There are twenty groups of people who call themselves
Shi’îs (or Shiites). A few of these groups go to extremes. Some of these
eccentric people say that “Allah is inside Alî. Worshipping Alî, therefore,
means worshipping Him.” A second group, however, castigate this group, saying,
“Could Alî ever be Allah? He is human. Yet he is the highest of mankind. Allah
sent Qur’ân al-kerîm to him. But Jebrâ’îl (The Archangel Gabriel),
showing favouritism, brought it (Qur’ân al-kerîm) to
Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, instead. So Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ cheated Alî out
of his right.” There is yet a third group, who reprove this second group and
claim, “Could such a thing ever be possible. Our Prophet is Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’. Only, he said that Alî should be the Khalîfa after him. Yet
the As-hâb-i-kirâm disobeyed this commandment of his and voted the other three
into the office of caliphate, leaving Alî the fourth turn.” Thus, alleging that
the other three Khalîfas deprived hadrat Alî of his right, they show hostility
against them. They extend this hostility to most of the As-hâb-i-kirâm by
asserting that they did not give him his right. Also, they are indignant with
Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ because, they allege, he did not insist on his due. All
these four groups are disbelievers. The remaining groups, on the other hand,
are groups of Bid’at[1] because they
misinterpret the Nass[2] though they do
not deny them. May Allâhu ta’âlâ
give them all hidâyat (guidance
to the right way)! May He bless them with the good luck of coming round to
theright course! Âmin.
Millions of people living in the villages of Iran, in
Iraq and Syria today, have lost their way. Muslims (in these places) are made
to read a book titled (Husniyya). The book, which was published in Istanbul as well, is alleged to
be a written account of the conversations taking place between a jariya named
Husniyya and some other people in the palace of Hârűn-ur-reshîd. Yet it has
been found out that it was prepared in the style of a novel by
---------------------------------
[1] Any belief or behaviour that did not exist in the time of the Prophet or his four rightly-guided Khalîfas and which was fabricated afterwards, is called Bid’at.
[2] Âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs with clear meaning are called the Nass.
an enemy of Islam, a Jewish convert named Murtedâ. Giving the âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs distorted meanings and misrepresenting the facts
and events, it assails the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihim
ajma’în’ and the ’Ulamâ (scholars, savants) of Ahl as-sunna ‘rahmatullâhu
ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’, and misdirects the unlearned people by fabricating
false sad stories.
The second part of the book (Documents
of the Right Word) consists of
the comprehensive answers given to Murtedâ’s delusive writings. Here we begin
translating the book (Radd-i-Rewâfid).
May plentiful, beautiful, fruitful hamd be to Allâhu ta’âlâ in a way He likes, loves best! May benedictions and salutations be
over our master, Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, the highest of mankind, the Prophet of all
people, whites and blacks alike, in a manner becoming his high honour! May
salutations be over Muhammad’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ four Khalîfas, who followed and
guided to the right way, over his children, over his Ahl-i-Bayt, all of whom
were beautiful and pure, and also over his Sahâba, in a manner agreeable with
their great positions and high grades!
This poor born slave, (Ahmad
the son of Abd-ul-Ahad) Fârűqî,[1] who is intensely in need of the mercy of
Allah, the sender of all the necessities of every being, the one and only one
owner and possessor, and who is the servant of the ’Ulamâ of Ahl as-sunna, have
seen a booklet recently. This booklet seems to have been written as an answer
to the scholars of Mâverâ-’un-nahr (Transoxiana) during the Shiites’ siege of
Mesh-hed city. These scholars had written that those who censure the
As-hâb-i-kirâm are disbelievers. When I read the booklet, I saw that they are
calling the three Khalîfas disbelievers and traducing hadrat Âisha-i-Siddîqa[2] ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ by means of
representations believable only to idiots. I have heard that a few piteous
people among the learners in our vicinity have been boasting about reading this
book and sending copies of it to statesmen and even to sultans. This faqîr,
(Imâm-i-Rabbânî means himself) have already been giving logical and scientific
answers to those untrue
---------------------------------
[1] Hadrat Imâm-i-Rabbânî means himself.
[2] One of the Prophet’s blessed wives and, at the same time, hadrat Abű Bekr’s daughter.
writings, and convincing everybody that those people are wrong and
aberrant, in my speeches and lectures [and in most of my letters in (the book) Mektűbât]. Yet the Islamic spirit I have had, enhanced by the
commandment in the hadîth-i-sherîf, “When fitnas (instigations, mischiefs) and
bid’ats appear and my As-hâb are vilified, a person who knows the fact should
let others know it, too. If he does not, may he be under the curse of Allâhu
ta’âlâ and angels and all mankind! Allâhuta’âlâ will not accept
this scholar’s worships, neither thefarz (compulsory) ones nor the supererogatory ones”, stimulated me into feeling discontented with these
speeches [and writings] of mine. I could not sprinkle water on the burning of
my lungs. I could not help feeling deeply grieved. I humbly thought that,
unless their purposes were written, the benefit I have been expecting could not
be obtained. Trusting myself to Allâhu
ta’âlâ, the only Being to whom everyone
in need supplicates, the most generous favouror, and the only protector of man
against repulsive, embarrassing things, and relying on His help, I began
writing this booklet. Allâhu ta’âlâ
is our owner. He, alone, is the
helper of everybody. It is with His help that success is attainable. It is by
asking Him that guidance to the right way is possible.
[The (celebrated Arabic) dictionary, (Qâműs),
written by (Mejd-’d-Dîn)
Muhammad bin Ya’qűb Firűz-âbâdî [729-816 [A.D. 1413], in Yemen], was translated into Turkish by AhmadÂsim
Efendi [1235 [A.D. 1820], in Nuh Kuyusu, Üsküdar (Scutari, Istanbul)]. It is a
very valuable dictionary. It is written as follows in this dictionary: “Shiah
or Shi’î means ‘One’s supporters, people who make one stronger’. And Râfida or
Râfidî means one who forsakes, leaves, deserts. The Râfidîs said Zeyd bin
Zeynel’âbidîn Alî was the imâm. They told Zeyd to be hostile to Abű Bekr and
’Umar. He answered that he could not be hostile to the good people loved by his
great grandfather, Rasűlullah. Upon this, they
abandoned Zeyd. Therefore they were called Râfidî.”[1] Râfidîs say
that they love Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, and that for loving him it is necessary
to be hostile to all or some of the As-hâb-i-kirâm. Fortunately, the educated
Iranian Shi’îs, who are mostly scientists, are not so. As for the word Alawî
(or Alevî), it has been used in three different meanings:
1- Hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ offspring living
in every
---------------------------------
[1] Also see TURKISH AND ENGLISH LEXICON, by Sir James W. Redhouse, 1974, Librairie du Liban, p. 957.
century have been called Alevî. In books written in the early ages
(of Islam) the children of hadrat Hasan and Huseyn, (the two sons of hadrat
Alî), are mentioned as Alevîs. Later, hadrat Hasan’s offspring were and has
been called Sherîf, and hadrat Huseyn’s offspring, Sayyed ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhumâ’.
2- People who love hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ and
who learn his way well and correctly and follow it because it is the way guided
by Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, should be called (Alevî). Those who adhere to this right way will love all the
As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’. This is the way followed by the
Ahl as-Sunna (the Sunni, or Sunnite, Muslims). This means to say that the right
of being Alevî belongs to the Ahl as-sunna.
3- The enemies of Islam have today been calling
themselves (Alevî) in order to deceive the pure Muslim Alevîs in Turkey. They have
been using this beautiful name as a mask].
It is written in the aforenamed book that, “After our
Prophet’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ honouring the
Hereafter with his presence, the leader, the imâm of Muslims is Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. Succession to this presidency in every century rightfully
belongs to his offspring alone. No one else can ever be Muslims’ imâm
[president] in any time. It is only wrongfully, by oppression or coercion that
others could obtain this presidency, in which case there could be nothing for
these people (hadrat Alî’s descendants) to do to prevent it.” Various groups of
Shi’îs have appeared in the course of time, yet their main groups are twenty.
Before beginning our principal subject, we shall mention a few of their
notorious groups and explain their beliefs and aims. Thus everybody will learn
about the inner essence of the matter, and right and wrong will be
distinguished clearly from each other:
Ahmad Fârűqî states: The first person to curse the
As-hâb-i-kirâm was Abdullah bin Seba’.
[It is stated in the dictionary named Munjid
and in Qâműs
ul-a’lâm that, “This convert, who
is said to have been a Jew, instigated an insurrection in Egypt, whereupon the
marauders roaming around (came and) martyred hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’.”]
Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ exiled him (Abdullah bin
Seba’) to Medayn city. He (Abdullah bin Seba’) used to say, “Ibni Muljam did
not kill hadrat Alî. The Satan had disguised himself into Alî. So he (Ibni
Muljam) killed the Satan. Alî is among clouds.
Thunder is his voice. And thunderbolt is his whip.” The Seb’iyya, people who have been misled by this Jew named
Abdullah Seba’, say, “O thou Emîr al-mu’minîn! May salutations be on you,” when
they hear thunder.
[In the city of Esterâbâd in Iran a heretic named
Fadlullah inserted many superstitions and lies into Seba’ism and named it
Hurűfî sect. He was killed in 796 [A.D. 1393]. Hurűfîs have merged into
Shiites, though they have nothing to do with Shi’ism].
The Kâmiliyya group vituperate the As-hâb-i-kirâm. They call the
As-hâb-i-kirâm disbelievers because they did not make hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ the (first) imâm. They say that Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was a disbeliever
because he did not insist on his due. They believe in metempsychosis. [There is
detailed information about Metempsychosis in the (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i-Ebediyye[1]].
The Benâniyya group are the followers of Benân bin Jem’an. They
say, “Our God is in human form. In the course of time he has perished. Only his
face has remained. His soul was in Alî. Then it transmigrated into his (Alî’s)
son, Muhammad bin Hanafiyya, and from him into his son Abű Hâshim. Now it is in
Benân.”
The Jenâhiyya group. Their leader is Abdullah bin Muâwiyya. They
believe in metempsychosis, that is, transmigration of souls from one body to
another. They say, “God’s soul went into Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ first, and then
into Shîst ‘alaihis-salâm.’ Thus, transmigrating from one Prophet to another, it finally entered Alî and his children. It
is in Abdullah now.” They do not believe in rising after death. They say halâl
about many things that are harâm, such as drinking wine, eating lesh (meat from
an animal that has died by itself or which has been killed in a manner not
prescribed by Islam), committing fornication.
The Mansűriyya group are the followers of Abű Mansűr Ajlîm. He was
one of the disciples of Imâm-i-Muhammad Bâqir ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. When this
Imâm dismissed him, he declared his religious leadership. These people (the
Mansűriyya group) say, “Abű Mansűr ascended to heaven. Allâhu ta’âlâ rubbed His hand gently on his head and said: O my son! Go and
announce my commandments to my born slaves!” According to these people, “The
word ‘kisfan’ in the forty-fourth âyat of the Tűr sűra in
---------------------------------
[1] The book Se’âdet-i-Ebediyye has been partly translated into English and published in fascicles entitled Endless Bliss.
Qur’ân al-kerîm
implies Abű Mansűr. (The chain of) Prophethood has not come to an end yet.
There are Prophets to come. Jannat (Paradise) means the imâm (religious leader)
we are to love. And Jahannam (Hell) signifies people we must hate, e.g. Abű
Bekr and ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum’. Farz (overt commandments of Islam) are
people we should love. And harâms (Islam’s overt prohibitions) are people we
are to hate.”
The Hattâbiyya group are the followers of Hattâb-i-Esedî. He was one
of the disciples of Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’. Offended by this
person’s insolent behaviours, Imâm (Ja’fer Sâdiq) dismissed him. Yet, after
this Imâm’s death, he claimed to be the new imâm. According to his followers,
“Imâms are Prophets. In fact, they are Allah’s sons. Ja’fer Sâdiq is a god. Yet
Abul-hattâb (Esedî) is superior to him and also to Alî.” They say, “It is halâl
(permissible) to bear false witness in order to protect the friends against the
enemies. Jannat (Paradise) signifies leading a good and comfortable life in
this world. And Jahannam (Hell) means worldly troubles and cares. There is
neither a beginning nor an end of this world. There is no doomsday. Has anyone
seen Paradise or Hell? Is there anyone to say he has been to either one of
these places?” They therefore commit harâms and disignore the farz.
The Ghurâbiyya group.
They say, “Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ resembled Alî very much. The similarity
between them was much more exact than that which is between two crows or two
flies. Allâhu ta’âlâ had ordered Jebrâîl
(Gabriel) to take the Qur’ân al-kerîm to Alî.
Confused by this exact similitude, Gabriel revealed the Qur’ân al-kerîm to Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’.” For this reason they
curse Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’.
The Dhammiyya group vituperate Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. They say,
“Alî is the God. He appointed Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ the Prophet. Yet
Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ attached people to himself instead of (to) Alî.”
Another group of them say that Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ is the God. That is,
some of them hold Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ higher, whereas others consider Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ higher. There is yet another group who maintain the belief
that “Muhammad, Alî, Fatima, Hasan and Huseyn, who are in one ahl-i-abâ
[overcoat], make up a unity. The same one spirit has entered all these five
people at the same time. They have no superiority over one another. Fâtima,
too, is male.”
The Yűnusiyya group are the followers of Yűnus bin Abd-ur-Rahmân. They
say, “Allah is sitting on the Arsh. Angels mounted
Him on to the Arsh, yet He is more powerful than angels. This is
like the case with an ibis, who is bigger and stronger than its legs though it
walks on its legs.”
The Mufavvida group. They say that “Allâhu ta’âlâ created the
world and then committed all the worldly matters to the charge of Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’.” According to others, “He (Allâhu ta’âlâ) committed
the worldly matters to Alî. And Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu wajhah’ is creating whatever
he wishes.”
The Ismâiliyya group
say that Qur’ân al-kerîm has a bâtin [invisible
inner essence] as well as a zâhir [outward appearance]. The zâhir, when
compared to the bâtin, is like the shell of a hazel-nut in comparison to its
kernel. Whatever a person would obtain by enduring the difficulty and trouble
of obeying the commandments and prohibitions, which make up the zahîr, is
easily attainable by adapting oneself to the bâtin. So, one does not have to go
into trouble by worshipping.” For making people believe these statements of
theirs, they quote the thirteenth âyat of Hadîd sűra, which points out the wall
between the people who are in Paradise and those who are in Hell. They say,
“There is no harâm (prohibition). Everything is halâl (permitted). There are
seven Prophets in possession of areligion. They are Âdam, Nűh (Noah), Ibrâhîm,
Îsâ, Műsâ, Muhammad ‘alaihimus-salâm’, and Muhammad Mahdî, who is to emerge in
the future.” Their purpose is to demolish the religion. By asking deceptive
questions on religious matters, they try to instil doubts into Muslims.
Examples of these questions, which are intended to shock the îmân in young
people, are: “Why is it that a menstruating woman has to perform her duties of
fasting later which she has not been able to do (because of her menstruation),
and does not have to perform the daily prayers of namâz which she has missed
(for the same reason)? Emission of semen necessitates ghusl (ritual washing of
the whole body) but urination does not (necessitate ghusl), though urine is
dirtier than semen; why? Why do some prayers of namâz that are farz have four
rak’ats, while others have three to two rak’ats?” [Indeed, the scholars of Ahl
as-sunna have already given the answers of such questions, and explained the
reasons, in their books]. They fabricate meanings for the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ. For instance, they say, “Making
ablution means loving the Imâm. And performing namâz means the Prophet. For the forty-fifth âyat of the Ankebűt sűra
of Qur’ân al-kerîm purports, ‘Namâz
will prevent man from evil, wicked things.’ This
âyat-i-kerîma signifies the Prophet.
Becoming
junub (canonical uncleanness) means letting others know about things one has to
keep to oneself. And ghusl (washing in order to become canonically clean) means
to promise again. Zakât[1] means cleaning one’s nafs by learning
religious knowledge. Ka’ba means the Prophet; the door of Ka’ba means Alî; the hill of Safâ means Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’; the hill of Merva means Alî, the seven tawâfs
(circumambulations) means loving the seven imâms. Jannat (Paradise) means
escaping the trouble of worships, and Jahannam (Hell) means the torture and
agony of avoiding the harâm.” A few of their other illogical and irreligious
absurdities are their statements, such as, “Allah is neither existent nor
nonexistent, neither learned nor ignorant, neither powerful nor incapable.”
Hasan bin Muhammad Sabbâh, a schoolfellow of
Nizâm-ul-mulk and the (well-known) poet ’Umar Hayyâm, founded the Ismâiliyya
State in Rey city in 473 [A.D. 1081], declared himself the time’s imâm
(religious leader), and coerced the Sunnite Muslims into his sect. He and,
after his death in 518, his successors until the termination of his State in 654
[A.D. 1255], perpetrated a great deal of persecution and cruelty in order to
establish their beliefs and revolutions. The earnest and truthful scholars of
Ahl as-sunna rotted in dungeons and were martyred. According to these eccentric
people, there has to be an imâm in every age. They prohibit ignorant people
from reading books and learned people from reading old books. This is intended
to cover their wickedness, to conceal the fact that they are in the wrong way.
They are fond of the ancient Greek philosophy. They mock religious teachings.
[Another name of this group is Qarâmita. For a man named Hamdân Qurmut, from a village called Vâsit in the
neighborhood of Baghdâd, founded the Qarâmita State in 278 [A.D. 891],
subjected the Sunnite Muslims to very harsh torments and forced them to join
the Ismâîliyya group. This group settled in Nejd. Abű Tâhir, who became their
leader in 317 [A.D. 929], invaded Mekka and slaughtered thousands of hadjis. He
ransacked the treasury department and (most) homes. His men hoisted off the
(sacred stone called) Hajer-i-eswed from its original place and carried it to
Hejr city, their capital in the
---------------------------------
[1] Certain amount of property which people who are rich according to Islam have to give yearly to people whom Islam accepts as poor. Zakât is one of the five commandments of Islam. There is detailed information about zakât in the first chapter of the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss.
vicinity of Basra. This blessed stone was retained by the
Qarâmitîs for twenty-two years. Their State collapsed in 328, an event that
succoured Muslims from a grave nuisance].
The Zeydiyya group are attached to Zeyd bin Alî Zeynel’âbidîn.
[Zeynel’âbidîn Alî bin Huseyn is the fourth one of the twelve imâms. He was
twelve years old when he survived the catastrophe of Kerbelâ. He passed away in
Medina (46-94 [A.D. 713]). His grave is beside that of his (paternal) uncle,
Imâm-i-Hasan ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’]. The Zeydiyya group have been divided into
three groups: The group called Jârűdiyya claim that “Caliphate was Alî’s right. The As-hâb became
disbelievers by not giving him his due.” The second group, Suleymâniyya,
believe that Abű Bekr and ’Umar
‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’ are rightful Khalîfas. They say that, “the As-hâb-i-kirâm
made a mistake by making them Khalîfas instead of Alî. This mistake of theirs,
however, is not a sin or wrongdoing. ’Uthmân, Talhâ, Zubeyr, and Âisha
‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’ became disbelievers.” The third group is Tebîriyya.
They are identical with the Suleymâniyya.
The only difference is that this group do not revile ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’. Most Zeydîs of our time are in one of these three groups; their belief
system conforms with that of the Mu’tezila group, and their ways of worship are
identical with those of the Muslims of Hanafî Madh-hab.
The Imâmiyya group say that “It had been commanded plainly that
Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was to be the (first) Khalîfa. The As-hâb became
disbelievers by not carrying out this commandment. It is an absolute fact that
caliphate reached Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq through a paternal chain. It is not
certain who succeeded him in caliphate.” According to most of them, after
Ja’fer Sâdiq the seventh imâm was his son, Műsâ Kâzim [129-186 (C.E. 799),
buried in the district called Kâzimiyya in Baghdâd]; then his son, Alî Ridâ [148-203,
buried in the city of Mesh-hed, alias Tus, in eastern Iran]; then his son
Muhammad Takî [194-
There are other groups, who are more or less similar
to these groups. All of them have deviated from the right way; changing with
time, some of them have come nearer the right course, while others have gone
altogether beyond measure.
[In today’s Iran, all these aberrant groups exist
among the illiterate people. Nevertheless, it is observed with gratitude that
the educated ones have been reading true books and day by day getting closer to
the right word of the Ahl as-sunna. For instance, it is stated as follows in
the dictionary of Doctor Muhammad Muqremî, which was printed in Tehran in the
solar hijrî year 1333 [C.E. 1954]: “The Khulafâ-i-râshidîn: Abű Bekr and ’Umar
and ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’, and Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu wajhah’.”]
Upon reading the lines above, a person who is reasonable enough
to tell good from bad, will realise at once without seeking another evidence
how false and how wrong these groups, who have merged among the Shi’îs, are. It
is obvious that their beliefs are thoroughly unfounded, irreligious, and
illusory. It is a subject vulnerable to derision, for people who hold these
beliefs, to claim that they love the Ahl-i-Bayt of our master the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ or the twelve
imâms. No, they could not be sincere. For those great people, (the Ahl-i-Bayt
and the twelve imâms), do not want inordinate, excessive love, and they hate
being followed in words only. The Hurűfîs’ saying that they love the Ahl-i-Bayt
is like Christians’claiming that they love Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’. Loving
him excessively, they make a god of him and worship him.However, Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ does not want this kind of love. As a matter of fact, Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ stated that Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ had said to him: “O
Alî! The case with you is like the case with Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Jewry became
hostile to him. They spread a very offensive slander about his mother.
Christians, on the other hand, loved him too much. They exalted him to a rank
that would have been impossible for him to occupy.”
Now, trusting ourselves to the help of Allâhu ta’âlâ, the great owner and ruler of mankind, we will answer the addle
protests in that booklet. Allâhu ta’âlâ
is powerful enough to do
everything, and He never turns down those who ask for His help.
1-
The scholars of Mâverâ’un nehr [May Allâhu ta’âlâ give them plenty of reward for their toils. The vast extent of
land lying between the rivers Seyhűn (Jaxartes) and Jeyhűn (Oxus),
which flow into Aral Sea, is called Mâverâ’un nehr (Transoxiana)]
state that:
“Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ highly valued the
three Khalîfas and loved them very much. There are many sahîh hadîths praising
each of them. Every statement he made was a piece of wahy [a revelation made by
Jebrâil ‘alaihis-salâm’]. As a matter of fact, the third âyat of Wan-najmi sűra
purports: ‘He never makes idle talks. He merely says whatever is (revealed through) wahy to him.’ A person who reviles these three Khalîfas will have
opposed the wahy. And opposing the wahy, in its turn, is disbelief.”
The booklet gives the following answer to these writings: These
reasons you have cited signify that the three Khalîfas are to be cursed, not
that they should be loved. They show thatthey became Khalîfas unjustly. For Alî
bin Muhammad Âmidî [born in Âmid town in Diyar Bekr in 551 and passed away in
Baghdâd in 631 (C.E. 1234)], a great Sunnî scholar, says in his book Sherh-i-Mawâqif
that some disagreements arose among Muslims
towards the death of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’. The first disagreement was when the Messenger
‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “Fetch me (some) paper. I shall write a few things so that you
should not deviate from the rightway after me.” ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ did not like this order. This person
became pained all over. He said, “The Book of Allâhu
ta’âlâ is sufficient for us.” The As-hâb could not come to an agreement.
Voices were raised. This situation hurt the Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’, and he said, “Go! It is not nice to
make noise in my presence.”
The second disagreement occurred as follows: After
the disagreement on (the Prophet’s) asking for paper, Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ ordered that an army under Usâma’s command
should set out for jihâd (holy war). Some of them were reluctant to go. When
they stated this disinclination of theirs, the Prophet repeated
his order more emphatically, saying, “Let Usâma’s army be prepared!
May Allah curse those who do not join this army!” The same people were still unwilling; and they
disobeyed this order. According to the aforementioned âyat-i-kerîma, his asking for paper in order to make a written will was by
wahy. By preventing this, ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ refused the wahy. And
refusing the wahy, in its turn, is disbelief, as you have stated. Furthermore,
the forty-seventh, forty-eighth, and fiftieth âyats of Mâida sűra purport,
“Those who do not judge
compatibly with the rules andcommandments revealed by Allâhu
ta’âlâ, are disbelievers.” And a disbeliever in turn cannot be the Prophet’s
representative, i.e. the Khalîfa. By the same token, a person who did not join
Usâma’s army must have become a disbeliever. None of the three Khalîfas joined
the army. You say that everything Rasűlullah did was by
wahy. The same rule applies to this instance. Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ had deported Merwan out of Medina. This, too,
was by wahy. [Merwan bin Hakem bin Ebil ’âs bin Umayya was born in the second
year of the Hijrat (Hegira). He was ’Uthmân’s ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ paternal first
cousin. He passed away in 65, during his caliphate]. The Khalîfa ’Uthmân
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ invited him back to Medina, employed him as a secretary in
the office of caliphate, thus prizing him; this is disbelief. And it is
disbelief for two different reasons. The first reason is that which you have
stated. The second reason is the twenty-second âyat of Mujâdala sűra, which
purports, “People who have îmân (belief) in Allâhu ta’âlâ and on
the Judgement Day, wouldnot love the enemies of Allâhu
ta’âlâ and His Messenger, even though they were their brothers, (sisters), or relatives.”
With the help of Allâhu ta’âlâ, here is our answer to this booklet: Not everything Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ said or did was by wahy. The author of the booklet erroneously introduces this âyat-i-kerîma as an evidence. For the âyat informs that Qur’ân al-kerîm is wahy. Beydâwî [Abdullah bin ’Umar; passed away in Tabriz in 691 (C.E. 1291)], the paramount guide of Mufassirs (scholars dealing with the meanings of âyat-i-kerîmas), explains this âyat as follows: “Whatever he says of Qur’ân al-kerîm is not of himself. It is by wahy.” If all his words and actions had been by wahy, Allâhu ta’âlâ would never have contradicted or reproved him. For instance, the first âyat of Tahrîm sűra purports, “O my Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’! Why are you prohibitingyourself from something which Allâhu ta’âlâ has made halâl for you?” The forty-fourth âyat of Tawba sűra purports, “Why did you give them the permission? Allâhu ta’âlâ hasforgiven you this deed of yours.” The sixty-seventh âyat of Anfâl sűra purports, “It would not be worthy of any Prophetto set free in return for property the captives in war. Killingmost of them on the earth will cause them to become weaker. You are after worldly property. Yet Allâhu ta’âlâwishes you to earn thawâb and attain Paradise and (its) blessings.” Rasűlullah ‘sall-
Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ was about to conduct the namâz of janâza[1] for a (dead) munâfiq,[2] when the eighty-fifth âyat of Tawba sűra was
revealed, which purports, “Do not perform namâz for any of those disbelievers
who are dead eternally!” Qur’ân
al-kerîm contains many such âyat-i-kerîmas. This means to say that some of his words and actions reflected
his personal choice and ijtihâd. The tafsîr of Beydâwî provides the following
explanation on the âyat-i-kerîma concerning
the setting free of the slaves: “This âyat-i-kerîma shows that
Prophets make ijtihâd, and their ijtihâd may be wrong. However, it shows at the
same time that they are instantaneously informed that they are wrong, and their
error is corrected.”
In worldly matters pertaining to mentality, it is
permissible for the As-hâb-i-kirâm to disagree with Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’. Sometimes the wahy that was
revealed tallied with the inference of the As-hâb. For instance, in the question
of how the captives in (the holy war of) Bedr should be treated, hadrat ’Umar’s
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ ijtihâd did not conform with Rasűlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ ijtihâd. The wahy (the âyat-i-kerîma that was revealed to inform with the divine decree) commanded
that hadrat ’Umar’s ijtihâd should be executed. For Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ would not busy his blessed heart
with matters that could be solved with mind. Beydâwî states, “Seventy slaves
were captured in the holy war of Bedr. Among them were Rasűlullah’s paternal uncle Abbâs, and Alî’s elder brother Uqayl, [who
became a Muslim in the second year of the Hijrat]. He consulted with his As-hâb
(Companions) about what they should do with the captives. Abű Bekr
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ said, ‘These people are your fellow citizens and relatives.
Do not inflict punishment on them! Perhaps, Allâhu ta’âlâ will
grant them the lucky chance to repent (for having been disbelievers). Set them
free in return for money. This will add to the (financial) power your As-hâb
has.’ ’Umar, on the other hand, said, ‘These people are the leaders of Islam’s
enemies. Allâhu ta’âlâ has not put us in a situation to need their money.
They came here to kill you and us. Order me and I shall kill so and so. Order
Alî and Hamza and they will kill their own brothers.’ Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated, ‘Allâhu
ta’âlâ
---------------------------------
[1] When a Muslim dies, other Muslims come together and perform a certain prayer of namâz, which is called namâz of janâza.
[2] A person who disbelieves âyats of Qur’ân al-kerîm and conceals his disbelief is called a munâfiq. He is the basest type of unbeliever.
creates some hearts soft. So
much so that they are softer than milk. And He creates some heartshard, so that
they are harder than stone. O Abű Bekr! You are like Ibrâhîm ‘alaihis-salâm’.
He would say: He who goes by my side will be with me. And he who does not
follow me; Allâhu ta’âlâ is
ghafűr (all-forgiving) and
rahîm (compassionate)... O
’Umar! You are like Nuh (Noah) ‘alaihis-salam’.
He said: Yâ Rabbi (O my Allah)! Do
not leave any disbeliever on the earth!’ Most of the As-hâb-i-kirâm were of the opinion that they should be
set free in return for property. They set the slaves free. Upon this the
ayat-i-kerîma cited above was revealed. When ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ visited Rasűlullah, he saw him and Abű Bekr weeping together. He said, ‘O the
Messenger of Allah! Why are you (two) weeping? Tell me, so that I shall weep
with you.’ He (the Prophet) said, ‘I am weeping for my As-hâb. I
have been shown the torment that was to befall them on account of their having
set the slaves free in return for property. It (the torment) was closer than that tree,’ and he pointed to a tree opposite them.” Beydâwî goes
on as follows: Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “If
the torment had not been turned back, no one except ’Umar and Sa’d bin Mu’âdh
would have escaped it.” For
Sa’d had agreed with ’Umar and said that the slaves should be killed. ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’. [Sa’d belonged to the Evs (or Aws) tribe and came to
îmân (became a Muslim) one year before the Hijrat). He also brought the people
under his command to îmân (caused them to become Muslims). He joined the ghazâs
(holy wars), and died of the wound he had received in (the holy war of) Handak
(Trench). Rasűlullah conducted the namâz of janâza for him and wept
bitterly].
Rasűlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ asking for paper or ordering the preparation of
an army under Usâma’s command or deporting Merwân out of Medina may not have
been by wahy. Each of these decisions was out of his own thought and ijtihâd.
Those who did not carry out these (orders) cannot be called disbelievers. For
we know other examples as well in which the As-hâb-i-kirâm did not agree (with Rasűlullah). We have already cited one of them above.
At that time the wahy would be revealed and right and wrong would be
distinguished from each other; those who disobeyed such commandments would not
be blamed or reproached. Otherwise, if there had been the slightest disrespect
towards Rasűlullah,
Allâhu ta’âlâ would have immediately cautioned and dissuaded from it,
warning that such
acts
would incur punishment. An example of this is the command in the second âyat of
Hujurât sűra, which purports, “O those who have had the
honour of havingîmân! Do not raise thine voice louder than the voice of the
Messenger of Allah. Do not call to him as you shout at oneanother! If a person
shows disrespect to him, his worships will become null and void.” Sayyed Sherîf Alî bin Muhammad Jurjânî [740-816 (C.E. 1413)], who
has explained the book Mawâqif, quotes Âmidî as having said, “All the As-hâb-i-kirâm, with the
exception of munâfiqs, that is, those who concealed the impiousness of their
hearts and pretended to believe, were in unity on the day when Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ passed away.
Later on, there were some differences in their ijtihâds. These differences were
not in principles of belief. None of them became a disbeliever on account of
these differences. All such differences were based on the intention of
upholding Islam and maintaining its correctitude. For instance, Rasűlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ asking for
paper brought about (the first) difference. Then another difference of ijtihâd
occurred in the matter of preparing an army for Usâma, whereby some of the
As-hâb-i-kirâm said that Rasűlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam' order should be executed, while others, seeing
that his illness was getting worse, were of the opinion that they should wait
instead of wearying him.” If a person asserted something impossible, e.g. if he
said, “Every ijtihâd of Rasűlullah's was by
wahy. Therefore, all his words and behaviors were by wahy,” we would answer him
as follows: His words and behaviors that were not based on ijtihâd were by
wahy. Examples of these are the hadîth-i-sherîfs
praising the three Khalîfas. These (hadîth-i-sherîfs)
gave information about the unknown, which is possible only by wahy. He could
not have said them out of ijtihâd. The fifty-ninth âyat-i-kerîma
of En’âm sűra purports, “Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, knows the ghayb, [that is, things that are not known mentally, found out by
calculation, or taught by Islam]. No one except Him knows them.”
And the twenty-sixth âyat of Jinn sűra
purports, “He, alone, knows secrets. Of the secret things He knows,
He intimates the ones He chooses only to the one He likes (best) of Prophets, [that
is, to Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’].” The âyat-i-kerîma that purports, “He
does not talk from himself,” signifies
the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the (pieces of) wahy
revealed to him. Certainly, it would be kufr (disbelief) to deny such words and
behaviors of his. There are many other hadîths explaining that the hadîth-i-sherîfs
praising
the three Khalîfas ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum’ were revealed through wahy by Allâhu ta’âlâ. So many (scholars) narrated these hadîth-i-sherîfs that they have become mesh-hűr, and
even mutawâtir,
[1]hadîths. We will quote some of them:
I. He stated to Abű Bekr: “You are
my companion in thecave. You are my companion by the Kawthar (Kevser) Pond (in Paradise).” (Tirmuzî).
II. “Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ came
to me. He held me by the hand. He showed me one of my ummat entering through
the gate of Paradise.” Abű
Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ said, “O Rasűlallah! I want to be with you there.” He (Rasűlullah) stated, “O Abű Bekr! Among my Ummat, you will be
the first toenter Paradise.” (Tirmuzî).
III. When he (the Prophet) stated, “I
entered Paradise. I saw a villa. I saw a houri [maiden of Paradise] in it.
I asked her: Who are you for? She said: I have been created for’Umar ibni
Hattâb. I wanted to go in and see her. But, O ’Umar, I thought it might hurt
you!”, ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ said, “I would sacrifice my mother, my father, and everything I have for
your sake, O Rasűlallah!” (Bukharî and Muslim).
He (Rasűlullah) pointed to ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ and
said, “This (high) person’s
rank in Paradise is higher thanthat of any of the rest of my Ummat.” (Ibni Mâja).
“I
have not brought Abű Bekr and ’Umar (into a
position) ahead of you all. Allâhu ta’âlâ has
brought themahead of you all.” (Abű
Ya’lâ).
VI. “I asked Jebrâîl
‘alaihis-salâm’ about the virtues of ’Umar. Were I to tell about the values he
has as long as the period of Nűh’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ Prophethood [nine hundred and fifty years], I
still would not be able to finish. All the values ’Umar has, on the other hand,
are (equal to) only
oneof Abű Bekr’s values.” (Abű
Ya’lâ).
VII. “In Paradise, after Prophets ‘alaihimus-salâm’,
thehighest ones of all mankind are Abű Bekr and ’Umar.”(Tirmuzî and Ibni Mâja).
VIII. Abű Műsa-l-esh’arî narrates: We were sitting in
the yard (of a house) in Medina, when someone knocked on the door. The
Messenger of Allah ordered, “Open the door and give the visitor
---------------------------------
[1] Kinds of hadîth-i-sherîfs are explained in detail in the sixth chapter of the second fascicle of Endless Bliss.
the good news that he shall go
to Paradise!” When I
opened the door, Abű Bekr Siddîq came in. I gave him the good news. He made
hamd, (that is, he thanked, praised and lauded Allahu ta’âlâ).[1] Then there was another knock on the door. “Open
the door and give the good news!”, said the Prophet again. I opened it, and ’Umar Fârűq came in. When I
gave him the good news, he made hamd to Allâhu ta’âlâ. The door
was knocked once more. The Messenger of Allah said, “Open
itand give him the good news and tell him that he will suffera catastrophe!” I opened (the door). It was ’Uthmân Zinnűreyn
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. I gave him the good news, and he made hamd. (Bukhârî and
Muslim).
Supposing we were to acknowledge that Merwân’s deportation
from Medina had been by wahy, this would not mean a lifelong deportation. Why
should it not be possible that he might have been deported for a certain period
of time? ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ knew the duration of deportation, and took
him back to Medina when the time was over.
The âyat-i-kerîma that purports, “A person with îmân
will not love the enemies of Allâhu ta’âlâ and
His Messenger,”prohibits
from loving disbelievers. Merwân was not a disbeliever; why should it be
forbidden to love him.
It is stated as follows in the booklet: “The hadîths
praising the three Khalîfas do not exist in our books. On the other hand, the
hadîths about (Rasűlullah’s asking for) paper and (his order for preparation
of) Usâma’s army, which reprove the three Khalîfas, are recorded in your books,
too. Furthermore, some of the scholars of Ahl as-sunna have said that it would
be permissible to call a useful statement a hadîth. Therefore, hadîths that do
not exist in the Shiite books are not dependable.”
With the help of Allâhu ta’âlâ, we give
the following answer: Those who are too excessive in injustice, malign the
three Khalîfas. So much so that they call them disbelievers. They consider that
saying so is Islam and worship. Consequently, they do not believe the sahîh hadîths
praising the three Khalîfas. They discard or change these hadîths. They even
interpolate and slander Qur’ân
al-kerîm, which is Islam’s basic
document and which has been authenticated by all people throughout centuries
and remained intact until the present time, and make changes in âyat-i-kerîmas. For instance, they have defiled
the twenty-sixth
---------------------------------
[1] The Arabic word is “Al-hamd-u-lillâh”, which means, “May thanks, praise and laud be to Allâhu ta’âlâ.”
âyat of
Qiyâmat sűra, which reads, “Alainâ jam’a hu wa Qur- ’âna,” and changed it to, “Alîyan jama’a Qur’âna,” which means, “Alî compiled the Qur’ân.” Mad with inordinate
bigotry, they attempt to allege that ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ expunged the
âyats praising the Ahl-i-Bayt from Qur’ân al-kerîm.
As we have explained above, in our discourse on their various groups, some of
their groups say that it is permissible to bear false witness when and where it
is considered useful. For this reason, any term of reproach would fall short of
giving them their deserts. It would be sheer credulity to take them on trust,
or to think they are right. Their books cannot be trusted. They are like the
changed, defiled copies of the Torah and the Bible. The books of the Ahl
as-sunnat, on the other hand, are as secure as steel. For instance, Bukhârî
is the second most correct book after Qur’ân al-kerîm. There are many hadith-i-sherîfs
praising the three Khalîfas in this book, as well as in the book Muslim
and many another valuable book. These books
do not contain any statement vilifying or reproving the three Khalîfas.
Inferring such meanings as belittle the three Khalîfas from âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs
is a sign of malevolence. What they infer is wrong, and what they suppose is
out of place and illusory. This misconception of theirs is like the case with a
person with deranged bile; this person will not enjoy the real taste of sugar
because something sweet will taste bitter to him.
Allâhu ta’âlâ defines these people as follows in the seventh âyat of
’Imrân sűra, which purports: “People withderanged hearts,
in order to cover the truth and instigatemischief, will infer wrong meanings
from Qur’ân al-kerîm, thus deviating into heresy.”
Among the Ahl as-sunna people, there have
been those saying that it would be permissible to call a useful statement a
hadîth; yet the scholars of Hadîth have rejected this and explained in their
books that such hadîths are false and slanderous. No one has valued them or
adhered to them as hadîths. Therefore, it is an altogether irrelevant and
nonsensical argumentation to introduce the so-called statement as an evidence.
It is out of place also to say, “It is not disbelief not to obey a hadîth
reported by only one person. For some of the mujtahids of Ahl as-sunna have not
obeyed such hadîths.” A few of the hadîth-i-sherîfs
praising and exalting the three Khalîfas were reported by one Sahabî, yet they
have been narrated through various ways by many people and they have thus
reached the degree of tawâtur. It is certainly disbelief to deny them. None of
the mujtahids has disobeyed such hadîths. In fact, Imâm A’zam
Abű
Hanîfa ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, who is the leader of the Ahl as-sunna, would hold a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by one person, and even the
statements of the As-hâb-i-kirâm, higher than his own inferences (from Qur’ân al-kerîm), and would say that it would not be
permissible to disregard them.
Seeing that there are many hadîths praising the three
Khalîfas, and thus realising that they will not be able to withstand them, they
take another turn and say, “The three Khalîfas were praised, but that was before
their unbecoming deeds were seen. Such praises do not necessarily show that
they would remain pious Believers till death. For it would have been unfair to
blame a malefactor before he had committed the malefaction. By the same token,
the Emîr-ul-mu’minîn Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ knew that Ibni Muljam[1] would commit a murder. Yet he did not punish
him before he committed the murder.” However, various hadîth-i-sherîfs declare clearly that the three Khalîfas ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum’ would remain good and virtuous till death and they would
pass away as Believers. We have already quoted a few of them. Sahîh
(authenticated) books contain many other such hadîth-i-sherîfs. We
agree that a person will not be punished for some guilt he has not committed
yet, even if it is known that he will commit that guilt. Nor would it have been
correct, however, to praise a person if it had been known that he would turn
out to be a wicked person, a person who would deserve punishment. Then, a
person praised through hadîth-i-sherîf must always be good and virtuous, earlier and later
alike. Likewise, the Emîr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ did not punish Ibni Muljam, yet he
did not praise him, either. He neither castigated nor valued him. We shall
expand this answer of ours in the explanation of the eighteenth âyat of Fat-h
sűra.
2- The ’Ulamâ (savants, scholars) of Mâwarâ’un-nehr
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’ state that: The three Khalîfas were among
the people honoured with the eighteenth âyat of Fat-h sűra, which purports, “Allâhu
ta’âlâ has been pleased with those who extended their hands to you and promised
you under the tree. He loves them all.” It is therefore disbelief to vilify or curse them.
The enemies of the As-hâb-i-kirâm answer this as
follows: “This âyat-i-kerîma shows that Allâhu ta’âlâ loves
the promises, not the people who promised. We all believe this. All these three
people did a couple of good deeds. We say that they did bad
---------------------------------
[1] Person who martyred hadrat Alî.
deeds, too. These malefactions of theirs nullified their promises.
For instance, although the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ commanded plainly
that Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ should be the (first) Khalîfa, they disobeyed this
command and forced their way into the office of caliphate. As it is narrated in
Bukhârî, they offended Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’. It is declared as follows in
a hadîth-i-sherîf, which the book Mishkât quotes in its chapter about Fâtimât-uz-Zehrâ: ‘He
who hurts her will have hurt me. And he who hurts me will have hurt Allâhu
ta’âlâ.’ The fifty-seventh âyat
of Ahzâb sűra purports, ‘May those whotorment Allâhu
ta’âlâ and His Messenger be accursed bothin this world and in the
Hereafter!’ On account
of these malefactions, plus their disobeying the Prophet’s commands,
such as when he asked for paper and when he ordered to prepare an army for
Usâma, all three of them must be cursed and reproved. Taking the last breath in
îmân (dying as a Believer) depends on doing good deeds, and first of all,
obeying the Messenger of Allah, at the end of one’s life.”
Here’s our answer: When Allâhu ta’âlâ was
pleased with the people who made a promise under the tree, He knew (what was
in) their hearts, their intentions. He infused firmness and serenity into their
hearts. The final part of the âyat-i-kerîma
points out this fact. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ gave the good news that the three Khalîfas would go to
Paradise. He declared plainly that they would pass away in îmân (die as
Believers). He informed that they would abide by their promises, that they
would not renege on their promises. If we admit that
Allâhu ta’âlâ stated that He liked their promises and not their persons,
(we will have to admit also the fact that), when Allâhu
ta’âlâ likes their promises they must pass away in îmân. For Allâhu ta’âlâ will not like any deeds of
disbelievers. Supposing a group of people were doomed to die as unbelievers, Allâhu ta’âlâ would not be pleased with any of their
good deed, however pleasing, charitable and pious their deeds might seem to be.
Their good deeds are depicted as follows in the thirty-ninth âyat of Nűr sűra,
which purports, “The deeds performed by disbelievers are like a
mirage perceived in a desert. Thirsty people will fancy it to be water when
theysee it from the distance. When they go near it, they will not find
anything. They will realise their disillusionment.” Also, the fifty-seventh âyat of Mâida sűra purports, “If
one of youparts with îmân and dies as a disbeliever, all the gooddeeds he has
performed shall perish. They will do him nogood, neither in the
world, nor in the Hereafter.” To say that a deed that would do no good in the Hereafter might
please Allâhu ta’âlâ, would be an inane
assertion. To be pleased with something means to like it, to accept it to the
last degree. Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ did not advise that hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ should be the first
Khalîfa. If he had advised so, it would have spread through tawâtur and become
known widely. If there had been such a command, be it by implication, the Emîr
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ would have stated it, insisted on his due, and lodged an
objection to Abű Bekr’s caliphate. As a matter of fact, Abű Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ quoted the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Khalîfas
are from the Qoureish tribe,” and
said that he would not assent to the caliphate of a person from the Ansâr. And
the Ansâr, on their turn, agreed with him and forfeited their claim for
caliphate. It is stated as follows in a commentary of the book Tejrîd
by Nasîr-ed-dîn Tűsî, [Allâma Muhammad bin
Muhammad Nasîr-ed-dîn Tűsî, 672 [C.E. 1273)]: “Rasűlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ As-hâb fought against their own relatives and
tribes for the sake of his way. They carried out all his commands with their
utmost energy. They endured all sorts of difficulty in making progress in his
way. They would not hesitate to sacrifice whatever they had for his sake. Now,
what kind of mentality or understanding should a person have to admit the
assertion that such faithful people as these disobeyed his open commandment and
held an arbitrary election for caliphate even before his funeral. If there had
been, let alone a commandment, a slight implication, a flimsy allusion (on the
part of the Prophet) denoting that hadrat Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ were to be the first Khalîfa, all of them would have raced
to do it. Indeed, none of the scholars of Hadîth has reported any commandment,
or any implication, showing that hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ should be made
the first Khalîfa; and those scholars who are known for their excessive
fondness for hadrat Alî and who have always reported the hadîth-i-sherîfs commending his high virtues and
heroic accomplishments and his services to Islam, are no exception. Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ did not utter a single word to allude that he deserved to be
the (first) Khalîfa, neither in his conversations or khutbas, nor during any of
his struggles, nor on the occasions when he had to make talks, such as when
there was some delay in the election of Abű Bekr as the Khalîfa or when he was
nominated to be one of the six candidates to succeed ’Umar in the office of
caliphate. During the meeting held for the six nominees for caliphate, Abbâs
held his
hand
out to Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ and said: Give me your hand! Let everybody see
that the (paternal) uncle of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ has made you Khalîfa and obey you! He refused this.”
The commandment warning against offending Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhâ’ is not an unexceptional commandment. For the Emîr (Alî) ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ offended her a couple of times, and these behaviours of his were not
considered culpable. By the same token, Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ said to some of his wives: “Do
not offend me by displeasing Âisha!Be it known that in her bed I am being
revealed the wahy.”On the other hand,
hadrat Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ was really offended by hadrat Alî
‘radîy-Allâhu anh’. We can therefore say that the injunction, “Do not
displease,” in the hadîth-i-sherîf, means, “Do
not displease by falling for the desires of your nafs or the tricks of the
devil.” Otherwise, it would not be forbidden in cases of inevitability such as
executing an Islamic principle or establishing the truth. The reason why Fâtima
‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ was offended with Abű Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was because
he would not give her a share of inheritance from Fedek. [Fedek was a village
rich in its date orchards in the vicinity of Hayber fortress. According to a
peace treaty made with the Jews, half of the village had been given to Rasűlullah]. On account of a hadîth-i-sherîf,
which declared, “We, Prophets, do not leave inheritance. What
we leave will become alms (to be given) to the
poor,” Abű Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ divided
the income from the dates and distributed it to the poor. Obeying this hadîth-i-sherîf, he did not give a share to Fâtima
‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’. It would not be an offense because this behaviour of his
did not originate from his nafs or from the devil. Should it be asked why
Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was offended for something done with the sheer
intention of obeying hadîth-i-sherîf, our answer
will be: Her taking offence was the result of a frailty inherent in the human
nature; it was not an attitude assumed purposely. This offending, which is
inevitable, is not forbidden.
3- The scholars of Mâwarâ’un-nehr ‘rahmatullâhi
ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’ stated: “Allâhu ta’âlâ referred to
Abű Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ as the Prophet’s
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ sâhib, that is, companion, in the fortieth âyat
of Tawba sűra. It would not be permissible to censure, to curse the Prophet’s
companion.”
The booklet gives the following answer to this: The
thirty-fifth
âyat of Kehf sűra purports, “As he spoke to his sâhib (companion), he said: Thou hast disbelieved
thine Rabb (Allah), thine
creator...”. Here, a
disbeliever also is referred to as the Prophet’s sâhib
(companion). As a matter of fact, in the thirty-ninth âyat of Yűsuf sűra, Yusűf
‘alaihis-salâm’ addressed the disbelievers ‘my sâhibs’, by saying, “O my
companions inthe dungeon...”. Yűsuf’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ addressing two idolaters ‘my sâhibs’ shows
that the Prophet’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ referring to a
person as his sâhib (companion) does not necessarily mean that he is a good
person.
Our answer is this: Companionship established with
mutual love is certainly effective. It has been stated (by the ’Ulamâ) that
denying the effect of Sohbat is a sign of ignorance. Since a Muslim and a
disbeliever will not love each other, their sohbat will not produce any effect,
any use. There is yet another fact we would like to point out to this effect.
The so-called two idolaters were honoured with becoming Muslims owing to the
barakat, the fruitfulness of Yusűf’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ sohbat. Then, why should Rasűlullah’s sohbat not have had any effect on Siddîq (Abű Bekr)
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, who had always been with Rasűlullah more than
anyone else and loved him so much? Why should he not have benefited from his
maturated ma’rifats? Indeed, Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “All
the ma’rifats, all the pieces of (occult) knowledge Allâhu ta’âlâhas poured into my
chest, I have poured into Abű Bekr’s chest.” The more the love and the attachment, the more the benefits that
will be attained. It is for this reason that Abű Bekr Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’
became the highest of all the As-hâb. For his attachment to Rasűlullah was more than anybody else’s.
He (the Prophet) declared
in a hadîth-i-sherîf, “The superiority of Abű Bekr is not
because he makes namâz and fasts very much, but because he has something in his
heart.” Our ’Ulamâ (profoundly
learned Islamic scholars, savants) state that the thing he had in his heart was
his love for Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’. Then, how could it
ever be justifiable to vilify, to curse such a companion?
4- The ’Ulamâ of Mâwarâ’un-nehr state that: Emîr Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ accepted the three Khalîfas although he was very powerful
and very popular among the As-hâb-i-kirâm. He did not raise any objections.
This shows that the three Khalîfas were rightful. Saying otherwise would mean
to blame Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’.
The following answer is given in the booklet: “As the Emîr
‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ was busy with the preparations for the funeral, the three Khalîfas
convened most of the Sahâba under the brushwood shelter called Benî Sa’îda.
They made Abű Bekr the Khalîfa. Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ heard about this. Yet he
thought it would be futile to fight because he had few men and he did not want
the good people to die, and for some other good reasons unknown to us. This
does not show that Abű Bekr was right. For one thing, Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’
was very strong and brave, yet he and Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ and many Sahâba migrated from Mekka to Medina
without making any war. They considered it inappropriate to fight at that time.
As they and fifteen hundred Sahâbîs were on their way to Mekka in the sixth
year of the Hegira, they made peace at a place called Hudaybiya and returned
(to Medina). Since it was permissible for Rasűlullah
and Alî and the other Sahâba not to fight at those places, it should certainly
have been permissible for Alî not to make war by himself. As the fact that war
was not made at those places would not show that the disbelievers of Qoureish
were right, so Alî’s not making war would certainly not show that Abű Bekr was
right. Likewise, Pharaoh maintained his claim to be a god for four hundred years
in Egypt. Also, other kings such as Sheddâd and Nimrod continued this corrupt
claim for many years. Allâhu ta’âlâ, the
Almighty as He is, did not kill them. Even Allâhu
ta’âlâ does not hurry to avenge on His enemies; why should it not be
permissible, then, for a born slave not to oppose his enemy? The Emîr’s
acquiescence to their caliphate was intended to act toward the situation. It
was not a willing acceptance.”
Our answer to this will be: According to the ’Ulamâ
of Mâwarâ’un-nehr, Alî’s not fighting Abű Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’, and
obeying him, instead, shows that he (Abű Bekr) was the rightly-guided Khalîfa.
And this fact cannot be refuted or denied by making a comparison of it to Rasűlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ not fighting against the
disbelievers of Qoureish or Allâhu
ta’âlâ’s delaying the killing of His
enemies such as Pharaoh, Sheddâd and Nimrod. These examples given in the
booklet confute its own argument. For Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ and Allâhu ta’âlâ always
reproved these enemies of theirs. They stated that those enemies were always
evil and base. How can those people be examples for this case? Where is the
similarity? Thwarted by the multitude of the reports stating that Alî accepted
Abű Bekr’s caliphate and obeyed him ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’, and seeing that it
would be futile to deny this
fact, these people have to change their course, and say that Alî
accepted it unvillingly in order to act toward the situation. They cannot find
a better answer to prove that Abű Bekr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ caliphate was
unjust. They cannot find another way to resolve the dilemma they have driven
themselves into. At this point, it will be appropriate to relate how Abű Bekr
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was elected Khalîfa. We shall therefore have recourse to the
most reliable sources, thus proving at the same time that it would be
impossible to degrade Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ to the contemptible state of
having committed a wrong deed in order to act toward the sitution because of
the overpowering conditions.
When Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ passed away, the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum ajma’în’
set about the election of the Khalîfa before beginning the procedures of
funeral. They considered it their primary duty to find a president for the
Believers. For there were some commandments of Rasűlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ to be carried out, such as the execution of the
punishments called (Hadd), defending the country against enemies, organizing an
army to this end, and the like. And these tasks, in their turn, could be
performed only by the State. It was wâjib, therefore, for the Muslims to elect
a president for the State. Upon hearing about Rasűlullah’s
passing away, most people became so sad that they were at a loss as to what to
do, and many others were verging on the insane. Someone to bandage this very
serious wound of the people and to diminish the severe pains was prerequisite.
Abű Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, in a serene temperance inherent in his
immaculately maturated character, convened the As-hâb-i-kirâm, and said aloud:
“O thou the blessed Companions of the Prophet
‘radiy-Allâhu anhum ajma’în’! If anyone here is worshipping Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’, let him know that he is dead. And whoever is worshipping Allâhu ta’âlâ should know that He is always alive. He
will never die!” The rest of his speech was equally effective. Yet, when he
heard that the Ansâr had come together in order to elect the Khalîfa from among
themselves, he went to their meeting place, taking Abű Ubayda and ’Umar along.
He said to them, “I have heard that you have been electing to perform and
execute the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Think
and search! The Khalîfa is to be from among the Qoureish (tribe).” Then,
pointing to Abű Ubayda and ’Umar, he added, “Elect one of these people.” Upon
this, ’Umar said, “You are the Khalîfa, O
Abâ
Bekr,” holding out his hand to him. All the Ansâr unanimously agreed to his
caliphate. The following day he went to the mosque and mounted the menber. He looked
at the jama’at (Muslims), and saw that Zubeyr bin Awwâm was not among them. He
sent for him and, when Zubeyr came, he asked him, “Do you have anything against
this unanimity of Muslims?” Zubeyr said, “O the Khalîfa of the Messenger! I
have nothing against it,” and he held out his hand in submission. The Khalîfa
looked around once again. When he did not see Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, he sent
for him. When the Emîr came, he said to him, “Do you want to be opposed to this
unanimity of Muslims?” Alî, too, held out his hand in submission and said, “O
the Khalîfa of the Messenger! I am not opposed.” Zubeyr and Alî apologized for
being late to accept the Khalîfa. They said, “We were sorry because we had not
been informed about the caliphate election. We know very well that no one among
us would be more rightful to the office of caliphate than Abű Bekr is. For he
has been honoured with being (the Prophet’s)
companion in the cave. We are very well aware of his honour, his superiority. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ chose him
among us as the imâm to conduct the namâz.” [Zubeyr bin Awwâm ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ is one of the ten fortunated who were given the good news (by Allâhu ta’âlâ) that
“they shall enter Paradise.” His parents were the brother of our mother
Hadîja and Rasűlullah’s paternal aunt Sâfiyya.
He became a Muslim when he was fifteen years old. He was the first Muslim to
draw his sword, the first to migrate to Abyssinia, and the first to migrate to
Medina. He received numerous wounds in the Holy Wars of Bedr, Uhud, Hendek
(Trench), Hudaybiya, Hayber, Mekka, Hunayn, and Tâif. He joined the conquest of
Egypt, too. He was very rich. He gave all his wealth in the way of Allah. He
was against hadrat Alî in the event of Camel. He was martyred in the thirty-sixth
year (of the Hijrat), when he was sixty-seven years old].
Imâm-i-Muhammad Shâfi’î ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’ [150-204 (C.E. 819), in Egypt] states: “When Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ passed away, the As-hâb-i-kirâm considered and
searched, and finally decided that no one on the earth could be superior to Abű
Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh.’ They unanimously made him Khalîfa.” The As-hâb-i-kirâm
‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’ unanimously wanted to make one of the following (three)
people Khalîfa: Abű Bekr, Alî, and Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’. Alî and Abbâs
said nothing against the caliphate of Abű Bekr. They both
accepted
the caliphate of Abű Bekr. Thus Abű Bekr was unanimously elected Khalîfa. If
Abű Bekr had not been the rightful Khalîfa, Alî and Abbâs would have opposed it
and demanded their rights. As a matter of fact, (later) Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’
did not accept the caliphate of Muâwiyya ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ because he did not
consider it rightful. Although Muâwiyya’s army was more powerful than his, he
insisted on his due and caused many people to die. On the other hand, it would
have been much easier for him to oppose Abű Bekr, and he would have been
elected Khalîfa. For that time was closer to the time of Rasűlullah ‘sal-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ and therefore
people were more inclined to find out (and do) what was right. Furthermore,
Abbâs offered Alî to be Khalîfa, yet he refused it. If he had considered
himself to be more rightful, he would have accepted it. Indeed, Zubeyr and all
the sons of Hâshim, with all their great fame and bravery, and many other
Sahâbîs were with Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. This ijmâ’ [unanimity] would suffice
to prove the fact that Abű Bekr was the rightful Khalîfa. And the fact that
there is not a single commandment or even an implication to contradict this,
emphasizes the state of rightfulness. In fact, according to the majority of
scholars, the ijmâ’-i-ummat, that is, unanimity of the As-hâb, is more
dependable than a commandment which is not mesh-hűr (narrated by all scholars
unanimously). For something on which there was ijmâ’ (unanimity of the As-hâb)
is certainly true. A commandment which is not mesh-hűr, on the other hand, is
supposed to be true. We would like to add at this point that there are
implications, even commandments advising that Abű Bekr should be the (first)
Khalîfa. The profoundly learned ’Ulamâ of Tafsîr and Hadîth have reported them.
It is true that there are no such commandments according to the majority of the
profound scholars of the Ahl as-sunna. Yet this same statement shows that
others do not have the right, either. Hence it becomes obvious that Abű Bekr
became the Khalîfa rightfully by the unanimous vote (of the Sahâba) and Alî
cannot be said to have acted toward the situation unwilling as he was. If the
Sahâba had been the kind of people who would not have accepted the truth, then
(the probability of Alî’s) having acted toward the situation might be
considered. How could Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ ever be reproached with having
abdicated a right in order to handle people honoured with the hadîth-i-sherîf, “The best of times is
my time.”?
’Uthmân bin Abd-ur-Rahmân ibn-is-Salâh, [his book Aqs-
ul-amal
was printed in London; 577-643 (C.E. 1245)], and ’Abd-ul-’azîm Munzirî
[581-656] ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihimâ’ state: The As-hâb-i-kirâm were all
equitable people. It is an absolute fact that all the As-hâb-i-kirâm will go to
Paradise. The tenth âyat of Hadîd sűra purports, “O
Believers! Among you, the ones who gave their property and fought for the sake
of Allâhuta’âlâ before the conquest of Mekka, will have higher grades than
those who gave (property) and
fought after theconquest of Mekka. They are not equal with respect to their
ranks. I promise them all (that I shall give
them) Paradise.” This
means to say that all the As-hâb-i-kirâm shall enter Paradise. That the promise
made in this âyat-i-kerîma is given to those who
sacrificed their property and lives does not necessarily mean that the ones who
did not give alms or make jihâd (Holy War) will not enter Paradise. [It is
stated in the tafsîrs of Beydâwî and Huseynî and Mawâqib that, according to the
majority of mufassirs (profoundly learned savants who make explanations of Qur’ân al-kerîm), this âyat-i-kerîma
was revealed in order to inform with the high honour Abű Bekr as- Siddîq had.
For he was first to have îmân and to dispense his property and to fight against
disbelievers].
To assert that “Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ accepted (the
caliphate of) hadrat Abű Bekr unwillingly, in order to get along well,” means
to disparage that Lion of Allah. For it is a sin not to tell the truth. And
doing something unwillingly is what the meanest Believer would hate. Could the
Emîr, the Lion of Allah, the son-in-law of the Messenger of Allah, the peerless
paragon of valour and heroism, ever have lowered himself to the mediocre state
of doing such repugnant acts? Their ignorance, blended with gross
excessiveness, drives them into the ludicrous position of depreciating hadrat
Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ in the name of appreciating him. While downgrading him,
they think they are extolling him.
5- The ’Ulamâ of Mâwarâ’un-nehr ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
alaihim ajma’în’ state: To curse, to vituperate the three Khalîfas or a few of
the pure blessed wives of Rasűlullah is disbelief. If a person says it is permissible, he
must be punished.
The following answer is given to this in the booklet: The
commentator of (the book) Aqâid-i-Nesefî does not agree that it will cause
disbelief to curse the Shaikhayn [Abű Bekr and ’Umar]. [The book Aqâid-i-Nesefiyya
was written by ’Umar ibni Muhammad Nesefî
(461-
commentaries
for Aqâid-i-Nesefiyya. Its
most celebrated commentary is that of Mes’űd bin ’Umar Sa’d-ad-dîn-i-Teftâzânî
(722-
We give the following answer: It is disbelief to
curse the Shaikhayn (Abű Bekr and ’Umar) ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’.
The hadîth-i-sherîfs show that it is disbelief. It is declared as
follows in a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Tabarânî [Suleyman bin Ahmad, 260-360
(C.E. 971), in Isfehân] and by Hâkim [Muhammad bin Abdullah, 321-405 (C.E.
1014), in Nishâpur]: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has chosen me. And He has chosen
the best ones of mankind as my As-hâb [Companions]. From amongmy As-hâb, He has selected
viziers, assistants, relatives forme. If a person curses them, may Allâhu
ta’âlâ and angelsand human beings curse him! Allâhu
ta’âlâ will not acceptthe farz or sunnat worships of those people
who curse them.” A hadîth-i-sherîf reported by the Hadîth scholar Alî bin ’Umar Dâraqutnî declares: “After
me, some people will appear. If you meet them, kill them! For they are
polytheists[disbelievers].” Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ asked, “What is their sign?”
He (Rasűlullah) declared, “They will make an excessive display
of attachment to you. They will say aboutyou what you do not have. They will
censure the religioussuperiors coming before them.” [Dâraqutn is a village in
Baghdâd. 306-
Cursing the Shaikhayn means enmity towards them. And enmity
towards them, in its turn, is disbelief. For it is declared in a hadîth-i-sherîf, “Enmity towards them is
enmity towardsme. To hurt them means to hurt me. And to hurt me means to
torment Allâhu ta’âlâ.” It is declared in a
hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Alî bin Hasan ibni
Asâkir [499-
that
entered the nose of Muâwiyya’s [d. 60 (C.E. 680), when he was seventy-nine
years old] horse as he escorted Rasűlullah, is
much higher than ’Umar bin Abd-ul-’azîz.” Thus he informed that no degree of
highness could reach the level attained by being in Rasűlullah’s
sohbat and seeing his blessed face. [’Umar bin Abd-ul-’azîz, the eighth Emewî
(Umayyad) Khalîfa, was a profoundly learned, extremely pious person. He was
martyred in the year 101, when he was forty-one years old. He bought Malatya
from the Byzantine Greeks in return for a hundred thousand slaves]. This kind
of superiority, which is the sheer result of sohbat with the exclusion of all
other personal virtues is common in all the As-hâb-i-kirâm. When the other
types of virtues are added to this superiority; for instance, a Sahabî who made
jihâd with Rasűlullah and who taught the
Believers coming after him what he had learned from him and who devoted his
property for his sake, must be even more superior, higher. There is no doubt
that the (first) two Khalîfas were among the higher ones of the As-hâb-i-kirâm.
They were even the highest ones. Then, it would be disbelief to attribute the
slightest inferiority to the Shaikhayn, nonetheless for calling them
disbelievers. It would mean blasphemy, aberration. It is stated as follows in
the book Muhît, written by
Shems-ul-aimma Muhammad bin Ahmad Serahsî [483 (C.E. 1090), in Turkistan]: “It
is not permissible to perform namâz behind an imâm (who is notorious for his)
vituperating the Shaikhayn. For that person denies the fact that Abű Bekr
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was the Khalîfa. On the other hand, the fact that he (Abű
Bekr) was rightfully elected Khalîfa has been acknowledged unanimously by all
the As-hâb-i-kirâm.” It is stated as follows in the book of fatwâ named Hulâsa,
written by Tâhir bin Ahmad Bukhârî: “If a
person denies the caliphate of Abű Bekr, he becomes a disbeliever. It is mekrűh
(not liked by Rasűlullah, though not forbidden)
to perform the namâz conducted by a bid’at[1] holder.
If the bid’at he holds is so bad as to cause disbelief, the namâz conducted by
him will not be sahîh (accepted). If it is not so bad as disbelief the namâz
will be sahîh but mekrűh. It is almost equally true that a person who denies
the caliphate of hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ will become a disbeliever.” In
light of the fact that a person who denies their caliphates will become a
disbeliever, one should imagine the destiny awaiting those people who vilify
and curse them. As it is seen, to call such eccentricities disbelief is exactly
concordant with
---------------------------------
[1] Bid’at is any act, any behaviour, any belief, any prayer or worship that did not exist in Islam originally and which was fabricated later in the name of religion. All kinds of bid’at are somehow harmful to Islam.
hadîth-i-sherîfs and the statements made by the Islamic ’Ulamâ. When
some of the Ahl as-sunna scholars ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’ said
that these people should not be called disbelievers, they meant those who were
not excessive in their eccentricities. Their statements are therefore in
agreement with the hadîth-i-sherîfs and the statements of the (other Islamic) ’Ulamâ.
The booklet curses, vituperates Âisha-i-Siddîqa
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhâ’, too. These people assert that she is to be
cursed because she disobeyed the âyat-i-kerîma and the
hadîth-i-sherîf. They traduce her – may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect
us from doing such an ignoble act. They say, “It was commanded, ‘Stay
in your homes’, in the âyat-i-kerîma. Disobeying this commandment, she fought Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’
in the event of Camel. On the other hand, it had been stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, ‘He who fights you will have fought me.’ This means to say that fighting Alî means fighting Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’. And he who fights the Prophet will
become a disbeliever. For this reason, it is necessary to censure, to
curseÂisha.”
Our answer is this: The commandment, “Stay
in yourhomes,” does not mean, “Always
sit in your home in all circumstances. Never go out.” The fact that some of Rasűlullah’s wives accompanied him in some of his
expeditions shows that the truth is not as they state. This means to say that
the commandment to stay in homes was intended for certain occasions and
situations. It is like expressing something as a whole while meaning a part of
it. Such statements are not absolute commandments. It is permissible for a
mujtahid, therefore, to infer another part from this whole. For there are some
qualities common in all the parts. Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ was doubtless a
learned scholar and a mujtahid. Abű Műsal-esh’arî [one of Rasűlullah’s governors. He introduced the custom of
putting dates on written documents, letters, etc. He passed away in Kűfa in 51]
states in Tirmuzî’s book: Whenever the As-hâb-i-kirâm wanted to know something,
they would go and ask hadrat Âisha and learn from her. Műsâ bin Talha states,
again in Tirmuzî’s book: I saw no one who could talkmore eloquently, more
correctly than Âisha did. Owing to the profound knowledge she had, Âisha
‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ understood the inner meaning of the âyat-i-kerîma, followed the exceptional cases which made it
permissible for her to go out, and went out. The meaning inferred from the âyat-i-kerîma is, “Do not go out without covering
yourselves.” Indeed, the final part of
the âyat-i-kerîma purports, “Do
not show yourornaments, jewels to men, as was done by women in thetime of
nescience (the time before Islam)!” This means to say that it is permissible (for women) to go out
with something to cover themselves. Âisha’s ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ going out in
the event of Camel was not intended to make war. It was intended to quell the
fitna and restore peace. Even if it had been intended for war as the historians
interpret it, nothing could be said against it. For she acted upon (her)
ijtihâd. She did not go out only because she wished to do so. As a matter of
fact, as Sherh-i-mawâqif narrates from Seyf-ud-dîn Alî Âmidî ‘rahmatullâhi
aleyh’, the events of Camel and Siffîn were on account of ijtihâd. If a
mujtehid is wrong (in his or her ijtihâd), he (or she) cannot be blamed for
this. The sixty-eighth âyat of Enfâl sűra purports, “Had
it not been for the book of Allâhu ta’âlâ beforehand,
you would suffer great torment onaccount of what you have done.” Beydâwî explains this âyat as follows: “Allâhu
ta’âlâ wrote in the Levh-il-mahfűz beforehand that He will not torment unless
what He has clearly forbidden is committed. If He had not foreordained that he
would not torment for erring or mistaking... .” Another fact we would like to
point out is that a mujtehid’s erring is a rahmat (compassion), a hidâyat
(guidance to the right way and salvation) from Allâhu
ta’âlâ. ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ states in a book (written) by Rezin bin
Muâwiyya (524), one of the sons of Abduddar bin Qusay, that Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “I
asked my Rabb (Allâhu ta’âlâ) about the disagreements (that will occur) among my As-hâb after me. My
Rabb intimated tome: O My beloved Prophet
Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâtu wa-ssalâm’! Your As-hâb are like the stars in the sky.
Some of them are brighter than others. They all emit lights. Aperson who
follows one of them will attain hidâyat.” Then
he stated this hadîth-i-sherîf: “My
As-hâb are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them you will
attain hidâyat (guidance to the right
way) and salâmat (salvation).”
Perhaps Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ had not heard about
the hadîth-i-sherîf, “O Alî! He who fights you will have fought
me.” Or perhaps a certain
fighting was meant. Or perhaps the wars he made during the Asr-i-Sa’âdat were
meant.
In order to convince others and to defeat the Ahl as-sunnat, (the
author of) the booklet says: “The Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ was talking with Ibni Umm-i-Mektűm, who was
sightless in both eyes, when one of his (the Prophet’s)
wives came
near
them. Annoyed, the Prophet stated, ‘He
may not see, but you do (see)!’ While it was so strongly prohibited for women to show themselves
to men, it is written in the Sunnite books how Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ leaned
her head on the Prophet’s shoulder and watched
the men playing (musical) instruments and dancing. The Prophet
stated, ‘Are you still not sated, o Humeyrâ?’ We could not say that the basest people would do the same.” Our
answer is this: This behaviour of watching the dances may have happened before
the âyat-i-kerîma commanding (women) to cover
themselves was revealed. On the other hand, (the Prophet’s)
prohibiting (his blessed wife) from showing herself to Ibni Mektűm occurred
after the revelation of the âyat-i-kerîma. Or,
perhaps, the dances watched were those kinds of dances that were not forbidden;
they may have been permissible kinds of dances. As a matter of fact, (some)
sahîh (authentic) reports show that bayonet dances were performed in the yard
of Mesjîd-i-Nebevî. And this, in its turn, being a war dance, is not sinful. Indeed,
the fact that it was performed in the yard of the Mesjîd (Mosque) indicates
that it was permissible. Even if the watching of the dances had occurred after
the revelation of the âyat-i-kerîma, Âisha
‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ was too young then. She was not liable (to religious
commandments) yet. In fact, Bukhârî and Muslim quote her (hadrat Âisha) as
relating, “Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ was standing in the door of the room. Some Abyssinians were doing a
dance on the Mihrâb of the Mesjîd. Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ covered me with a cloth that was on his blessed
back. I watched the dance, looking through the aperture between his blessed ear
and neck.”
It should be known very well that meddling with the behaviours of
the As-hâb-i-kirâm, and saying whatever occurs to one’s mind about them, is the
lowest degree of insolence and the last grade of asininity a Muslim could do. A
person who bears the name Muslim should love all the As-hâb-i-kirâm, leaving
the disagreements and rows among them to Allâhu ta’âlâ.
He should know that loving them means loving Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. For the
Messenger of Allah stated, “He who loves them, loves them because he
loves me.” This is the only way to
salvation for a Muslim. Imâm-i-Muhammad bin Idris Shâfi’î ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’
states, “As Allâhu ta’âlâ has protected our
hands from being smeared with the blood shed among the As-hâb-i-kirâm, so we
should protect our tongues from poking into it.” ’Umar bin Abdul’azîz also made
a similar statement. [Sayyed Ahmad bin Alî
Rifâî
[512-578 (C.E. 1183), in Umm-i-Ubeyd, in the neighborhood of Basra] states as
follows in the seventy-eighth page of the Turkish book titled Ahmad
Rifâî, which was printed in Istanbul in
1340: “It is never permissible to exceed the limit (prescribed by the ’Ulamâ)
in talking about the events that took place among the As-hâb-i-kirâm
‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’ or to pronounce judgements on them. Every Muslim should be
discreetly reticent about the As-hâb-i-kirâm, always mention their virtues,
love and praise them all.”] However, some people speak ill of the
As-hâb-i-kirâm. They are so daring as to vituperate, curse those people who are
Islam’s most beloved personages. It is necessary for the Islamic ’Ulamâ
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’ to answer them, to refute them, to
explain that their way of thinking is erroneous, unhealthy. It is to this end
that this faqîr, [that is, Imâm-i-Rabbânî, mujaddid-i-elf-i-thânî, Ahmad Fârűqî
‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’ [971-1034 (C.E. 1624), in Sirhind, India], have written a
few words. Yâ Rabbî (O my Allah)! Do not punish us for what we have forgotten
or for our mistakes! This is the end of the answer which this faqîr has had the
lucky chance to write in order to rebut and chagrin the author of the book I have
read. May Allâhu ta’âlâ place in our hearts the
love of His religion! May He honour us all with making progress in the way of
His beloved Prophet Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâtu
wassalâm’! Âmîn.
The thirty-sixth letter of the second volume of the
book Mektűbât, written
by the great ’âlim and Qayyűm-i-âlam, hadrat Shaikh Muhammad Ma’thűm bin Ahmad
Fârűqî ‘quddisa sirruhumâ’ [1009-1079 (C.E. 1667), in Sirhind] who was a
qayyűm-i-âlam and one of the very rare scholars educated throughout centuries,
answers various long questions. It has been considered appropriate at this
point to translate only the answer to the eighth question in the letter:
Question:
It is stated as follows in the book Sherh-i-Dîwân-i-kutub-i-tawârih:
“When hadrat Emîr ‘kerrem-Allâhu ta’âlâ wajhah’ detected the fact that some
people were nursing a grudge against him, he began to utter maledictions
aganist five people including Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta'âlâ anh’ after each of
the five daily prayers of namâz. Upon hearing about this, they (these five
people) began to utter curses after each of the five daily prayers upon five
people, who were hadrat Emîr (Alî), hadrat Hasan, hadrat Huseyn, Abdullah ibni
Abbâs and Mâlik-i-Ejder ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum ajma’în’. In fact, the Khalîfas of
Benî Umayya spread this ignoble practice far and near. In khutbas they
pronounced
curses upon the Ahl-i-Bayt. This practice continued until ’Umar bin Abd-ul-Azîz
canceled it. ’Umar bin Abd-ul Azîz annulled this malediction and recited the
ninetieth âyat-i-kerîma of Nahl sűra for its
place.” Did this vile event really take place, or not?
Answer:
Hadrat Emîr ‘kerrem-Allâhu ta’âlâ wajhah’, who was rahmat from head to foot, never, never cursed
any Muslim at all, none the less for uttering maledictions against the As-hâb of
our master, the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’, especially aganist
Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, on whom the Messenger of Allah asked a blessing
many times. Hadrat Emîr said about those who were with Mu’âwiya, “Our brothers
have not agreed with us. They are not disbelievers or sinners. They have acted
on their ijtihâd.” This statement of his keeps disbelief and sinfulness away
from them. Why should he have cursed them, then? The Islamic religion does not
contain a kind of worship comprising malediction, be it against the worst
unbeliever. Since it is necessary to utter benedictions and to ask blessings
after the five daily prayers of namâz, why should he have given up benedictions
for the sake of maledictions which would have served only for the appeasing of
personal hatred. Do these people put down hadrat Emîr, who had attained the
highest grade of Fanâ[1] and the end of
Itmi’nân[2] and completely renounced his personal desires, as a simpleton
whose nafs seethed with grudge, contumacy, animosity like their own
nafs-i-emmâra?[3] Is it this
stupid supposition that causes them to traduce that very exalted person in such
a despicable way as this? Hadrat Emîr had attained the highest grades of Fanâ
fi-llâh (see footnotes) and Muhabbat-i-Rasűlillah (love of the Messenger of
Allah), and had relinquished his life and property for the sake of his
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ way. Why should he have wasted the time allotted
for him to pray
---------------------------------
[1] The highest grade of Tasawwuf. In this grade the person concerned totally forgets about his own existence and disappears into the existence of Allâhu ta’âlâ.
[2] The grade in which the malignant component existent in man’s nature, which is called NAFS, forgets about its own sensuous desires and adapts itself to the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ.
[3] The malignant being in man’s nature; all the desires of the nafs run counter to the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ. It is one’s nafs that causes one to feel reluctant to do Islam’s commandments. And it is this very nafs again that may tempt one into the very dangerous position of being proud of the worships one has done.
cursing
his (supposed) enemies instead of spending it, for instance, pronouncing
maledictions upon the enemies of Allâhu ta’âlâ and
His Messenger ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa alâ âlihi wa sallam’, upon those people
who had inflicted all sorts of torture and persecution on the Sultân of both
worlds, our master, the beloved Prophet of Allâhu ta’âlâ ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’? On the
other hand, his statement, “They have acted on their ijtihâd,” shows that he
was not hostile to them. The truth is that the wars and controversies between
them did not stem from inimical feelings, nor were they based on inveterate
bitternesses such as grudge. They were the results of ijtihâd and ta’wîl. There
could have been no place for criticising, let alone cursing, in this business.
If it were a pious act, a worship to vituperate or curse a person, it would
have been one of the requirements of Islam to curse the accursed devil, Abű
Jahl, Abű Lahab, and the other ferocious, unbelievers of Qoureish who hurt,
persecuted and tormented our master the Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ and who perpetrated so many pernicious acts of
turpitude against this true religion. Inasmuch as it is not a commandment to
curse the enemies, how could it be a pious act to curse the friends? Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “If a
person curses the Shaytân (Satan), he (the Satan) will say, ‘I am the accursed already. Your
cursing will not give me any (additional)
harm’. If a person supplicates, “Yâ Rabbî (o my Allah)! Protect me against the Shaytân’, he (the Shaytân) will say, ‘You have broken my back.’ ” This comes to mean that the allegations above are slanders,
calumniations against hadrat Emîr. On the other hand, to say that Mu’âwiya
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ began to curse hadrat Emîr, hadrat Hasan, hadrat Huseyn, and
the others ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum ajma’în’ would mean to slander hadrat Mu’âwiya
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. You say, “Did this event really take place? If it did, why
should it not be normal to curse Mu'âwiya and the others? If it did not happen,
what is the meaning in the book of Tafsîr of Kash-shâf (the book titled Sherh-i-Dîwân-i-kutub-i-tawârih)?” Our answer is: No, it did not take place. According to the
Madh-hab of Ahl as-sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at (the scholars of the Sunni way), it is
not permissible to speak ill of Mu’âwiya ‘radiy- Allâhu anh’. The allegation
(above) is intended to traduce him. In addition, there is not a true report in
this respect. Historians narrate it; yet how can their narration be of
documentary value? Religious principles cannot be based on historians’
statements. In this matter the statements of Imâm-i-a’zam Abű Hanîfa and his
As-hâb
(companions) are to be taken into consideration; not the statements of
historians or the narratives written in Kash-shâf. Neither the Emir’s name nor
Mu’âwiya’s is mentioned in the writings that you say have been derived from
Kash-shâf. Nor is it so much as hinted that those two great personages of Islam
exchanged maledictions. The writings (in the book mentioned) are entirely true.
There is nothing running counter to our knowledge. Why, then, should we search
for an agreeable meaning? Yes, the Khalîfas of Benî Umayya had the Ahl-i-Bayt
cursed throughout the (religious sermons given on the) menbers (in mosques) for
many years. ’Umar bin Abd-ul-Azîz put an end to this practice. May Allâhu ta’âlâ give him plenty of rewards! Yet
Mu’âwiya, one of the Umayyad Khalîfas as he was, is an exempt. Cursing or
vituperating Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ would mean cursing or vituperating a
considerable number of the As-hâb-i-kirâm who joined these controversies and
wars with him, and among them were a few of the Ashara-i-mubash-shara [the ten
people who were given the good news while they were still living that they
would go to Paradise after death]. And speaking ill of these great religious authorities
would in its turn mean rejecting and vitiating the religious information coming
to us from them. No Muslim would see this appropriate or agreeable.
Sir! I will explain to you the two madh-habs in this matter. The
word of the Ahl as-sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at, and the word of others. Some people
speak ill of the three Khalîfas and Muâwiya and those who followed him. They
curse them. They say that after our Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ all the As-hâb became renegades, with a few
exceptions. According to the Madh-hab of Ahl as-sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at, the As-hâb
of our master the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
alâ âlihi wa sallam’ cannot be spoken of but in favourable terms. None of them
is bad or evil. The hadîth-i-sherîf, “He
who loves them, loves them because he loves me. He who is inimical to them, is
so because he is inimical to me,” commands
us to love them all. We should know that the fights and combats between them
were done with good intentions. We must consider and hold them quite far from
the wicked and base desires and the recalcitrance inherent in the human nafs.
Imâm-i-Yahyâ bin Sharaf Nawawî [631-676 (C.E. 1274), in Damascus] states in his
explanation of the hadîths in Muslim that the As-hâb-i-kirâm parted into three groups in the combats
that took place in the time of Imâm-i-Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. The ijtihâd of
one group showed them that the Emîr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was right. It was wâjib
for them to follow the way agreeable with their ijtihâd. So all of them helped
hadrat Emîr. Another group of the As-hâb failed to reach a conclusion in their
ijtihâd. It
was
therefore wâjib for them not to interfere with the matters at all. A third
group, on the other hand, came to the conclusion in their ijtihâd that those
who were opposed to the Emîr were right. So it was wâjib for the owners of this
ijtihâd to support the opposing party. This means to say that each group acted
upon their own ijtihâd. For this reason, it would be wrong to blame any one of
them. However, hadrat Emîr and those who followed him because their ijtihâd
agreed with his had found the truth in their ijtihâd. Those who were opposed to
them were wrong in their ijtihâd. Yet, for their error pertaining to ijtihâd,
they cannot be criticized or blamed. Whereas the erroneous party deserved one
thawâb,[1] the group who
explored the truth deserved ten thawâbs. Imâm-i-Shâfi’î ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’
stated, ‘As Allâhu ta’âlâ has protected us from
getting our hands smeared with their blood, so should we protect our tongues.”
This valuable statement indicates that it would be wrong even to utter the word
‘wrong’ about them and that we should mention even their errors with (respect
and) good will. All this adds up to mean that a person who dislikes Mu’âwiya
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ and curses him cannot be in the group of Ahl-i-sunnat wa
jamâ’at. Now, the Shi’îs will hate him, too. For they hate any person who likes
the three Khalîfas. Therefore this person is neither Sunnî nor Shi’î. He must
have taken up a third way.
If you still have doubts as to the teachings of the
scholars of Ahl as-sunna concerning the disagreements that occurred among the
As-hâb-i-kirâm, you should read dependable books on i’tiqâd (Islamic belief),
which explain all facts one by one and in detail. You should not believe the
incongruous, untenable statements fabricated afterwards. This is the end of the
translation of the thirty-sixth letter. With a view to ending this writing of
ours in beautiful statements, we are writing about the honourable deeds,
praises and virtues of the Ahl-i-Bayt ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’:
The thirty-third âyat of Ahzâb sűra purports, “O the
Ahl-i-Bayt of My Beloved One! Allâhu ta’âlâ wishes
you to be sinless.” Most of the
Mufassirs (scholars skilled in explaining the âyats of Qur’ân al-kerîm) have stated that this âyat-i-kerîma came for
Alî,
---------------------------------
[1] Reward; act, behaviour, belief, or thought for which Allâhu ta’âlâ promises reward in the Hereafter; the reward that will be given.
Fâtima, Hasan, and Huseyn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâanhum’.
Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ stated so, too. There are also those (scholars) who
say that it was revealed for his (the Prophet’s) blessed
wives ‘radiy-Allâhu anhunna’. For the âyat-i-kerîma following
this clearly addresses to his wives. Abű Sa’îd-i-Hudrî, [was thirteen years old
when the Holy War of Uhud was made. He passed away in 64 (Hijrî). His grave is
believed to be in the yard of Qariya Mosque at Ayvansaray, Istanbul], is quoted
as having said as follows in the book Musnad, by Ahmad bin Hanbal [164-241
(C.E. 855), in Baghdâd]: This âyat-i-kerîma came for Rasűlullah, Alî,
Fâtima, Hasan, and Huseyn. These five people are called Ahl-i-abâ,
which means ‘covered with
cloak.’ According to Ahmad bin Muhammad Sa’labî [427 (C.E. 1036), in Nishâpur],
the word ‘Ahl-i-Bayt’ in this âyat-i-kerîma means ‘the Sons of Hâshim’, (or Hâshemites). And the
word ‘rijs’ used in the âyat-i-kerîma means ‘to sin’, ‘to doubt about the principles of
belief’. Then, these people (Hâshemites, or Hâshimites) will never enter Hell.
Sa’d ibni Ebî Waqqâs ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, [one of the Ashara-i-mubash-shara. He
was in his seventeenth year when he became the seventh earliest Muslim. He
joined all the Holy Wars. He was the first archer who threw an arrow. He was a
very good marksman. He was the commander-in-chief of the Islamic army that won
a victory in Qadsiya and erased the magian Iranian State from the pages of
history. 55 (Hijrî), in Medîna], stated: When the sixty-first âyat
ofÂl-i-’Imrân sűra, which purports, “Come; Let us call Our
children and your children”, was revealed, Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ called Alî, Fâtima,
Hasan, and Huseyn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’, and stated, “Yâ
Rabbî! These are my Ahl-i-Bayt.”
Musawwir bin
Mahrama ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, [attained martyrdom
when he was hit by a stone flung by a mangonel as he was performing namâz. 2-
Abű Hurayra ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, [became a Muslim during (the Holy
War) Hayber, and presently joined the Holy War. A very poor man as he was, he
would always keep Rasűlullah
company.
Mu'âwiya appointed him governor of Medîna. He passed away in 59, when he was
seventy-nine years old. In Medîna], relates: I was with the Messenger of Allah,
when Hasan came. He (Rasűlullah) supplicated, “Yâ
Rabbî! I love this (grandson of mine).
(Please), You, too, love him and (love)
also those who love him!” Enes
bin Mâlik, [was in Rasűlullah’s service for ten
years. He lived more than a hundred years], stated, “No one else resembled Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ more than
Hasan did.” And he said at some other time, “Huseyn radiy-Allâhu anh’ resembled
Rasűlullah very much.” Zeyd bin Erqam, [was a
small boy at the time of the Holy War of Uhud. He joined the other seventeen
Holy Wars. 61 (Hijrî), in Kűfa], quotes Rasűlullah
as saying, “I am leaving two things over to you after me. If you
adhere tothese (two things) you
will not leave the (right) way.
One of them is greater than the other. One of them is Qur’ân
al-kerîm, the Holy Book of Allâhu ta’âlâ; it is like a
strong ropeextending from heaven down to earth. The second one is my
Ahl-i-Bayt. These two are inseparable. If a persondissents from them, he will
have abandoned my way.” In another hadîth-i-sherîf narrated again by Zeyd bin Erqam, he (Rasűlullah) states, “To fight Alî, Fâtima,
Hasan and Huseyn, means to fight me. To be in peace with them means to giveup
one’s self to me.” Jemî’ bin ’Umar
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ relates: My (paternal) uncle and I asked Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhâ’ who Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ had loved best. “(He loved) Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ (best),” she
answered. When we asked who the man he had loved best was, she said it was
Fâtima’s husband. Abdullah ibni ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, [Hendek (Trench) was the first Holy War he
joined; he joined all the other Holy Wars. He passed away in Mekka in 73 (H.),
when he was eighty-four years old], quotes Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ as saying, “Hasan and Huseyn are my
fragrant odours in the world”. Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ stated: “The upper part of Hasan’s body and the lower part
of Huseyn’s body resembled those of Rasűlullah’s,
respectively.” Abdullah ibni Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’, [was very profoundly
erudite. He passed away in Tâif in 68 (H.), when he was seventy years old.],
relates: Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ had Hasan on his blessed shoulder. Someone (who saw them) said, “O
Hasan! What a good place you have seated yourself.” Upon this the Messenger of
Allah said, “What a good person is the one on my shoulder!”
According to anarrative reported from Âisha
‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’, [daughter of Abű Bekr
as-Siddîq.
Upon the command of Allâhu ta’âlâ she was
married to our master, Rasűlullah, through nikâh
(marriage contract as prescribed by Islam) when she was six years old, and the
wedding ceremony was held in the first year of Hijrat, when she was nine. She
was praised and lauded (by Allâhu ta’âlâ) in Qur’ân al-kerîm. She was learned, literary, very wise,
and masterly skilled. She reported more than a thousand hadîth-i-sherîfs. She was eighteen years old when Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ passed away.
She passed away in Medîna in 57 (H.), when she was sixty-five years old. She
was Abdullah bin Zubeyr’s maternal aunt]: the As-hâb-i-kirâm would race for
attaining Rasűlullah’s love; for instance, they
would bring him their presents when he was in Âisha’s home. There were two
groups of the (blessed) wives. Hafsa, Safiyya, andSawda were with Âisha. The
second group were Umm-i-Salama and others. This group sent Umm-i-Salama to Rasűlullah with the request, “Please command your
As-hâb that anyone who would like to give you a present should take it to the
home of the wife you happen to be with!” Upon this, Rasűlullah
stated,
“Do
not hurt me about Âisha! Only when I was with her didJebrâil (Gabriel, the Archangel) ‘alaihis-salâm’ visit me.” Sorry about what she had said, Umm-i-Salama made tawba and begged
for forgiveness. But the wives sent Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhunna’ with
the same request. The (Prophet’s) answer was: “O my
daughter! Will you not love whom I love?” When
Fâtima answered, “Of course, I will,” Rasűlullah
said, “Then, love Âisha!” Âisha
‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ related, “Among Rasűlullah’s
wives, Hadîja[1] ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ was the one I envied most
and wished I had been in her place, though I had never seen her. For, dead as
she was, he mentioned her name very frequently. Whenever he killed a sheep and
dealt out the meat, he would make sure that a certain amount (of meat) be
reserved and would send it to Hadîja’s relatives. On one such occasion I said
to him, ‘Why do you mention Hadîja’s name so often as though Allâhu ta’âlâ had given you no other women?’ He
answered, ‘Yes, I did have other women. Yet she was so good,
---------------------------------
[1] Hadîja-t-ul-kubrâ, Rasűlullah’s first blessed wife. Our Prophet did not marry another woman as long as she lived. She was forty years old when she married the Messenger of Allah, who was twenty-five then. She passed away in Mekka, in the blessed month of Ramadân, three years before the Hijrat (the Prophet’s migration to Medîna). It was one year after her passing away that Allâhu ta’âlâ commanded His belovedMessenger to “marry (hadrat) Âisha.”
so..., (He praised Hadîja for a while, and added), and I
had children through her.’ ” Abdullah ibni
Abbâs quoted Rasűlullah as having said, “Abbâs
is from me, and I am from Abbâs.” [Abbâs
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was a slave captured in the (Holy War) Bedr. Later he became
a Muslim. He joined the Holy Wars of Mekka and Hunayn. He was tall,
light-complexioned, and very handsome. He passed away in 32, when he was
eighty-eight years old. He is in Baqî, Medîna]. Another hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Abdullah declares,
“Love Allâhu
ta’âlâ, who sends you plenty of His blessings.As you
love Allâhu ta’âlâ, love me, too. As you love
me,love my Ahl-i-Bayt!” Abű Zer
Ghifârî, [the fifth earliest Muslim. He passed away in Rabda village of Medîna
in 32], quoted Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ as having stated, “Be it
known that my Ahl-i-Bayt among you is like Nűh’s (Noah’s) ‘alaihis-salâm’ Ark. As those
who boarded the Ark (at that
time) attained salvation, so any person who loves my Ahl-i-Bayt (now and on) shall attain salvation. And he
who turns away from them shall end up in destruction.”
This is the end of the book Radd-i-Rawâfid,
by Imâm-i-Rabbânî, mujaddid-i-elf-i-thânî
Ahmad Fârűqî ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’.
Ilâhî![1] For the sake
of Fâtima’s children, Make my last word the Kalima-i-tawhîd![2] Shouldst Thou reject or accept my invocation,
I’ve held on to the skirts of Ahl-i-Bayt-i-Nebî.
Yâ Rabbî (o my Allah)! For the sake of Thine Prophet and
his Ahl-i-Bayt ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’, forgive Imâm-i-Rabbânî Ahmad Fârűqî and
his mother and father! For the sake of the beautiful character of Thine Beloved
one, treat them well and beautifully ‘rahmatullâhi alaihim ajma’în’! Make our
duâ and salâm reach Thine Beloved Prophet and his
Ahl-i-Bayt, and give them khayr and barakat in a manner as Thou likest, as many
times as the number of Thine creatures and as heavy as Thine Arsh. Âmin. May
hamd (praise, laud, and thanks) be to Allâhu ta’âlâ, and may
duâs and salâms be to the ummî Prophet, Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, till the end of the
world!
The book (Radd-i-Rawâfid), by hadrat Imâm-i-Rabbânî Ahmad Fârűqî Serhendî, was
printed in India and Pakistan. Ghulâm Mustafâ Khan, a professor in the
university of
---------------------------------
[1] O my Allah!
[2] The word expressing that Allâhu ta’âlâ exists and is one: Lâ ilâha il-l-Allah.
Haydarâbâd, Pakistan, had it printed in a splendid layout and
published it together with its Urdu translation under the title (Te’yîd-i-Ahl-i-sunnat)
in 1385 [C.E. 1965]. This
edition of the book was reproduced by offset process in Istanbul in 1397 [C.E.
1977]. The book was translated into Arabic by Shâh Waliy-y-ullah Dahlawî, an
Indian scholar, and the translation was printed in India. This Arabic version
was reproduced by offset process in Istanbul and published as an appendix to
the book An-Nâhiya.
No one do I complain to but what I lament over my state;
Trembling like a culprit, as I look into my future state!