He said, “As I am an Iranian, I do not have a rich
repertoire in the Arabic branches of knowledge. I may have used inappropriate
words. It was not what I meant.”
I said, “I would like to ask you two questions. Let
all your scholars come together and answer them.”
“What are those questions,” he asked.
10- “My first question is this: What do you Shiites
say about the Ashâb-i-kirâm?”
“All the
Ashâb, with the exception of five of them, became renegades because they did
not elect hadrat Alî the Khalîfa. They went out of Islam. The five Sahâbîs are
Alî, Mikdâd, Abû Zer, Selmân, and Ammâr bin Yâser,” he answered.
I said, “Supposing what you have said were true, then
how did it happen that hadrat Alî married his daughter Umm-i-Gulthum
“That marriage took place against his wish,” was his
answer.
I said, “I swear by the name of Allah that you
downgrade hadrat Alî in such a way that even the basest and lowliest member of
the Arabic race would have protested against it. Such heinous vilification of
hadrat Alî must be part of a sordid plan. As Allah knows, the lowest, the most
plebeian Arab would have protected his chastity and honour at the sacrifice of
his life. How much less for a most notable member of the Sons of Hâshim, who
were the highest and most virtuous of all the Arabic tribes with respect to
genealogy, manliness, honour and fame; and how could it be possible for the
whole tribe to have agreed to such a humiliating disgrace? How can you
attribute something that would have been rejected even by the lowest people to
such an honourable and noble hero whose reputation as the ‘Lion of Allah’ has
spread all over the world?”
He said, “Perhaps a female jinnee fell in love with
’Umar and showed herself in the guise of Umm-i-Gulthum.”
My answer was, “This statement displaces the former
in venality. How could reason ever accept such an absurdity? This way of
explaining facts would turn all the principles of Islam topsy-turvy. For
instance, a man coming home from work might find his wife refusing him to enter
his house saying that he must be a jinnee and not her husband. Supposing he
were backed with two witnesses (to prove that he is himself), this time she
might reject the witnesses, too, saying that they also were jinnees. Thus
eveything would be in utter disorder, not only in every home, but also
everywhere. A murderer or a thief might object to the execution of Islam’s
penal code by saying, for instance, ‘I am not the man you are looking for. He
might as well be a jinnee.’ In fact, Ja’fer Sâdiq ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’,
who you claim is the leader of your madh-hab, might have been a jinnee.” The
head Molla was perplexed. He kept silent. Upon this I said, “Here I am asking
my second question:
11-“According to the Shi’î madhhab, are the
commandments of a cruel Khalîfa acceptable?”
“No, they are not sahîh. They are not to be
accepted,” was his reply.
“Who was the mother of Muhammad bin Hanafiyya, (who
was) hadrat Alî’s son?” I asked.
He said, “She was Hanafiyya, the daughter of Ja’fer.”
I asked, “Who took this Hanafiyya prisoner?”
He said he did not know.
He did know, yet he said he did not know in order to
vitiate the argument. Some of the audience said she had been taken prisoner by
Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’.
I said, “Everybody knows it is necessary to make a
careful choice in marriage. How do you think hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ considered it permissible to marry and have children from a
jâriya who had been taken prisoner by hadrat Abû Bekr, who you claim was not a
rightly-guided imâm or a lawful Khalîfa?”
He said, “Perhaps hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ asked
his friends to give the jâriya as a gift to him, and they married the jâriya to
him.”
“You would need evidence to prove this,” I said. The
head Molla could not say anything. After a short pause, I went on:
“In order to avoid prolongation of the debate, I did
not quote âyat-i-kerîmas or hadîth-i-sherîfs. For any hadîth-i-sherîf quoted
would be put to the question, both parties would be asked to produce their
evidences, and thus the debate would hardly come to an end.”
In the meantime, the talks that were made during the
debate were reported accurately to the Shah (King). Upon this, he (the Shah)
ordered that scholars from Iran, Bukhâra and Afghanistan should come together,
eliminate all the heretical elements, and make out an irrevocable written
report, and appointed me his representative and president to this council of
scholars representing three different nationalities. We went out of the tents.
The Afghans, the Uzbeks, the Persians were pointing to me with their fingers.
Seventy of the Iranian scholars assembled behind the blessed grave of
Imâm-i-Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu ta’âlâ wejheh’. Alî Ekber, the head Molla, was the chief of
the Iranian scholars.
The head Molla showed me to Molla Hâdi Khodja, who
was the Bahr-ul ’ilm and a scholar from Bukhâra, and asked him if he knew me.
When the Bahr-ul ’ilm answered in the negative, he said, “This person is
Suwaydî-zâde Shaikh Abdullah Efendi, a prominent Sunnî scholar. The Shah asked
Ahmad Pasha to send him here to attend our debate and to preside over us as the
Shah’s representative. If we come to a unanimous agreement, he will bear
witness for all of us and make the final decision for us. Now,
let us clear out all the heretical elements whatsoever. Let us
eliminate them in his presence. After all, Abû Hanîfa does not call us
disbelievers. However, let us ponder deeply over this matter. The book (Sherh-i-mawâqif)does not call the Imâmiyya (Imamite) group
disbelievers. Abû Hanîfa ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’ states in his book (Fiqh-i-ekber),
‘We do not call people who
perform the namâz in the direction of qibla[1] disbelievers.’ And it is written in the book (Sherh-i-hidâya)
that the Imâmiyya group are one
of the groups of Muslims. However, the later generations (of Sunnites) called
us disbelievers.
“And our later generations in turn called you
disbelievers. Neither we nor you are disbelievers. Now, let us know our
utterances that caused your later generations to call us disbelievers, so that
we will cease from such utterances (beliefs).”
Hâdi Khodja said, “You become disbelievers because
you swear at the Shaikhayn (the two Shaikhs), that is, Abû Bekr and ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’.”
The head Molla said, “We desist from swearing at the
Shaikhayn.”
Hâdi Khodja: “You become disbelievers by calling the
As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ disbelievers.”
The head Molla: “Now we say that all the As-hâb-i-kirâm
‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’ are Muslims and are true ones, too.”
“You say that Mut’a nikâh is halâl.”
“It is harâm; only ignoble people would to it.”
“You hold hadrat Alî superior to hadrat Abû Bekr, and
say that it was Alî’s right to become the (first) Khalîfa.”
“The second
highest man after the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ is Abû Bekr-i-Siddîq.
Next to him is hadrat ’Umar. Then comes hadrat ’Uthmân. Hadrat Alî comes after
him ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum ajma’în’. Their (right of) succession to caliphate is
in the order I have given above.” The Bahr-ul ’ilm asked:
“What is your madh-hab[2] in belief?”
The head Molla: “Our creed is that of
Abulhasan-i-Esh’arî.”
---------------------------------
[1] The direction which Muslims face as they perform the prayer called Namâz (or Salât). This direction is Ka’ba, in Mekka (Mecca).
[2] Muslims have two Madh-habs in matters pertaining to belief. They are: (1) Abulhasan-i-Esh’arî; and (2) Abû Mansûr-i-Mâ-Turîdî. For detailed information, please see the books Belief and Islam, Endless Bliss, and The Sunnî Path.
“Now it is necessary to know correctly all the things
that are stated (by Islam) to be halâl and harâm and to believe in them as
such; in other words, you should not say harâm about things that are stated to
be halâl, or halâl about those which are stated to be harâm.”
“We accept this principle,” he said. Upon this, the
Bahr-ul ’ilm said:
“It is necessary not to do the actions which all the
four Madh-habs of Ahl as-sunna unanimously state to be harâm.”
The head Molla said they accepted this, too.
Then he added, “We accept all these. Now will you say
we are one of the Islamic groups?” The Bahr-ul ’ilm paused for a while, and
said:
“A person who swears at the Shaikhayn becomes a
disbeliever.”
“We have ceased from swearing at the Shaikhayn
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’. We have accepted the other principles, too.
Won’t you consider us Muslims now?” The Bahr-ul’ilm repeated:
“It is disbelief to swear at the Shaikhayn.” His
purpose was to imply that “According to Hanafî Madh-hab, if a person has sworn
at the Shaikhayn, his tawba (repentance) will not be accepted. Iranians used to
swear at the Shaikhayn before. Therefore they had become disbelievers. Their
ceasing from swearing (at the Shaikhayn) now will not salvage them from the
state of disbelief.” Molla Hamza, the Afghan Mufti, said:
“O Hâdi Khodja! Is there any evidence to prove that
the Iranians swore (at the Shaikhayn) before this meeting?”
Hâdi Khodja replied, “No, there is no evidence.”
Molla Hamza: “Since they will not swear at them from
now on, what other reason could there be for saying they could not be Muslims?”
Hâdi Khodja: “If so, they are Muslims. This means to
say that we agree on halâls and harâms, on good and evil.” Upon this, they all
stood up and made musâfaha (shook hands in the manner prescribed by Islam);
they turned to me and said, “Be our witness.” Then we dispersed. It was a
Wednesday evening, the twenty-fourth day of (the Arabic month) Shawwâl. There
were some ten thousand Iranians around us, all watching us.
As it was customary, at four o’clock after midnight the I’timâd-
ud-dawla (Grand Vizier) left the Shah and came to me. He said:
“Hadrat Shah sends you his thanks and salutations. He
orders that tomorrow the same scholars (who attended the debate) should convene
again, write down and undersign the decision made. And he asks you to register
your testimony by putting your signature on top of the decision.” I said I
would do so.
Thursday afternoon I went to the place of the meeting
first. Some sixty thousand Iranians had gathered there, so that they made up a
huge crowd extending far away from the Merqad-i-Alî (his blessed grave) ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’. When I arrived there and sat down, a long piece of paper
was brought. With the command of the head Molla, Mufti Aqa Huseyn read it
(aloud). It was in Persian. Its Turkish (English) translation is as follows:
The divine habit and hikmat of Allâhu
ta’âlâ is such that He has sent Prophets to men in order to announce His
commands and prohibitions. Among Prophets, the final turn belonged to our
Peygamber-i-zîshân, hadrat (MUHAMMAD) ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’. As the
last Prophet, he accomplished his task of
teaching the commandments and prohibitions of Allâhu
ta’âlâ, and passed away. After him the As-hâb-i-Ghuzîn assembled and
unanimously agreed on the superiority of Abû Bekr as-Siddîq with respect to
piety, goodness, and religious devotion, and elected him Khalîfa. Hadrat Alî,
too, was among the electors. He used his vote on his own volition, not under
compulsion or intimidation. Thus his (Abû Bekr’s) caliphate was by the
unanimous vote of all the As-hâb-i-kirâm. All the As-hâb-i-kirâm who elected
him are just and true Muslims ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum’. They are praised in
Qur’ân-i-azîm-ush-shân, in the âyats that purport, “Muhâjirs
and Ansâr, who are aheadof and above all others...” and “Verily, Allâhu ta’âlâ lovesthose
Believers who promised thee under the tree.” Also,
the Fakhr-i-âlam ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ praises them:
“My
As-hâb are like celestial stars. If you follow any one ofthem you will attain
hidâyat!”
After Abû Bekr as-Siddîq, hadrat ’Umar Fârûq,
commended by him, became the Khalîfa. Hadrat Alî was again among the people who
voted for him. Hadrat ’Umar commended six people before he passed away, and
advised that after him these six people should elect the next Khalîfa among
themselves. Hadrat Alî was one of these six people. Five of them unanimously
voted for hadrat ’Uthmân and elected him Khalîfa. Hadrat ’Uthmân was undecided
in this election. After his martyrdom all the As-hâb
unanimously voted hadrat Alî to caliphate. When these four people
lived together, no disagreement, no quarrel ever occurred among them. They
always loved, praised and lauded one another. In fact, when hadrat Alî was
asked about the Shaikhayn he said, “These two noble persons are the imâms
elected justly and rightfully.” Also, when hadrat Abû Bekr as-Siddîq became the
Khalîfa, he said, “Have you voted for me, with Alî among you?”
O Persians! Superiority and fitness for caliphate
among the four Khalîfas follows this succession. If any person swears at them,
censures them, or speaks ill of them, his household and blood will be halâl for
the Shah. May such people be accursed in the opinion of Allah, as well as in
the opinions of Angels, Holy Books, and Prophets! When you made me the Shah at
the Megan Square in the year eleven forty-eight (1148), I made some
stipulations. Now I add this stipulation: I forbid you to swear at the
Shaikhayn. You must certainly desist from it! If anyone gets involved in this
abominable practice of swearing (at the Shaikhayn), his household shall be
taken prisoner, and his property shall be confiscated, and he shall be killed.
Formerly this ignoble practice of swearing at the Shaikhayn did not exist in
the Iranian country. This atrocious deed was invented by Shâh Ismâ’îl Safawî
and his children, who followed his way. It held on for some three hundred
years.
This agreement was undersigned and sealed by all the scholars. Then the (Fermân-i-âlî), the firman issued by Nâdir Shâh in order to address the whole nation, was read aloud. The following is its Turkish (English) version.