May hamd be to Allâhu ta’âlâ, who is
the Rabb of everything, that is, who creates and raises all beings! May
goodnesses and salvations be upon our beloved Prophet, Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’, who has guided us to the right way. May benedictions be over
his close relatives and over his As-hâb, who had the honour of believing in him
and seeing his beautiful and luminous face!
Of all the seventy-two different miscreant groups who
have deviated from the right way in this world, which is a place of examination
for mankind and an open space of ground whereon the good are distinguished from
the bad, haters of the As-hâb-i-kirâm are the most staunch followers of the
devil and the most miserable victims of the deceitful human nafs, so much so
that they have already surpassed the devil in this respect. These people make a
show of excessive love for the close relatives and the children of our Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’, and say that loving them is the greatest
worship. They claim to be adherent to the âyat-i-kerîma that
purports, “I do not demand any return for having brought you the
Islamicreligion. All I want from you is to love my Ahl-i-Bayt, who are close to
me.” Yet the evil cult they
actually adhere to is based on vituperating, cursing Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ As-hâb ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum
ajma’în’, who are Islam’s greatest teachers. Some of them go even further, so
that they censure our master the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ and even Jebrâîl ‘alaihissalâm’, the trustworthy Archangel who carried
the Wahy from Allâhu ta’âlâ. They consider this wicked behaviour of theirs as a
worship.
Leaders of these heretics strive day and night to mislead others,
boasting of their “endeavours to save humanity”. The very clever ones disguise
themselves as hodjas or shaikhs and travel incognito through villages, where
they disseminate their obnoxious, poisonous assertions. The rich ones spend all
their property and money for this goal. In fact, hadrat field marshal Muhammad
Nâmik Pasha [1219-1310], who was aide-de-camp to Sultan Abd-ul-Hamîd Khân II,
Muslims’ Khalîfa and the great Pâdishâh of the Ottoman Turks, [1258 (1842)-1336
(1918), in the graveyard of Sultan Mahmûd],
related
to this faqîr, (’Uthmân Efendi means himself): “During my governorship of
Baghdâd I saw these eccentric miscreants disseminate a hundred thousand books
in a clandestine way in the villages of Iraq. I had the books collected and
thrown into a river. I prevented them from writing and disseminating such
mischievous books.” Despite so many efforts to prevent them, it has not been
quite possible to stop these base-natured people causing turmoil and
misdirecting people. So far, they have not hesitated to sacrifice their property
and lives for this purpose.
[One of the harmful books, and probably the worst,
which these heretics have written with all sorts of lies and are trying to
disseminate far and near, is a pamphlet titled Husniyya.
Originally written in the
Persian language, the book has been translated into Turkish and disseminated in
a surreptitious way in Istanbul and almost all over Anatolia. When a
lithographic copy of the book was obtained and scanned, it was seen that it did
not contain any true writings. It was understood that it was a spurious,
mendacious pamphlet fabricated with preposterous, impracticable illusory ideas.
It is observed with consternation that this writing, circulating among the
Hurûfî fathers in Iran, was printed in Istanbul in 1958 and has been being sold
freely and contaminating, misleading some wretched people happening to read it.
We have seen with gratitude on the other hand that our noble and pure people
avoid buying this pamphlet, so that it does not sell much.
It is an obvious fact that those pure Muslims
belonging to the group of Ahl as-sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at and people with average
mental capacity and a smattering of general knowledge will not believe such
writings; yet falsifications disguised in good, true statements and covered
under ornamented, falsely-adorned writings may confuse the readers. The
introductory section of the so-called book has been decked deceitfully].
According to the Ahl as-sunna, it is necessary to love very much
the Ahl-i-Bayt-i-Nebevî, that is, hadrat Alî and his children ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhum ajma’în’. Loving them will cause one to die in îmân (to die as a
Believer). Books written by the savants of Ahl as-sunna teem with writings
commending their love. The Iranian Jew named Murtadâ, the author of the
so-called book Husniyya, must have known this fact very well; it was shrewd of
him to write in the beginning about his exuberant love for the Ahl-i-Bayt so
that the ignorant people reading these falsely adorned statements should
consider
Islam to consist of loving the Ahl-i-Bayt, which is certainly something
beautiful in itself, and thus take the whole book for granted and,
consequently, deviate from the right way, believing that the book is rightful
in its criticism of the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ and
the scholars of Ahl as-sunna.
The book Tuhfa-i-isnâ Ashariyya, written in the Persian language and printed in India
in order to refute mentally and scientifically the writings in the so-called
book and in other similarly poisonous books, has been translated into Turkish
and printed in order to protect Muslims from falling into such a grave,
bottomless, abysmal disaster with the command of hadrat Sultan Abd-ul-Hamîd
Khân II, our master and Pâdishâh ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’, a protector of the
Islamic religion and a rescuer of Muslims, and this Turkish version is already
being disseminated. Yet we have considered it appropriate to write another
refutation to the book Husniyya, and named this refutation of ours Tezkiya-i-Ahl-i-Bayt.
[The book Tuhfa-i-isnâ ashariyya, in Persian, was
printed in India in 1266 [C.E. 1850]. A copy of the book exists in the library
of Istanbul University. It was written by Ghulâm Halîm Shah Abd-ul-’Azîz
Dahlawî, who passed away in India in 1239 [C.E. 1823]. The book, which tells about Shi’îs, was
printed again in 1309. Abd-ul-’Azîz Dahlawî is the son on Waliyy-ullah Ahmad
bin Abd-ur-Rahîm Dahlawî (1114-1180), the celebrated (Islamic) scholar].
A closer look at the book Husniyya betrays the fact that its
translator was not a Persian but he must have been an Ottoman clerk in Istanbul
who, though being of the Sunni ancestral origin, had wandered away from the
right way. In order to rescue both this person and those young people who might
have had the unlucky chance of reading this book from meeting endless disaster,
we are beginning to write this refutation of ours, trusting ourselves to Allâhu ta’âlâ. This refutation of Tezkiya-i-Ahl-i-Bayt
was printed in Istanbul in 1295 (C.E. 1878). It has been discovered that the
refutation was written by ’Uthmân (Osmân) bin Nâsir Efendi, the Shaikh of
Yenikapý Mevlevîhâne in Istanbul. It is written in Qâmûs-ul-a’lâm
that his father, Nâsir Efendi, passed away
in 1236 (C.E. 1821)].
1- It is related as follows at the beginning of the
book Husniyya: “A merchant,
who was a devoted friend of Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq’s [83-
pretty jâriya[1] named Husniyya. This jâriya stayed with the
Imâm until she reached the age of twenty, learning in the meantime all the
branches of knowledge. After the Imâm’s death the merchant went bankrupt and
wanted to sell the jâriya to Hârûn-ur-Reshîd, the Khalîfa. [Hârûn-ur-Reshîd is
the fifth Abbâsî (Abbasid) Khalîfa. He was born in 148, and passed away in
According to some Madh-habs, it is not permissible
for this jâriya to stay with another man while being in the possession of the
merchant. There are some scholars who say that it is not permissible in Hanafî
Madh-hab, either. It is written in the twohundred and thirty-fifth page of the
fifth volume of Ibni Âbidîn. To say that such a pious personage as
Imâm-i-Ja’fer-i-Sâdiq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, who is well-known for his warâ’[2] and taqwâ,[3] continuously committed a forbidden or (at
least) dubious deed by keeping another man’s young and pretty jâriya in his
service and teaching her for years, means to calumniate that great Imâm. It
might be thought that the Imâm, being a mujtahid himself, might have had the
ijtihâd that such an act would be permissible; but how could we presume that
this great Imâm would have been so indifferent as to acquiesce in a jâriya’s
being deprived of freedom for many years and being put up for sale at the end
of
---------------------------------
[1] Woman slave captured in a Holy War. Muslims treat their slaves and jâriyas as they treat their brothers and sisters.
[2] Wara’ means to abstain from acts, behaviors, words, food, drinks, and all things that are dubious, that is, anything about which one cannot be sure whether it is forbidden or permitted.
[3] Taqwâ means to abstain from all sorts of forbidden acts, behaviours, thoughts, words. (Ibni Âbidîn)
all these years in his service and after attaining such a perfect
level in knowledge and integrity owing to his tutorship? Learning all the
branches of knowledge so much as to beat and rebut all the other religious
scholars and mujtahids is an indication of a profound mental and intellectual
capacity and skill. Therefore, to write that hadrat Imam could not realize the
value of such a dexterous jâriya and did not put an end to her slavery but
acquiesced to her being sold from one person to another, would mean to accuse
that exalted Imâm of atrocity. And this, in its turn, would signify animosity,
let alone love, towards the Ahl-i-Bayt. This allegation in the book Husniyya is
a stupid method no less ludicrous than the humorous anecdote of a man who
“kills his friend inadvertently while trying to kill the fly on his forehead
with a big stone,” which is related in the Mesnevî of Celâl-ed-dîn Rûmî ‘qaddas-Allâhu sirrah-ul-’azîz’.
Furthermore, it is harâm for women to raise their voice so high as to let men
hear them. According to some scholars, they are permitted to (talk to men) in
case of strong necessity, but even in this case they must be careful not to
exceed the prescribed limits, i.e. they must talk in a low and rough tone, and
stop it as soon as the necessity is over. This fact is explained in full detail
in the book Durr-ul-mukhtâr, and also in the two hundred and seventy-second
page of its explanatory commentary. In light of this fact, a woman’s sitting on
a raised platform in front of hundreds of men and talking to them for hours,
while it was possible for them to carry on this debate in a written form, would
raise doubts as to her concept of chastity and decency. Not only that; this
situation would also put hundreds of religious scholars and mujtahids into a
position of sinfullness. No Muslim would believe such nonsense.
2-“Husniyya quoted âyats from Qur’ân al-kerîm and explained them by means of hadîth-i-sherîfs with such competence that the scholars in her
presence were unable to answer her and had to remain silent. This state
exasperated Hârûn-ur-Reshîd. Husniyya’s silencing the scholars of Baghdad
caused far-reaching repercussions in the city for many days.” Ýt says While making this allegation, the book does not say
what the so-called questions that could not be answered were, so that we might
see for ourselves whether they were really so profound and difficult that the
so-called mujtahids were unable to answer. On the other hand, the innumerable
books that still exist today reveal the fact as apparently as the sun that not
only the scholars of Ahl-i-sunnat themselves ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
alaihim ajma’în’ but also every one of the thousands of pupils
educated by them gave various answers to all the slanderous allegations of the
many miscreants, thus inflicting a humiliating defeat on them. Everybody sees
this fact. Obviously these profound scholars, who had educated such superior
disciples and proved their powerful competence by establishing essential
methods and principles for belief and worships and laying the religious
problems on firm, unshakable foundations, could not be expected to have fallen
into such a shameful position by falling short of answering a jâriya’s
questions; a person with common sense could not believe this derogatory
allegation. Another fact known by all groups of Muslims is that there has not
been a scholar superior to mujtahids so far. Nor does any (Islamic) book make
mention of a superior scholar named Ibrâhîm Khâlid of Basra. The Jewish author
of the book Husniyya should have heard of Abû Sawr Ibrâhîm bin Khâlid and
fabricated his story over his name. Yet Abû Sawr was born in Baghdâd, lived in
Baghdâd, and passed away in Baghdâd in 240 (H.). He, let alone having taught
five hundred scholars in Basra, took lessons formerly from Imâm-i-a’zam’s
disciples and later from Imâm-i-Shâfi’î in Baghdâd.
3- The book quotes the jâriya as having said, “The As-hâb-i-kirâm became disbelievers
because they made Abû Bekr their Khalîfa after Rasûlullah’s
death. Therefore the As-hâb deserves being cursed. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated: After me my As-hâb will
quote many hadîths. Most of these hadîths will be false. Do not believe in the
statements of my As-hâb unless they are one of my Ahl-i-Bayt!” Modifying the hadîth-i-sherîf, “After
me my Ummat (Muslims) will
part into seventy-three groups. One of them will attain salvation. The
remaining seventy-two groups will go to Hell. This one group is those who
follow me and my As-hâb,” he (the
author) transforms (the last clause) into “those who follow me and my
Ahl-i-Bayt.” Then the jâriya is made to lapse into the heretical theory called
Mu’tazila with the following assertion:
“The jâriya, in order to prove that Qur’ân al-kerîm is a creature and is not eternal, asked various questions, which
could not be answered by the mujtahids. Upon this, thousands of people who
attended the debates as auditors, Sunnite as they were, spat in the mujtahids’
faces, all the people of Baghdâd applauded the jâriya by clapping their hands.
As the Khalîfa (Hârûn-ur-Reshîd) was listening to the debate, she said that
only the twelve imâms of the Ahl-i-Bayt, and no one else, were rightful to
caliphate and
that the Sunni Muslims would make anyone their Khalîfa sinful and
evil as the person might be, and she cursed the thousands of Sunni Muslims who
were present. When she said before all those people that hadrat Alî and six
other Sahâba had been opposed to hadrat Abû Bekr’s caliphate, that this
disagreement had led to wars, that the number of Alî’s supporters had reached
twenty-two, that all the As-hâb, with the exception of these twenty-two people,
and those who loved them and all the mujtahids and scholars who followed them
and all the Sunni Muslims were disbelievers and even worse than disbelievers,
and that it would be the most valuable worship to curse them, the Khalîfa,
Hârûn-ur-Reshîd, became so jubilant and admired her so much that from time to
time he scattered golds on her.” These fake events are related in a sordid, derisive, extravagant
language in the book.
The hundredth âyat of Tawba sûra purports, “Allâhu
ta’âlâ loves them. And they love Him.” Here, He (Allâhu ta’âlâ) declares that He likes and loves all the
As-hâb-i-kirâm, all the Muhâjirs and Ansârs alike. The sixth âyat of Ahzâb sûra
purports, “His wives are Muslims’ mothers.” Here, He (Allâhu ta’âlâ) praises
and lauds Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ blessed wives
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihima ajma’în’. It is not something a person with
adequate wisdom would do, to resist these âyat-i-kerîmas, to call
these religious superiors disbelievers, and to say that the hadîths reported by
these people are not dependable. Statements such as these could be made only by
the insidious enemies striving to denigrate and demolish the Islamic religion.
The questions, which were actually copied from the
Mu’tazila group and which are alleged to have been asked in order to prove that
Qur’ân al-kerîm is a creature and that men’s actions are not
creatures, have been answered in a most pulchritudinous and indubitable way by
every one of the disciples educated by mujtahids, thousands of valuable books
have been written to this end, and most of them have been translated into
various languages, winning the admiration of the world’s scientists. Therefore,
only idiots can be deceived by alleging in a falsely adorned, circumlocutory
language that the mujtahids could not answer the questions asked by the jâriya.
A person with common sense will see at once that these writings are lies and
vilifications which the enemies of Islam use as weapons in their
behind-the-scenes attacks in order to demolish Islam.
While writing the questions that the Mu’tazila group
posed to
the Ahl as-sunna in order to prove that Qur’ân al-kerîm is a creature and that men’s bad deeds are not created by Allâhu ta’âlâ but men create all their wishes themselves, he withholds, conceals
the express and confuting answers which the scholars of Ahl as-sunna
‘rahmatullâhi alaihim’ gave them. However, these answers of the Ahl as-sunna
are written in detail in our books of Kelâm.
Hârûn-ur-Reshîd was the most learned, the most courageous, and
the most equitable of the Abbâsî Khalîfas. In the presence of such a Khalîfa
and in front of scholars and statesmen a jâriya disparages the Khalîfa by
saying to his face that he is not the rightful Khalîfa and then turning to the
thousands of distinguished people being there and saying to them that they have
made an atrocious sinner their Khalîfa; this is not something the human mind
could accept. And his allegation that these words (of the jâriya’s) made the
Khalîfa laugh and he was so pleased that he scattered golds on the jâriya’s
head, is as ludicrous and as farcical as to arouse one’s puerile feelings of
mockery. His writing that “with these statements of hers the jâriya silenced
the scholars and no one was able to answer her; people being there and all the
Sunnite Muslims of Baghdâd were pleased and they manhandled the mujtahids”,
shows that the mujtahids, the Khalîfa, and all the people being there accepted
the Mu’tazila sect and hated the Madh-hab of Ahl as-sunna. On the other hand,
all books and historical records unanimously state that Hârûn-ur-Reshîd was in
the Madh-hab of Ahl as-sunna throughout his life, that he had very deep respect
for the scholars of Ahl as-sunna, that he would commune with them before going
into any action. There is no written record, not even a sign, to show that the
people of Baghdâd swerved into the Mu’tazila way during his time. Yes, it is
recorded that one or two of the Khalîfas after Hârûn meant to urge the people
to join the Mu’tazila group; yet it is a plain fact that such efforts proved
futile and that all the Iraqis and Iranians maintained their Sunnite guidelines
up until the time of Shah Ismâ’îl. The reappearing of the Shi’ah sect, which
was actually brewed by Shah Ismâ’îl Safawî [born in 892, dead in 930 (C.E.
1524)] as a stratagem to break Muslims into sects and thus to hold his ground
against the Ottoman Empire, was hundreds of years after Hârûn-ur-Reshîd. As it
is seen, Hârûn and the people’s applauding the jâriya is a downright lie
deliberately fabricated for sheer vilification.
4- The jâriya is made to say, “Formerly, the mut’a nikâh was a
common practice. Later it was forbidden by hadrat ’Umar.” However, Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ prohibited the mut’a nikâh on the day when he
conquered Mekka. The mut’a nikâh means an agreement made by a man and a woman
to cohabit for a certain period of time. As any fallen woman, let alone a
highly virtuous one, could not be so shameless as to talk about this matter
amidst thousands of men, it is an abominable slander to allege that a mature,
chaste, young and very pretty woman educated by hadrat Imâm Ja’fer Sâdiq talked
about it so frankly. [There is detailed information on the prohibition of the
Mut’a Nikâh in the (Turkish) book Eshâb-ý Kirâm, and also in the fifth part of this book].
5- The jâriya is supposed to say, “Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ ordered his As-hâb on the night of his migration
to Medîna from Mekka that no one should leave his home. Disobeying this order
of Rasûlullah’s, Abû Bakr as-Siddîq went out his home
and followed the Messenger of Allah. Rasûlullah
did not want him to follow, and was thinking of telling him to go back, when
Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ (the Archangel Gabriel) came and warned Rasûlullah, saying that Abû Bekr meant mischief and might betray him (Rasûlullah) to the disbelievers of Qoureish should he be made to go back.
The fortieth âyat of Tawba sûra, which purports, ‘Don’t be afraid! Allah is
with us,” shows that Abû Bekr was a disbeliever.” [May Allâhu
ta’âlâ protect us against saying so!]
On the contrary, according to the unaminous report of history
books, day by day the unbelievers of Qoureish augmented their animosity against
our master, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’, and the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’, and eventually laid siege
to them. During this three years’ siege some Sahâbîs migrated to
Medîna-i-munawwara and some to Abyssinia. For example, as ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ [martyred in Medîna in 35 (H.), when he was eighty-two years old], who was
the compiler of Qur’ân al-kerîm, and his blessed
wife hadrat Ruqayya [passed way in Medîna in the second year of Hijrat] were
leaving for Abyssinia, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ saw them and said to them, “Of Prophets ‘alaihimu-s-salâm’, Lût ‘alaihis-salâm’ was first
to migrate together with his wife. And among my As-hâb youare the first to
migrate with your wife. Allâhu ta’âlâ shall
make you a companion to Lût ‘alaihis-salâm’ in Jennet (Paradise).” Ruqayya
‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ was Rasûlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ second daughter. Thus there was no one left in
Mekka-i-mukarrama’ with
the
exception of hadrat Abû Bekr and hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’. Abû Bekr
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ asked several times for permission to migrate. Yet he was
not given the permission (by the Messenger of Allah, who said), “You
will migrate with me.” So he began to wait
for Allâhu ta’âlâ’s permission to migrate.
Meanwhile, upon the suggestion advanced by Abû Jahl, the chief of Qoureish and
the notorious enemy of Islam, they decided to kill the Messenger of Allah. [The
real name of Abû Jahl is Amr bin Hishâm bin Mughîra. He belongs to the Benî
Mahzûm tribe of Qoureish. He is a descendant of Mahzûm bin Yaqnata bin Murra. Qoureish
is the name of Fihr, Rasûlullah’s eleventh
father. Murra is Rasûlullah’s seventh father.
Abû Jahl was killed in the Holy War of Badr in the second year of Hijrat]. Lest
the murderer should be identified, they selected twelve vagrants, one from each
tribe, and besieged Rasûlullah’s home on the
night between Wednesday and Thursday. They were about to attack, for killing Rasûlullah, when Allâhu ta’âlâ
ordered him to migrate. He made hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ to lie in
his blessed bed and left home before sunrise, reciting the eighth âyat-i-kerîma of Yâsin sûra and walking by the
unbelievers, who did not see Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ leave his house and walk by. Staying at some so
far undiscovered place till noon, he went to Abû Bekr as-Siddîq’s place at
noontime. He ordered Abû Bekr’s son Abdullah [joined many Holy Wars; passed
away in the eleventh year] to walk amongst the unbelievers every day and take
the information he would find and also some food and drink to a certain cave
every night. That night he and Abû Bekr Siddîq left the latter’s house and went
to a cave in the mountain called Sawr. In the mountain Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ put his blessed head on Abû Bekr’s knee and fell
asleep. Lest a poisonous animal come out of one of the holes in the cave and
hurt the Messenger of Allah, Abû Bekr as-Siddîq doffed the shirt he was
wearing, tore it to pieces, and packed each piece into a whole. There being one
piece too few, one of the holes was left unplugged. A snake appeared in this
hole, holding its head out. To prevent the snake from going out and hurting Rasûlullah, Abû Bekr Siddîq put his blessed foot on
the hole. The snake bit his blessed foot, yet he would not draw his foot back.
However, the pain caused by the biting brought tears into his blessed eyes and
when they fell on Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ blessed luminous face, the best of mankind woke up. Seeing
what had happened, he put his blessed
spittle
on the bitten place. It stopped the pain at once. After spending three nights
in the cave, they left there on the first Monday of the month of Rabî’ul-awwal,
setting out for Medîna on camels and using the coastal route, which was
shorter. When they reached the place called Qudayd, they came across a tent,
wherein lived a woman. They asked the woman if she had something (to eat) for
them to buy. She said she had nothing to eat but a skinny, milkless ewe. The
Messenger of Allah asked for her permission to milk it. He rubbed his blessed
hand gently on the sheep’s back, said the Besmele,[1] and began to
milk it. Very much milk came out, so that all the people being there drank
plenty of it and they filled all the containers she had. When the woman’s
husband came and was told about this miracle, he and his wife became Muslims.
All books give this same account about the Hijrat
(Hegira). Since there was no one left in Mekka city except Abû Bekr and Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’, the allegation that “Rasûlullah ordered his
As-hâb not to leave their homes” proves to be an open falsification. Abû
Bekr-i-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was two years younger than Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’. When they were young they were
very close, loving friends. This mutual love between them lasted increasingly
as long as they lived. They were always together, day and night. When Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ travelled to Damascus and honoured
the place with his blessed presence twice, he accompanied him. To disignore all
this love, attachment and self sacrifice and assert that Rasûlullah did not trust him, is a very evident lie, an abominable slander.
He says that Rasûlullah did not tell Abû Bekr that he was going to migrate.
The unbelievers who had besieged the house did not perceive Rasûlullah’s leaving the house. If Abû Bekr sensed this and followed the
Messenger of Allah, this must be a sign of kashf (seeing, understanding,
perceiving, sensing through one’s heart) and kerâmat (miracle happening on
Awliyâ, i.e. people loved very much by Allâhu ta’âlâ).
Accordingly, would it be logical to state that a person with kashf and kerâmet
would betray Rasûlullah? Supposing he would betray him, then did not he have
the opportunity to betray him to
---------------------------------
[1] The word ‘Bi-s-m-illâh-ir-rahmân-ir-rahîm,’ which means, briefly, ‘In the name of Allah, (who is very) merciful, compassionate.’ Every Muslim should utter this word before doing anything unless it is something sinful.
the unbelievers when they came to the mouth of the cave (wherein Rasûlullah and hadrat Abû Bekr were hiding) on Friday and saw the spider's
web completely covering the mouth of the cave and gave up entering the cave
saying, “It seems as if no man has entered here since the creation of the
earth”? Would he miss this chance?
To distort the meaning of the âyat-i-kerîma that purports, “Don’t worry! Allâhu
ta’âlâ is with us,” and to attempt very sordidly to use it as a ground for condemning
Abû Bekr Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’, is the most disgusting way of ignorance and
emnity towards Islam. It is not worth answering at all.
6-“Husniyya
talked with Ibrâhim Khâlid for a long time. She asked him questions on subtle
matters. Like the other mujtahids, he could not answer any of her questions.
Placed in a quandary, he asked Husniyya who was rightful to the caliphate. When
Husniyya replied that the caliphate rightfully belonged to the earliest Muslim,
he asked who was the earliest
Muslim, to which Husniyya answered, ‘Hadrat Alî was.’
When he objected to this answer, saying, ‘Hadrat Alî was a child when he became
a Muslim. Since a child’s becoming a Muslim is not important in this sense, the
earliest Muslim was Abû Bekr Siddîq,’ Husniyya recited the âyat-i-kerîmas telling about Hadrat Îsâ (Jesus) and
Mûsâ (Moses) and Ibrâhîm (Abraham), said that those (Prophets) had become
Muslims in their childhood, and vituperated Ibrâhîm Khâlid and the scholars of
Ahl as-sunna. Hadrat Imâm-i-Shâfi’î, who was present there, asked the Khalîfa
to punish the jâriya. The Khalîfa just shelved the notion, ordering that she
must be beaten through knowledge.”
On the contrary, the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Every
child comes tothe world in a nature well fitted for becoming a Muslim. Later
their parents turn them into Jews or Christians oratheists,” is widely known among the Sunnite Muslims, so that
everyone has heard it. While there is this hadîth-i-sherîf, to
believe the assertion that Ibrâhim Khâlid or any other man of religion said,
“Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ was a child when he became a Muslim. So his
being a Muslim cannot be taken into consideration,” and that hundreds of
scholars who heard this eccentric statement accepted it and remained mum, would
be as droll as believing a person who calls white ‘black’, which would even
make children laugh. The assertion betrays the fact that it has been written by
an Iranian Jew.
7- The jâriya is alleged to have confuted the
scholars by saying,
“Though it was hadrat Alî’s right to become the Khalîfa, the three
Khalîfas divested him of his right by using force. Selmân Fârisî and five to
six other Sahabîs remained with hadrat Alî and would not vote for the three
Khalîfas. They struggled against those cruel people for twenty-five years. For
this reason, the three Khalîfas and the ten people [who had been given the good news that they would
enter Paradise] and
thousands of Sahabîs who voted for them became disbelievers [may Allâhu
ta’âlâ protect us from saying so].” Then she, so to speak, uttered ugly, rude terms about the
superior men of Islam.
In an effort to make a show of excessive love for hadrat Alî, the
Hurûfîs mix caliphate into the matter. Thus in this matter also they go beyond
the Islamic limits and sink into heretical thoughts. When due attention is
paid, it will be seen that they think of caliphate, which is in fact a
commandment of Islam, as a means for worldly pomp. Having read about the
historical stratagems and intrigues carried on and the murders perpetrated by
fathers and sons against one another in their endeavours for sovereignty and
presidency, they compare Rasûlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ four Khalîfas to them. Histories give a detailed
account of how the four Khalîfas served humanity. And this is the real import of
caliphate.
One day during the caliphate of our master Abû Bekr Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, hadrat ’Umar saw him carrying a sack of flour on his back, and asked him why he was doing so. His answer was: “Yâ ’Umar! Don’t I have to earn for my household?” Hadrat ’Umar, admire as he did this answer of the Khalîfa’s, was surprised at the same time. He proposed that Rasûlullah’s Khalîfa should be paid a salary from the Bayt-ul-mâl, that is, from the State budget, so that he could carry out his duty of serving all people in due manner. This proposal was accepted by all the As-hâb-i-kirâm, and it was decided that the Khalîfa would be allotted the necessary share from the Bayt-ul-mâl. Hadrat Abû Bekr would take from this share only so much as to lead a life equal to that of any average person, returning any extra amount, if there was any. So was the case with the second Khalîfa, ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. When the Islamic armies conquered the blessed city of Jerusalem and its vicinity, the European States sent forth a very knowledgeable and experienced ambassador to Jerusalem. After an audience with the Khalîfa, he went back home with the following report, though his requests had been refused: “He is such a Pâdishâh (king) that, with all his high knowledge and awe-
inspiring appearance, he does not have a palace or ornamented
attirements. I paid attention to his clothes. There were eighten patches on
them. It is impossible to stand against such an unadorned hero who is always
ready for war.” This fact is recorded in the unbiased ones of the records of
European histories. The book Mesnevî, which is composed of more than forty-seven thousand
distichs, by Celâl-ed-dîn Rûmî [born in Belh city in the hijrî year 604 and
passed away in Konya in 672 (C.E. 1273)], has been translated into all the world’s popular
languages. The book gives the following information: The ambassador sent forth
by the Byzantine Emperor arrives in Medina and asks where the Khalîfa’s palace
is. Shown a cottage, he makes for it, enters the yard, and there he sees the
Khalîfa, lying on dry land using a piece of stone as a cushion. Hadrat ’Umar
Fârûq ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ wakes up and looks at the ambassador, who
begins to shudder at the feeling of dread and the verve inspired by this first
look. Then he recovers, talks with the Khalîfa, and leaves. As he leaves, the
Khalîfa’s blessed wife gives the ambassador a present, which she has prepared
by borrowing eighteen dirhams of silver coins from an acquaintance and which
she asks him to take to the emperor’s wife. In return, the emperor’s wife sends
her a very valuable gift ornamented with precious jewels. The Khalîfa, who has
never done injustice in anything he has done, gives his wife only an eighteen
dirham worth silver piece, sending the remainder to the Bayt-ul-mâl.
’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ would eat all his meals from
an earthenware bowl. One day the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’ begged the
Khalîfa’s daughter hadrat Hafsa and sent her to the Khalîfa with he request, “O
my father, the Emîr of Believers! Hadrat Abû Bekr, the first Khalîfa, struggled
with the munâfiqs until his death, so much so that he did not even have time
for relief. Now you have conquered innumerous lands in the east and west.
Ambassadors from the world’s universal emperors come to you and are fed in your
generous kitchen. Mightn’t you as well give up those earthenware bowls and use
sets of copper or other metal in the presence of these visitors?” This, of
course, was the Sahâba’s suggestion. Hadrat Khalîfa’s answer to this was, “O my
daughter Hafsâ ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’! I would chide anyone else for this
statement. As I have heard from you, our master Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ had a mattress stuffed with grasses. Seeing that
his blessed body was not comfortable on this bed, one night you laid out a soft
bed and made Rasûlullah lie
and sleep on it, thus depriving him of getting up and praying that
night (because the new bed was too comfortable for him to wake up for his
regular midnight prayers). He expressed his regrets to you, remonstrating, ‘Do
not do so again!’ The second
âyat of Fat-h sûra purports, ‘In order to cover your past
and future faults... .’ This
being the style of life led by a Prophet who has
been given the good news that he shall be pardoned and forgiven, can a poor
’Umar, who is not sure about his future, leave the way of life led by Rasûlullah and lead a luxurious life by eating from copper plates?”
In daytime ’Umar Fârûq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was busy in
Medina conducting his armies in Asia and supplying and dispatching their needs,
and he would spend the whole night patrolling the city for protecting the
Muslims’ property, lives, and chastity. As he was out on his patrol one night, he
heard a voice crying. He went there and asked why. A poor woman said, “I have
no one to subsist me. It has been two days since I came here. My children have
been crying of hunger for two days. I made a fire, so that I have been making
them sleep by putting only water in the pot and telling them that I am making
them food!” The Khalîfa felt so sorry that he began to weep. Saying, “ ’Umar
has been ruined! ’Umar has perished,” he condemned himself, and left. He had
some meat with him when he came back. As he was blowing the fire to make it
burn faster, his blessed beard caught fire. These events are not tales. They
are true events recorded in history books. Today, some people watch the
fabricated films produced by film makers and call the Islamic histories mithologies,
myths, and stories.
So was the case with hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, the fourth
Islamic Khalîfa. As he was passing away, the worldly property he had was no
more than the mule named Duldul, which was a keepsake from the Messenger of
Allah, his sword called Zulfikâr, and his blessed shirt. And these things had
been pawned to a Jew. Likewise, Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, who was the final Prophet and the master of worlds, left behind a
bedstead made of teak timber, a shirt, and a set of clothing. He would give the
milk he obtained from twenty camels, one hundred sheep and seven goats to the
poor ones of the As-hâb-i-kirâm. He did not even have a house of his own. All
the four Khalîfas lived like Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’. They never deviated from the way led by him.
All four of them accepted the caliphate as it was Islam’s commandment, in a
fashion like shouldering a burden, and
because
the Ummat (Muslims) wished them to be their Khalîfa and elected them on a
unanimous vote. For it was declared as follows in the hadîth-i-sherîfs
of our master Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wa sallam’: “The votes of my Umma will not come together
onaberration.” “Whatever Believers find beautiful is beautiful to Allâhu
ta’âlâ.” To assert that the four Khalîfas
seized the office of caliphate by using force, when it is a fact that they were
elected by the Ummat, is a very grave oddity and a detestable defamation. The
following event shows plainly that hadrat Abû Bekr Siddîq was not at all eager
for caliphate: Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ would give some disbelievers worldly goods from the Bayt-ul-mâl in
order to appease them and to conciliate them with Muslims. Those disbelievers
who were given such goods were called ‘Muellefa-i-qulûb’. When Abû Bekr Siddîq
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ became Khalîfa, he gave one of the muellefa-i-qulûb a piece
of land from the Bayt-ul-mâl. This person, sensing the vast popularity ’Umar
had been enjoying among the As-hâb-i-kirâm and expecting him to be the next Khalîfa,
took the title deed he had been given to ’Umar and asked him to undersign it.
Upon seeing the title deed, hadrat ’Umar took it and went with it to the
Khalîfa to ask him how come the person had been given land from the Bayt-ul-mâl. When the Khalîfa explained
that the muellefa-i-qulûb had been given land from the Bayt-ul-mâl in Rasûlullah’s time, too, hadrat ’Umar stated, “It was
because Muslims were not powerful enough yet. Now we are not weak, and
therefore that necessity does not exist any longer. Even if it were still
necessary, the decision to execute it could be made only after communing with
six or seven of the As-hâb-i-kirâm.” The Khalîfa found this statement well put
and said, “Yâ ’Umar! When I was elected Khalîfa, I said I was not fit for the
office and suggested that you would be a better choice. But the As-hâb-i-kirâm
would not listen to me. It has been seen once again on this occasion that you
are superior to me. I want to resign from caliphate. And I request that you
accept this service.” ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ replied in due respect that he
was not superior at all, that he did not think of becoming the Khalîfa, and
that his purpose was to remind (the Khalîfa) of what he (’Umar) thought would
be right. Thereupon hadrat Khalîfa commanded that from then on nothing should
be put into practice without a foregoing consultation in matters pertaining to
the Bayt-ul-mâl.
During the caliphate of ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, several Sahabîs
came to him with the request that he make a will to
advise
that after him Abdullah bin ’Umar should be made Khalîfa on the grounds that he
was, they thought, the second most deeply learned scholar among the
As-hâb-i-kirâm, and that “Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ loved him very much.” ’Umar’s ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’
answer to them was: “Being a Khalîfa is a heavy burden. I cannot put my son
under it.” ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was
martyred with a sword by a disbeliever named Abû Lu’lu, who was the slave of
the Sahabî Mugîra, in the twenty-third year of the Hegira. When he received the
fatal wound, he was asked to appoint a Khalîfa (to take his place). He
nominated six Sahabîs as candidates because these six people, he said, “gained Rasûlullah’s love more than anyone else did.” The six
Sahabîs he named were ’Uthmân (Osmân), Alî, Talha, Zubeyr, Abd-ur-rahmân bin
Awf, and Sa’d ibni Ebî Waqqâs ‘ridwân-ullâhi alaihim ajma’în’. Among
themselves, these people elected ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ the Khalîfa. Thus
’Uthmân bin Affân was the third Khalîfa. In his time insurrections and
seditions provoked by munâfiqs broke out here and there. When a group of
ignorant and ignoble people advanced towards the city and finally reached
Medîna, some Sahâbis advised the Khalîfa to resign. Replying that “Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ informed me
that I shall attain martyrdom while reading Qur’ân
al-kerîm,” he proved to have the merits of compliance with the fate
(foreordained by Allâhu ta’âlâ) and patience in
times of disasters. In the thirty-fifth year of the Hijrat, some wicked people
attacked the Khalîfa’s house. When Imâm-i-Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ heard the news
of this assault, he sent his two sons, Hasan and Huseyn, like two lions to the
Khalîfa’s house to help and protect the Khalîfa. These two youngsters drew
their swords and stood by the front door, so that not even a bird would fly in
unseen. Yet five or six of the abject bandits entered the house through a back
window by means of a ladder; and the Khalîfa was martyred as had been divined
by the Messenger of Allah. When Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ heard about this
deplorable news, he was so mad at his two sons for failing to protect the
Khalîfa that he scolded them harshly and even nearly hit them with his blessed
hand. However, he forgave them afterwards when it was found out they had done
their duty of protection perfectly and could not be blamed because the bandits
had entered the house from the back.
The jewish ook alleges, “Upon this tragedy, the As-hâb-i-kirâm
assembled and unanimously elected hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ Khalîfa.” Most
of the As-hâb-i-kirâm, including such
-117-
notables
as Talha and Zubeyr, asked the (new) Khalîfa to arrest the murderers and punish
them as prescribed by Islam. Hadrat Alî answered them that the situation was so
chaotic that it would be impossible to find the murderers, that another mutiny
might occur in case he tried to investigate, and that he could perform this
commandment of Islam after the re-establishment of public order. They protested
this answer, saying that a Khalîfa who would not execute Islam’s commandment
was not to be obeyed. Imâm-i-Alî’s ijtihâd was correct. On the other hand, the
opposing party had to act upon their own ijtihâd. And the Khalîfa, in his turn,
had to use force to subjugate the people disobeying him. Eventually the Jemel
event, i.e. the war called ‘Camel’ took place, which cost a great deal of
Muslim bloodshed. In the meantime, hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’ was off
in Damascus, where he had been appointed as governor. He therefore did not join
the event of Jemel. Nor would he let any Damascene blood to be shed on account
of this event. When hadrat Alî, the victor (of the battle of Camel), asked the
Damascene people also to obey him, hadrat Mu’âwiya followed his own ijtihâd and
asked him to arrest and punish the murderers; and this in its turn led to
another war, i.e. the combat called Siffîn.
As it is seen, none of the four Khalîfas, and in fact
none of the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’ thought of worldly advantages
in the caliphate elections; they all endeavoured to execute the commandment of Allâhu ta’âlâ. The four Khalîfas never thought of their own comfort, struggling
day and night for serving Islam and Muslims and accepting the duty as a sine qua non which someone would have to undertake for Allah’s sake.
Hurûfîs compare the caliphate institution to a
kingdom, to sovereignty. And because they think so, they say that hadrat Alî
was opposed to the caliphate of the other three Khalîfas and therefore fought
against them incessantly for twenty-five years. They presume that he vied for
presidency for years and nursed a grudge and hostility against the
As-hâb-i-kirâm because they were against his caliphate. They allege that
“therefore the three Khalîfas and thousands of Sahâbîs who voted for them are
to be cursed till the end of the world.” In an effort to prove themselves to be
right, they fabricate preternatural stories which are neither Islamic, nor
logical, nor worthy of hadrat Alî’s honourable renown.
8- The jâriya is made to say, “When
Abû Bekr Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ became the Khalîfa, he confiscated the date
orchard belonging to hadrat Fâtimat-uz-zehrâ by force, and herefore
hadrat
Fâtimâ, offended, harboured a grudge against Abû Bekr till her death. In fact,
before her death she made a will that she should be intered at night lest Abû
Bekr and ’Umar should attend her funeral.”
The so-called orchard contained only a few trees.
Supposing it were as vast and as lush as a jungle; what an ill-favored slander
and how sound a sleep of nescience it is to assert that Fâtimat-uz-zehrâ
‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’, Rasûlullah’s daughter, the most honourable of all women, the Betûl,
called so because she would not
even turn to look at worldly property, would bear hostility to the three
Khalîfas, who had been given the good news by her father that they would enter
Paradise, and would even curse them and advise other Muslims to do so, on
account of something worldly. [May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect
us from saying or believing so!] This slander, which would bring discredit on
hadrat Alî and hadrat Fâtimâ’s universal high distinction, is perhaps a sign of
hostility, let alone love, towards them.
The huge book Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ (A History of Prophets), written by Ahmed Cevdet Paþa
of Lofja ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’, who was born in 1238, and passed away in
Istanbul in 1312 [C.E. 1894] and was buried in the graveyard to the
south of the blessed mosque of Fâtih, was printed in Istanbul in 1331. The
following information is given in its three hundred and sixty-ninth (369) page: “Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ devoted his date orchard named Fedek in Hayber to the pious foundation and dictated how it was to be
utilized. He advised in his will that income from the orchard should be given
to foreign ambassadors, to visitors, guests and travellers. Abû Bekr
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ implemented this will during his caliphate. When Fâtima
‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ asked for it as (she thought it was) a share for her from
the inheritance (her father had left behind), he said: I heard the Messenger of
Allah say, ‘No one can inherit (property)
from us [Prophets].
Whatever we leave behind us is alms.’ I can
never change something established by Rasûlullah.
Otherwise, I fear I may deviate into an erroneous way. When hadrat Fâtima
wanted to know who his (hadrat Abû Bekr’s) inheritors were, he replied: My wife
and children are. Then she asked: Why am I not my father’s inheritor, then? The
Khalîfa’s answer was: I heard your father, the Messenger of Allah say, ‘No
one can be our inheritors.’ Therefore
you cannot be his inheritor. However, I am his Khalîfa. Whoever he used to give
when he was alive, I shall give. It is my
duty to
give you whatever you need, provide aid in your matters, and serve you. Upon
this hadrat Fâtima was quiet and never talked about inheritance again.” This is
the end of the passage from Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ.
The number of the Sunnî Muslims living on the earth
has always been many times that of those people without a Madh-hab in every
century. Hurûfîs curse the Ahl as-sunna, who are much more numerous than
themselves, and call them disbelievers. If the Ahl as-sunna Muslims respond to
their bold and unfair inculpation in kind and say that they are heretics, the
party whose number is overwhelmingly in the ascendant is more likely to be
right.
Furthermore, it is thoroughly contradictory to Qur’ân al-kerîm to say that hadrat Alî was inimical towards the three Khalîfas
‘radiy-Allâhu anhum ajma’în’ or that hadrat Fâtima cursed the As-hâb-i-kirâm on
accont of an orchard. The second âyat-i-kerîma of Mâida
sûra purports, “Allâhu ta’âlâ calls His born slaves to help
one another in birr and taqwâ and to get on well with one another. Do not help
in sinning or enmity.” If the
Ashâb-i-kirâm did not love one another, if Muslims cursed one another and
called one another disbelievers, this would be a sinful state, which is quite
contrary to birr and taqwâ. And this in turn would mean to say that hadrat Alî
and hadrat Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ disobeyed the âyat-i-kerîma. Saying, on the other hand, that these people “did not know that
by opposing to hadrat Abû Bekr’s caliphate and bearing hostility towards the
As-hâb-i-kirâm they would cause Muslims coming after them to call one another
disbelievers, which in turn would lead to a convention quite counter to the âyat-i-kerîma. If they had known, they would have given up this behaviour,”
would mean to deny their superiority and their ability in kashf and kerâmat.
Sayyed Abd-ul-qâdir Gheylanî [born in 471, and passed away in
Baghdâd in 561 (C.E. 1166)], who was one of the descendants of hadrat Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ and at the same time one of the greatest Awliyâ, gives the
following information in his book Ghunyat-ut-tâlibîn: “According to the Shiites, caliphate is the exclusive right of
the twelve imâms. These people are impeccable. They never commit sins. Kashf
and kerâmet can be seen only on them. They know about verything that has
happened and everything that will happen.” On the other hand, it would be
contradictory with this belief to say that hadrat Alî, who (they allege) knew
everything down to the number of sand grains, did
not
know that his not voting for hadrat Abû Bekr would cause millions of Muslims to
deviate from the right way.
We have already explained in our brief account of
hadrat ’Umar’s ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ caliphate that caliphate is a heavy burden.
Now, which would be wiser for a Muslim to do; to feel sorry because the other
Muslims did not elect him and to bear hostility against them for this reason,
or to be happy because he was not given a heavy burden? In addition, if he
knows that his hostility will cause mischief and instigation among Muslims till
the end of the world, he will necessarily support the Khalîfa by voting for him
willingly.
The hundred and eighty-fifth âyat of Âl-i-’Imrân sûra
and the twentieth âyat of Hadîd sûra purport, “Worldly life consists
ofonly such things as will delude the human beings.” The thirty-second âyat of En’âm sûra purports, “Worldly
life comprises amusement and trifling. For those who fearAllah, life in the
Hereafter is more beneficial. Why don’t you realize that this is so?” The twenty-eighth âyat of Enfâl sûra and the
fifteenth âyat of Teghâbun sûra purport, “Be it known that you have
been given property and children only toassay you. Allâhu
ta’âlâ shall give you very grand reward inreturn for your
goodnesses.” The
thirty-eighth âyat of Tawba sûra purports, “Do you like life in
this world better than theHereafter? Profits gained in this worldly life are
much fewerthan those in the Hereafter.” The forty-sixth âyat of Kehf sûra purports, “Property
and offspring are the ornaments of worldly life. The thawâbs (that are given) for the good deeds and
which are eternal are better in the opinion of thineRabb (Allah).” Some sixty-six other similar âyat-i-kerîmas dissuade from setting the heart on worldly property and worldly
position. Innumerous hadîth-i-sherîfs have been expressed to emphasize this importation.
For instance, it is declared in a hadîth-i-qudsî, “O you
the son of Âdam! You have spentyour life storing worldly goods. You have never
desired Paradise.” Certainly,
hadrat Alî, who was the entrance to the town of knowledge, and Fâtimât
uz-zehrâ, who was the highest of women, ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’, knew these âyat-i-kerîmas better than anyone else did. Could we ever expect these people
to have been sorry about worldly positions or to quarrel over worldly property
such as a date orchard?
Question:
Their sorrows or quarrels did
not originate from their fondness for the world. Seeing that hadrat Abû Bekr
and ’Umar had committed a sin by seizing caliphate by force, they
tried to rescue them from this sinful position.
Answer:
The hundred and sixty-fourth
âyat of En’âm sûra and the fifteenth âyat of Isrâ sûra purport, “No
sinner will also have the responsibility for someone else’s sin.” Supposing, [though impossible], hadrat Abû Bekr and
hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’ and most of Rasûlullah’s
‘alaihis-salâm’ Sahâba somehow committed a sin, this sin would not have any
effect on hadrat Alî according to this âyat-i-kerîma, and it
would still not be necessary for him to fight on account of it. Then, would it
ever be possible for him to commence a fight that would cause hundreds of
millions of people to be burned eternally in Hell?
This faqîr, [that is, ’Uthmân Efendi ‘rahima-hullahu ta’âlâ],
asked one of the Shi’î scholars, “Hadrat Fâtima’s ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ being
offended with the As-hâb-i-kirâm for not giving her the date orchard would mean
fondness for the world, which in turn would be something impermissible.” He
replied,“Her being offended did not originate from fondness for the world. It
was because she did not like a wicked deed.” With this evasive answer he
blemished Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ daughter, who was as clean as pure water. For something done in a
manner compatible with Islam would sound wicked only to the nafs-i-ammâra. I
remembered this fact and made the following explanation. He was so stupefied that
he could say nothing. My explanation was: Everyone reading history knows this
event: In a Holy War Imâm-i-Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ threw an unbeliever down to
the ground and was about to deal him the fatal blow, when his desperate
opponent spat all the foul contents in his mouth out into his face. His face
dirtied all over, the imâm gave up killing the unbeliever. The unbeliever, who
was already out of his mind, was bewildered all the more. “Why did you give
up,” he asked. “Are you afraid?” Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ let the
unbeliever go, saying, “I was going to kill you with the commandment of Allâhu ta’âlâ because you would not become a Muslim.
But now my nafs is your enemy because of the foul act you have done. If I kill you now, I will have done
so to do the wish of my nafs. Thus my killing you will earn me sinfulness
instead of thawâb.” Upon hearing these statements, the unbeliever admired the
superiority of the Islamic religion on which Imâm-i-Alî’s conscience was based
and uttered the word kalima-i-shahâdat with all his heart, thus becoming a
Muslim willingly. The two people, who were mortal enemies a few minutes
earlier, were now brothers hugging each other.
Ibrâhîm bin Ad-ham ‘rahima hullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of
the greatest Awliyâ, was born in Belh in 96, and passed away in Damascus in 162
[C.E. 779]. Formerly he was the Pâdishâh (emperor) of Belh. He left his throne
and came to Mekka-i-mukarrama. He made a living carrying firewood on his back.
He fought against his nafs till his death.
Fâtih Sultan Muhammad Khan (Mehmed the Conqueror)
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’, the seventh Ottoman Pâdishâh, was born in the
hijri year 833. He conquered Istanbul from the Byzantines in 857 [C.E. 1453],
thus ushering in a new era. He passed away in 886. His father, Sultân Murâd
Khân II, the sixth Ottoman Pâdishâh, was born in 806, and passed away in 855 [C.E. 1451]. He was buried in Bursa. He became the
Pâdishâh in
Since it is a fact as manifest as daylight that
hadrad Alî and Fâtimat uz-zehrâ were no lower than the emperors mentioned above
in realizing the fruitlessness of the world and in struggling against the nafs,
it would be virtually impossible for a Muslim to say that these people mourned,
let alone harbour a grudge, on account of worldly property or rank. There is no
doubt as to that these calumniations were produced by a hypocritical Jew named
Abdullah bin Saba’. In the time of hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ this Jew left the Yemen for Egypt, and thence to Medîna,
where he settled under the pretence of a new Muslim and did Islam such
irreparable harm as others have not been able to do so far.
The hundred and thirty-third âyat of Âl-i-’Imrân sûra purports, “Run
for asking for forgiveness from thine Rabb (Allah)
and for entering Paradise. Work for this end! Paradise is as large
as heavens and earth. Paradise has been prepared forthose who fear Allâhu
ta’âlâ. These people will give their property in the way shown by Allah,
regardless of whether they have little or much. They will not let others sense
their anger. They will forgive everyone. Allâhu ta’âlâ loves
thosewho are kind and generous.” The
tenth âyat of Hujurât sûra purports, “Believers are brothers to one
another. Make peace among your brothers!” In
about thirty other similar âyat-i-kerîmas
Believers are commanded not to become angry with one another, to be kind and
generous to one another, and to forgive one another. It is declared in a hadîth-i-sherîf,
“Allâhu
ta’âlâ will have mercy on those
who
have mercy onone another. He is merciful. Be merciful on those that are on the
earth so that angels in heaven be merciful on you.”
Some fifty other similar hadîth-i-sherîfs command overcoming one’s wrath and being kind and generous and
teach our duties as human beings.
Consequently, if hadrat Alî and Fâtimat uz-zehrâ
‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ had been indignant about a worldly rank or a few date trees
and had borne hostility against the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ throughout their lives instead of forgiving them,
they would have disobeyed these âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs. Could this be at all possible? Such allegations would blemish
their high honour.
In order to protect these two beloved ones of Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ against any probable
disfigurement, the ’Ulamâ of Ahl as-sunna ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’
have avoided making such absurd statements about them and specially advised to
love them by stating that “Loving these superior people will cause one to die
in îmân (as a Believer).” Whose love for these superior people is true; that
which is claimed by the Shi’îs or the one recommended by the Ahl as-sunna?
Anyone with reason and logic will easily see the distinction.
It is a universally known fact that hadrat Muhammad’s
‘alaihis-salâm’ Ummat are brothers and love one another very much. For
instance, one day Abdullah ibni ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ entered Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ blessed
presence. The Messenger of Allah praised and lauded him highly by uttering this
hadîth-i-sherîf: “On
the JudgementDay every person will be given his berât, i.e. warrant for hissalvation,
after all his deeds have been measured. Abdullah has already been given his
berât (when he is) in the
world yet.” When he was asked the
reason for this, he (Rasûlullah) said, “He
not only has wara’ and taqwâ, but also expressesthe following supplication
whenever he prays: ‘Yâ Rabbî! Make my body so big on the Judgement Day that I
will suffice to fill up Hell. Thus the promise You have made tofill up Hell
with human beings will be fulfilled and none ofhadrat Muhammad’s
‘alaihis-salâm’ Ummat will burn in Hell.’ He has shown by this invocation that
he loves his brothers in Islam more than himself.” It is written in the book Menâqib-i-chihâr yâr-i-ghuzîn that Abû Bekr as-siddîq also would make an identical invocation
in his prayers. It is beyond doubt that hadrat Alî’s love for Muslims was
several times stronger than
that which was fostered by Abdullah Ibni ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ anhum’. It would be impossible for him to have shown a dislike which
would have caused eternal Hell fire to millions of Muslims only because he had
not been made Khalîfa.
The following event is written in the book Kimyâ-i-sa’âdat,
by Imâm-i-Ghâzâlî, as well as in
other books: During the Holy War of Tebuk a group of Sahâbîs were seriously
wounded and were craving for water. Another Muslim came with a glass of water
and offered it to one of them. The thirsty Sahâbî would not take it and
suggested to give it to one of his Muslim brothers whom he had heard asking for
water. The water was thus passed from one Sahâbî to another and they all
attained martyrdom before having time to drink it. Such was the extent of love
that Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ Sahâba
‘ridwânullâhi alaihim ajma’în’ had for one another. Could it ever be supposed
that Imâm-i-Alî who risked his own life in all the Holy Wars, and Fâtimat
uz-zehrâ ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’, the beloved daughter of the Messenger of Allah,
disliked the three Khalîfas and most of the As-hâb-i-kirâm? Such an allegation
would be an accusation of a wicked and atrocious act prohibited by âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs, rather than an expression of admiration and
praise. As these people were extremely pure and free from such atrocious and
wicked deeds, it is quite obvious that assertions of this sort are lies and
slanders fabricated by the enemies of Islam. For those who would like more
detailed information, we recommend that they read part five, which is titled O My
Brother; If You Wish To Die in Îmân, You Should Love the Ahl-i-Bayt and the
As-hâb.
9- The jâriya is alleged to say, “At the death of our master, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’, as hadrat Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu
wejheh’ was busy with funeral preparations, Abû Bekr as-Siddîq and ’Umar Fârûq ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhumâ’ and five to six of the Ansâr gathered under the bower belonging to the
sons of Sakîfa and began to share the caliphate among themselves. At the end
hadrat ’Umar held hadrat Abû Bekr’s hand and said, ‘You shall be the Khalîfa.
The other people being there agreed. Then hadrat ’Umar, with his sword drawn,
roamed around the streets of Medîna for three days, forcing anyone he came
across to agree to Abû Bekr’s caliphate. The second day hadrat Alî came to the
place of meeting and said, ‘Among you, I am the most knowledgeable, the most
superior, and the bravest. How can you have the right to deprive me of
caliphate?’ Making other statements such as these, he insisted on his right,
persuading
twenty people to follow him. Later he
argeed to Abû Bekr’s caliphate, though unwillingly.”
The truth, however, is this: When the Messenger of Allah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ passed away, all the Sahâba were so deeply
grieved that they were at a loss as to what to do. The disastrous affliction
descended so heavily, so painfully on them that some of them became tongue-tied
while some others felt so weak that they could not even stand up to go out. The
fire of bereavement burned hadrat Alî, too, so he did not know what to do.
Hadrat ’Umar was so confused that he took his sword and walked about in the
streets, saying, “I shall behead anyone who says that the Messenger of Allah is
dead.” Malevolent munâfiqs, on the other hand, attempted to exploit this
perturbation. Seeing this tumult, Abû Bekr as-Siddîq entered the mosque,
mounted the minbar, and made the following speech: “O the Sahâba of the
Messenger of Allah! We worship Allâhu ta’âlâ. He
is always alive. He will never die. He will never cease to exist. The thirtieth
âyat of Zumer sûra purports, ‘O my beloved Prophet!One
day you shall certainly die. And certainly they, too, shall die.’ As is declared by Allâhu ta’âlâ, our
master, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’, has passed away.” Making effective statements of this sort, he advised
them. This speech eliminated the confused state among the As-hâb-i-kirâm and
made them to come to themselves. In fact, hadrat ’Umar, who was among the
audience, said upon hearing the above-mentioned âyat-i-kerîma
from Abû Bekr as-Siddîq, “I had thoroughly forgotten this âyat-i-kerîma, so much so that I thought it was a new
revelation.” Hadrat Abû Bekr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ was wise to
the hypocrites’ plan to stir up a tumult and thus to elect the Khalîfa from
among themselves and, leaving the job of making preparations for the funeral,
he made for the place where the As-hâb-i-kirâm were discussing the problem of
caliphate election. At the end of the discussion all the people present voted
for hadrat Abû Bekr’s caliphate. On the second Tuesday after Rasûlullah’s passing away hadrat Alî went to the
mosque and paid homage to hadrat Abû Bekr. Thus hadrat Abû Bekr was made
Khalîfa by a unanimous vote.
Allâhu ta’âlâ
disapproves and prohibits vanity and arrogance in all the heavenly books He has
sent to His born slaves. For instance, the twenty-third âyat of Nahl sûra of Qur’ân al-kerîm purports, “Allâhu
ta’âlâ will absolutely not like the conceited!” According to a Biblical verse, on the other hand, the Apostles
asked Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’: O the Prophet of
Allah! Who among us is the greatest and who is the smallest? In response to
this question of theirs Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “The
greatest one among you is the smallest; and the smallest one is the greatest.” By this he meant, “He who thinks too much of himself is a mean
person, and a modest person is a noble one.” In addition, Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’, the final and the highest Prophet,
criticises presumptuous people and praises modest ones in quite a number of his
hadîth-i-sherîfs. For instance, he states in a hadîth-i-sherîf, “If a person
condescends for Allah’s sake, that is, if he does notconsider himself superior
to Muslims, Allâhu ta’âlâ willheighten
him.” Scholars of Ahl as-sunna state that Allâhu ta’âlâ has endowed His born slaves with a
particle from each of His Attributes such as knowledge and power. Yet three of
His attributes are peculiar to Him alone. He has not given any share from these
three Attributes of His to any of His creatures. These three Attributes are
Kibriyâ, being Ghanî, and Creating. Kibriyâ means greatness, superiority. Being
Ghanî means not to need others and to be needed by all others. On the contrary,
He has given His born slaves three lowly, mean attributes. These are zul and
inkisâr, that is, being low and humiliated, being needy, and being fânî, that
is, ceasing to exist. Consequently, to be arrogant means to infringe on the
Attribute (of Greatness) which belongs to Allâhu ta’âlâ
by rights. Arrogance does not become born slaves. It is the gravest sin.
It is declared in a hadîth-i-qudsî, “Azamat (Pride) and Kibriyâ (Greatness)
belong tome. I shall very bitterly torment those who wish to
sharethese two Attributes with Me.” It is
for this reason that Islamic scholars and outstanding men of Tasawwuf have
always advised Muslims to be modest. Muslims will not be selfish. Allâhu ta’âlâ dislikes selfish people. Hadrat
Abd-ul-qâdîr-i-Gheylânî ‘quddisa sirruh’, one of the greatest Awliyâ and an
outstanding leader of Tasawwuf, was born in the Gheylân city of Iran in 471,
and passed away in Baghdâd in 561 [C.E. 1166]. One day he, Sayyed Ahmad Rifâî
and a number of his disciples were sitting by the Tigris River. As they talked
he displayed such karâmats (miracles) as bewildered the audience. When one of
them, entirely dazed with admiration, inadvertently let slip a laudatory
remark, hadrat Abd-ul-qâdîr-i-Gheylânî humiliated his self and woke the others
from oblivion with the following modest reply: “I do not presume there could be
a Muslim on earth lower than I am.” Hadrat Ahmad Rifâî was born in a village
named (Umm-i-Ubayda), somewhere between
Basra and Wâsit, in 512, and passed away there in 578 [1183]. As
is seen, arrogance, conceitedness is a wicked quality. Modesty, on the other
hand, is good and beautiful. All Prophets were modest in eveything they did.
And certainly so were all the As-hâb-i-kirâm. Their commending one another in
the caliphate election and offering the office to one another shows that they
were extremely modest. This being the case, it would have been vanity and
arrogance for hadrat Alî to have challenged the Muslims by saying, “Is there
anyone better learned, nobler and braver than I am?” to the As-hâb-i-kirâm. It
would have been a behaviour reminiscent of the Iblîs (Devil), who boasted and
claimed to be better than He. As such statements would not have been compatible
with that great and noble person, hadrat Alî, it is quite obvious that they are
lies, aspersions fabricated and cast aganist Allah’s Lion. Another absurdity is
the statement alleging that hadrat ’Umar, in order to make sure that Abû Bekr
become Khalîfa, drew his sword and intimidated, forced the As-hâb-i-kirâm. For
the tribes called Benî Hâshim and Benî Umayya, to which hadrat Alî was related, were the most powerful tribes
among the As-hâb-i-kirâm. Abû Bekr as-Siddîq and ’Umar ul-Fârûq had few
relations. It would have been impossible for hadrat ’Umar to draw his sword and compel these two tribes to make
a choice agreeable to him. Furthermore, hadrat Alî was the Lion of Allah. It
runs counter to logic to suppose that the As-hâb-i-kirâm chose Abû Bekr instead
of him merely because a single person,
i.e. ’Umar, forced them to do so.
I heard the following story from one of the scholars
of Kirkuk: I somehow went to the Iranian territory. I entered one of their
mosques. A scholar was preaching there. During the preach he said, “ One day
hadrat Alî visited hadrat Abbâs in his home. He saw him weeping and asked him
why. He said, ‘I nailed a few pieces of board above my front door for
protection against the sun. ’Umar the Khalîfa had them pulled down on the
pretext that they might harm passers by. I cannot stand this insult.’
Exasperated, hadrat Alî unsheathed his sword called Zulfikâr and ran out, looking
for ’Umar the Khalîfa for revenge. However ’Umar was informed with the danger
just in time to save his life.” At this point one of his disciples asked for
permission and said, “If hadrat Alî was the person to draw his sword against
the Khalîfa for a wooden curtain and frighten him into running away, why didn’t
he draw his sword as Abû Bekr was elected Khalîfa and frighten away those who
voted for him? If he had drawn his
sword and walked over them, the Ummat-i-Muhammad
(Muslims) would not have been broken into groups because of this and so many
Muslims would not have deviated from the right way.” Confused, the preacher
vacillated for a while as to how to answer this. Then he began to shout, “This
man’s become an unbeliever. Beat him, kill him!” The helpless man was lucky
enough to be merely thrown out of the mosque. So, these people are not only
audacious enough to tell the open lie that hadrat ’Umar drew his sword and
forced the As-hâb-i-kirâm to vote for hadrat Abû Bekr’s caliphate, but they also
have the face to allege that hadrat Alî drew a sword against hadrat ’Umar.
The events that took place among the As-hâb-i-kirâm on the day
when our master Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wa sallam’ honoured the Hereafter with his presence are related in a mixture of
very base and abhorrent slanders by some people. We therefore considered it
appropriate to borrow from the book Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ the following passage which narrates our master Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ passing
away and the events that the As-hâb-i-kirâm experienced in the aftermath:
It was the twenty-seventh day of the (Arabic) month Safer in the
eleventh year of the Hegira when our master Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ began to suffer a headache. He honoured the room
of his blessed wife hadrat Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ with his presence. He sent
for Abd-ur-rahmân bin Ebî Bekr, told him he was going to dictate a written will
recommending Abu Bekr as-Siddîq for the office of caliphate after him, and
commanded him to bring an ink-well and a pen. As Abd-ur-rahmân was to leave for
the performance of the commandment, he (the blessed Prophet)
said, “You will do it later. Let it wait now!” Then he honoured the Mesjîd-i-sherîf with his blessed presence.
The As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’ heard the news and gathered together in
the Mesjîd. Fakhr-i-’âlam ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ mounted the minber,
gave advice to his Sahâba, and asked them to forgive him if he had ever hurt them
inadvertently. Then he commended Abû Bekr as-Siddîq for his superiority and
high value among the As-hâb and said that he liked him very much. A few days
later his illness became more severe. The Ansâr-i-kirâm, i.e. the native people
of Medina, were extremely grieved. They began to walk around the
Mesjîd-i-sherîf like the wings of a propeller. Fadl the son of hadrat Abbâs and
hadrat Alî the son of Abû Tâlib informed Rasûlullah
about this state. The compassionate Prophet took
the pains of walking to the Mesjîd-i-sherîf with the help of these two people,
each of them supporting him under one arm. The As-hâb-i-kirâm gathered together
in the Mesjîd. The blessed Last Prophet mounted
the menber. After making hamd-u-thenâ (thank, praise and laud) of Allâhu ta’âlâ, he turned to the Ansâr and declared; “O my
As-hâb! I have heard that you are worried about my death. Did any Prophetremain
with his ummat eternally, so that you expect me toremain with you till
eternity? Be it known that I am going toattain my Rabb (Allah). I advise you to respect the notables of
Muhâjirs.” Then he stated, “O
Muhâjirs! My advice to youis this: Do good to the Ansâr! They were good to you.
They granted you asylum in their homes. Although they had difficulty in making
their living, they held you prior to themselves. They shared their property
with you. If any oneof you takes command over them, let him take care of them
and forgive them their faults.” Then he
gave them some beautiful, effective advice and stated, “Allâhu
ta’âlâ has granted a born slave of His the choice between staying inthis world
and attaining his Rabb (Allah). The
born slave has preferred to attain his Rabb.” This statement of his showed that he was going to pass away soon.
Abû Bekr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ knew what this statement meant and began
to weep, saying, “May our lives be sacrificed for your sake, o the Messenger of
Allah!” Rasûl-i-ekrem ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ ordered him that he must
be patient and enduring. Tears were falling from his blessed eyes. He declared,
“O my As-hâb! I am pleased with Abû Bekr, whosacrificed his
property faithfully and with ikhlâs for the sake of Dîn-i-Islâm. Were it
possible to acquire a friend onone’s way to the next world, I would choose
him.” Then he ordered that those Sahâbîs
whose doors opened into the Mesjîd-i-sherîf should close their doors, with the
exception of Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. Then, out of kindness he made the
following speech:
“O
Muhâjirs and o Ansâr! When the time for somethingis known, it would be of no
use hurrying for it. Allâhu ta’âlâ does
not hurry about any of His born slaves. If a personattempts to change the qadhâ
and qader of Allâhu ta’âlâ and
overpower His Will, He will subdue him with His Wrath and ruin him. If a person
tries to trick and deceive Allâhuta’âlâ, he will deceive himself and lose
control of his own matters. Be it known that I am clement and merciful towards
you. You will attain the blessing of meeting meagain. The place you will meet
me is by the pond (called)
Kawthar.
He who wishes to enter Paradise and attain the blessing of being with me there,
should not talk idly. O Muslims! Disbelief and wrongdoing will cause change
inthe blessings and decrease in one’s subsistence. If peopleobey the
commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ, their
presidents, commanders, governors will be merciful and benigntowards them. If
they are wicked, indecent, inordinate andsinful, they will not attain merciful
presidents. As my lifehas been useful to you, so my death will bring you
goodand compassion. If I beat or insulted any one of you unjustly, I am ready
for him to revenge by treating me in kind; or if I seized anyone’s property
unjustly, let him come forward and take it back; I am ready to pay back. For
worldly punishment is far less vehement than that whichwill be inflicted in the
Hereafter. It is easier to endure.” He
dismounted the menber. After performing the namâz he mounted the menber again,
made his will, and gave some more advice. Finally he stated, “I
entrust you to Allâhu ta’âlâ,” and honoured
his room with his blessed presence. During his illness, whenever the Adhân
(Ezân) was called he went out to the Mesjîd and performed the namâz in jamâ’at,
he himself being the imâm. Three days before his passing away his illness
became more serious. He could no longer go out to the Mesjîd. So he ordered, “Tell
Abû Bekr to (take my place as the
imâm and) conduct the namâz of my As-hâb!” Throughout Rasûlullah’s lifetime
Abu Bekr as-Siddîq assumed the duty of imâm and conducted the namâz seventeen
times. He ordered hadrat Alî to carry on the funeral services. He had received
a few golds before his illness. He gave some of them to the poor, and the
remaining few to hadrat Âishâ ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’. On the tenth day, Saturday,
of Rebî’ul-awwal, Allâhu ta’âlâ sent him Jebrâil
(Gabriel) ‘alaihis-salâm’ to ask him how he was. The following day, Sunday, the
angel visited him again, asked him how he was and gave him the good news that
Aswad-i-Anasî the liar, who had been claiming to be a Prophet
in the Yemen, had been killed. And Rasûl-i-ekrem, in his turn, gave the good
news to his As-hâb. On Sunday Rasûlullah’s
illness became heavier. Hadrat Usâma, who had been appointed Army Commander by
the Messenger of Allah, arrived. Rasûlullah was
lying in his bed, subconscious. He did not say anything to Usâma. However, he
raised his blessed arms and rubbed them gently on him. This meant that he asked
a blessing on him. On Monday the As-hâb-i-kirâm were performing the morning
prayer in lines behind hadrat Abû Bekr as-Siddîq in the Mesjîd-i-sherîf, when
hadrat Fakhr-i-’âlam came to
the Mesjîd-i-sherîf. He saw his Ummat (Muslims) worshipping in
lines. He was pleased and smiled. He, too, adapted himself to hadrat Abû Bekr
and performed the namâz behind him. When the As-hâb-i-kirâm saw Rasûlullah in the Mesjîd they thought he had recovered
from his illness and rejoiced. Rasûl-i-ekrem ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’honoured hadrat Âisha’s room with his presence and went to bed. “I
want to enter the presence of Allâhu ta’âlâ withoutleaving
any worldly property behind myself. Give the golds you have to the poor, all of
them!” Then his fever increased. After a
while he opened his eyes again and asked hadrat Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhâ
wa an Ebîhâ’ if she had dispensed the golds. She said she would. He ordered her
again and again to distribute them immediately. When they were all dealt out
immediately he stated, “I have relaxed now.”
Usâma ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ came back. The Messenger of
Allah said, “May Allâhu ta’âlâ help
you! Go out for war.” So
Usâma went out to his army and immediately gave the order to move.
At that hour the illness became worse. He sent for
his blessed and very much beloved daughter Fâtima-tuz-Zehrâ. He said something
into her ear. Hadrat Fâtima wept. He said something again. This time she
smiled. It was found out afterwards that the first thing he had said was: “I am
going to die.” This had
made her cry. Then, when he had said, “Of myAhl-i-Bayt, you will be
the first one to join me (in the
Hereafter),” she had
rejoiced at the good news and smiled.
In the afternoon the same day Jebrâil ‘alaihis-salâm’
and Azrâil ‘alaihis-salâm’ (Angel of Death) came to the door together. Jebrâil
‘alaihis-salâm’ entered. He said that Azrâil ‘alaihis-salâm’ was at the door
awaiting permission to enter. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ gave permission.
Azrâil ‘alaihis-salâm’ entered, greeted, and informed with the command of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Rasûl-i-ekrem ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ looked at Jebrâil’s
‘alaihis-salâm’ face. The Archangel said, “O the Messenger of Allah! The Mala-i
a’lâ is awaiting you.” Upon this Fakhr-i-’âlam ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’
stated, “O Azrâil! Come and perform your duty!” So the Angel took Muhammad’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ blessed
soul and transported it to the A’lâ-yi illiyyîn.
When signs of death were seen on Rasûl-i-ekrem, hadrat
Umm-i-Eymen ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ sent a message to his son Usâma. Upon receiving
this sad news, Usâma and ’Umar Fârûq and Abû Ubayda left the army and came back
to the Mesjîd-i-Nabawî. When Âisha-i-Siddîqa and the other women began to
weep, the Sahâbîs in the Mesjîd-i-sherîf were astonished,
confounded, and paralyzed. Hadrat Alî was motionless as if he were dead. Hadrat
’Uthmân was left speechless. Hadrat Abû Bekr was in his home at that moment.
When he arrived at the place, running, he entered the Hujra-i-sa’âdat. Opened
the face of Fakhr-i-’âlam, and saw that the Prophet
had passed away. The blessed face and all the limbs of the Messenger of Allah
were elegant, clean, and luminous like a halo. He kissed him, saying, “O the
Messenger of Allah! You are so beautiful, dead or living!” He wept bitterly. He
put the cover back on the Prophet’s blessed
face. He consoled the people in the house. He went to the Mesjîd-i-sherîf. He
advised the dumbfounded Sahâba and restored everything back to normal. Thus all
of them believed that Rasûlallah was dead. In the meantime, the army under
Usâma’s command entered the city. Hadrat Burayda-t-ibni Hasîb set up the flag he
was holding in his hand. Pain and sorrow, like a poisonous dagger, pierced the
hearts of the Sahâba. Their eyes were weeping, their tears were cascading, and
their hearts were grieved with the woe of separation.
Hadrat Abbâs, his son Fadl, hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum’, and the people in the house began in tears to make
preparations for the funeral. Hadrat Abû Bekr stood by the door, weeping,
lamenting, and helping with the services. Lamenting and moaning, however, would
not serve the purpose; a president, a Khalîfa was requisite for the management
of Muslims’ affairs and the performance of Islam’s commandments. At that time
Abû Bekr as-Siddîq was the most suitable person for this task.
Hadrat Abbâs and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ were
closer to Rasûlullah. Yet Fakhr-i-’âlam ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’
had held Abû Bekr, his companion in the cave, higher than all the other Sahâba.
During his illness, on the day he had made his farewell speech to his Sahâba,
he had said that Abû Bekr had been the person he had been pleased with most. He
had closed all the doors opening into the Mesjîd-i-sherîf and permitted only
Abû Bekr’s door to be left open. Three days before his passing away he had
appointed him Imâm for his As-hâb, thus granting him a position ahead of all
the others in the performance of namâz, which is Islam’s basic pillar. All
these facts denoted that Abû Bekr was to be made Khalîfa. What remained to be
done was for the As-hâb-i-kirâm to come together and elect him.
On the other hand, some of the Ansâr attempted to elect a Khalîfa
from among themselves. They gathered under Benî
Saîda’s brushwood shelter. Sa’d bin Ubâda ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, the
leader of Hazraj tribe, was there, unwell as he was. He said to the Ansâr:
“O Ansâr! No other tribe has the superior qualities
you possess. Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ called his tribe to Islam for thirteen
years in Mekka. Very few of them believed him. And the few who believed him
were not numerous enough to make Jihâd. When Allâhu ta’âlâ conferred
on you the honour of becoming Muslims, he blessed you with the fortune of
protecting His Messenger and his As-hâb and consolidating and promulgating the
Islamic religion by making Jihâd. You were the people who subdued the enemies.
It was the fear of your swords that convinced the peasants of Arabia to become
Muslims. Rasûl-i-ekrem was pleased with you when he passed away. It is your
right to preside now. Do not give this right to someone else.” Most of the
Ansâr being there said, “You are right. May Allah help you. We elect you
Khalîfa.”
The Aws (Evs) tribe of the Ansâr did not like this.
They gathered around Usayyad bin Hudayr, their chief.
The Muhâjirs, on the other hand, would not have
elected the Khalîfa from among either of the two tribes of the Ansâr. For the
Qoureish tribe was the highest and the most honourable of all the tribes of
Arabia. A great controversy was imminent among the Muslims.
It was at this very critical and dangerous time that
Abû Bekr and ’Umar and Abû Ubayda arrived at the place like the miraculous life
saver, hadrat Hidir. At that moment one of the Ansâr had stood up and was
saying, “We helped Rasûlullah. We gave asylum to the Muhâjirs. The Khalîfa must be
one of us.”
On the contrary, Rasûl-i-ekrem ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ would have Abû Bekr on his right hand side and ’Umar on his left
everywhere. And he would say about Abû Ubayda, “He is
the trustworthy one of this Ummat.” ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum.’ When all three of them suddenly appeared on
the scene, it was as if Rasûl-i-ekrem resurrected and came to the place.
Everyone was silent, waiting eagerly to hear what they were about to say.
Hadrat Abû Bekr said:
“This Ummat used to worship idols formerly. Allâhu ta’âlâ sent them a Messenger so that they
should worship Him. Unbelievers found it difficult to abandon the religion of
their forefathers. Allâhu ta’âlâ blessed the
Muhâjirs with the honour of
becoming Believers. They became Rasûlullah’s
companions and fellow-sufferers. They patiently shared with him the
persecutions inflicted by the enemies of religion. They are the earth’s first
worshippers of Haqq (Allah) and Believers of His Messenger. For this reason,
the Khalîfa will have to be from among them. No one can be their partner in
this respect. It would only take cruelty to try to deprive them of this right.
O Ansâr! Your services to Islam could not be denied, either. Allâhu ta’âlâ chose you as helpers to His religion
and Prophet. He sent His Rasûl (Messenger) to
you. After the people who had the honour of being the first Muhâjirs, no one is
more valuable than you are. You embraced the Messenger of Allah. The honour of
boasting about having helped him belongs to you. No one would dispute this. Yet
all the people of Arabia wish that the Khalîfa be from among the Qoureish. They
do not want to see someone else as the Khalîfa. For everyone knows that the
Qoureish are the highest of the Arabs with respect to genealogy and virtue. And
their land is in the middle of Arabia. Let us be the commanders, and you will
be our viziers, counsellors. Nothing will be done without taking your counsel.”
Then hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ said, “O Ansâr! Rasûlullah entrusted
you to us during his illness. He would have entrusted us to you if you were to
occupy the commanding position.”
Being at a loss as to what to say, the Ansâr-i-kirâm
began to think deeply. One of them, namely Hubâb bin Munzir, stood up and
suggested, “Let us have one Emîr from among us and one from you.” Hadrat ’Umar’s
answer was: “There cannot be two Emîrs at the same time. The Arabs will not
accept or obey the Khalîfa unless he belongs to the same tribe as Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ did.” Hubâb protested, “O Ansâr!
The Arabs accepted this religion through your swords. Do not let anyone seize
your right!”
Ubayda-tabnil-Jerrâh ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ warned, “O
Ansâr! You are the people who served this religion in the beginning. Be careful
lest you should be its first spoilers, too.” Upon these statements, one of the
Ansâr, namely Beshîr bin Sa’d bin Nu’mân bin Kâ’b bin Hazraj ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’
of the Hazraj tribe stood up and said:
“O Muslims! Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ belongs to the Qoureish
tribe. It would be more appropriate for the Khalîfa to be from among them, too.
It would be correct. Yes, we were
earlier to become Muslims. We had the honour of serving Islam
with our property and lives. Yet we did all these because we love Allah and His
Messenger ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’. We do not expect any worldly
recompense for this service of ours.” Hubâb questioned, “O Beshîr! Are you
jealous of your paternal first cousin?”
Beshîr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’
replied, “I swear by the name of Allah that I am not. I only do not want anyone
to infringe on the rights of the Qoureish.”
At that moment hadrat Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’
said, “I nominate these two people for you. Choose one of them,” pointing to
’Umar and Ubayda. Both of them drew back and said, “Who could stand before a
person whom hadrat Prophet placed before others?” Voices were raised. Everyone
began to talk his way.
Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ began to talk.
Turning towards hadrat Abû Bekr, he said, “Rasûl-i-ekrem made you his Khalîfa
in the namâz which is Islam’s archstone. He placed you before all of us. Hold
out your hand! I have chosen you Khalîfa.” Ubayda was about to hold out his
hand to choose Abû Bekr, too, when Beshîr sprang forward, held Abû Bekr’s hand,
and paid homage to him before the others did. “You are our new Khalîfa,” he
said. ’Umar and Abû Ubayda paid homage, too. All the members of the Aws tribe,
headed by their chief Usayyad bin Hudayr, came and paid homage. Upon seeing
them, the Hazraj tribe paid homage, too.
If Abû Bekr, ’Umar and Abû Ubayda ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhum’ had not arrived on time, Sa’d bin Ubâda would have been paid homage,
which in turn would have given way to hostilities between the two tribes Aws
and Hazraj. The Qoureish tribe, on the other hand, would have been thoroughly
against this and the Muslims would have been broken to factions. Abû Bekr
as-Siddîq prevented this great danger. Owing to his being elected Khalîfa,
Islam weathered a crisis which would have let to its fracturing.
Hadrat Beshîr bin Sa’d, who had a major role in this
service, joined the Holy Wars of Aqaba II, Bedr, Uhud and all the others and
fought heroically. He attained martyrdom in the Yemâma Holy War in the twelfth
year of the Hijrat.
After being elected Khalîfa on Monday, hadrat Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ went to the Mesjîd-i-sherîf on Tuesday and convened the Sahâba there. He mounted the minber, made hamd-
u-thenâ (thanking, praising and lauding Allâhu ta’âlâ), and made this speech: “O Muslims! I have become your governor
and president. Yet I am not the best among you. If I do good, help me. If I do
something wrong, show me the right way! Rectitude is trustworthiness. Lying is
treachery. Someone who is weak among you is very valuable for me. I will save
his right. And someone who depends on his power is weak to me. For I shall take
others’ rights back from him. Inshâ-Allâhu ta’âlâ, let none
of you neglect Jihâd. Those who cease from Jihâd will become despicable. Obey
me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. If I disobey Allah and His
Messenger and deviate from the right way, you will no longer have to obey me.
Get up, let us perform namâz! May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless
you all with goodnesses!”
Then they completed their duty pertaining to Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ funeral. Until evening they
entered the room in groups and all of them, men, women, children and slaves
alike, performed the namâz (prescribed for the funeral) without forming
jamâ’ats, (that is, each of them performed the namâz individually). It was in
the darkness of Wednesday night that they buried the blessed Prophet in the
same room.
The following account is given in the four hundred and tenth page
of Qisâs-i-enbiyâ: As long
as Rasûlullah lived, the Wahy was revealed to
him and thus the Ummat (Muslims) were informed (with the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ). Revelation of the Wahy was out of the
question after him. Yet most of the Sahâba had committed Qur’ân al-kerîm to their memories. And the matters
that are not explained openly in Qur’ân al-kerîm
were being observed in accordance with the Sunnat-i-seniyya, that is, the
records containing Rasûlullah’s utterances and
actions as well as actions which he did not prohibit though he saw others do
them. However, the Sunnat-i-seniyya and hadîth-i-sherîfs
were not in the memories of all the Sahâba. For some of them were busy with
buying and selling at market places, some worked looking after their date
orchards, and others were peasants working on farms. They therefore had not had
time to attend all the Sohbats (of the Messenger of Allah). Those who had
attended a Sohbat would tell what they had heard to the ones who had missed it.
Thus a person would learn the hadîth-i-sherîfs
he had not heard by asking those who had heard them. In fact, it took them a
lot of thinking to decide where to bury the Messenger of Allah. Following a hadîth-i-sherîf narrated by Abû Bekr as-Siddîq, they
buried him at the place where he had passed away.
Likewise, they had to make painstaking inquiries about how they
should deal out the property he had left among his inheritors. It was Abû Bekr
as-Siddîq, again, who quoted the hadîth-i-sherîf,
“Prophets do not leave an inheritance behind them.” So they acted accordingly.
Âisha-i-Siddîqa ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’, the mother of
Muslims, stated: “When Rasûl-i-ekrem ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallâm’ passed
away, the hypocrites rose in rebellion. The Arabs became renegades, that is,
they abandoned Islam. The Ansâr held themselves aloof. The disasters that
befell my father would have crushed mountains had they befallen them. The case
as this was, whereever there was a disagreement, my father would be there to
solve it and reconcile the people concerned.”
When the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ were confronted with something they did not know
how to do, (they would look the matter up in the Sunnat-i-seniyya,) and if they
did not find a solution in the Sunnat-i-seniyya, either, they would (decide how
to) do it through a method called re’y (finding) and qiyâs (comparison), that
is, by comparing it with other matters they knew how to do. This paved the way
to ijtihâd. If the ijtihâds of the As-hâb-i-kirâm or other mujtahids agree on a
matter, there will be no doubt left pertaining to that matter. This concurrence
of ijtihâds was called Ijmâ-i-ummat. Making ijtihâd requires having profound knowledge.
Scholars who possess this deep knowledge (and are therefore capable of making
ijtihâd) are called Mujtahid. If the ijtihâds made by mujtahids do not agree with one another,
it becomes wâjib for each mujtahid to act upon his own ijtihâd.
The caliphate election was a matter of ijtihâd, too. There were hadîth-i-sherîfs denoting that Abû Bekr, ’Umar,
’Uthmân and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’ would become Khalîfa. Yet the time for any
of them was not stated clearly. Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ did not say, “Appoint so and so Khalîfa after
me.” He left this job over to the As-hâb-i-kirâm to decide on. The ijtihâds
made by the As-hâb-i-kirâm pertaining to caliphate election did not agree with
one another. There were three different ijtihâds:
The first one was the Ansâr’s re’y [finding]; they
said that the person “who has served Islam most must be Khalifa. The Arabs
became Muslims in the shade of our swords. Therefore one of us must be Khalîfa.”
The second ijtihâd was the re’y of most of the
As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’; they said that the Khalîfa “must
be powerful enough to enforce the regulations among
the Ummat. The most honourable and the most powerful tribe among the Arabs is
the Qoureish. The Khalîfa will have to be one from among the Qoureish.”
The third ijtihâd was the re’y of the Hâshimîs, who
said that one of Rasûlullah’s relations must be Khalîfa.
The correct one of these three ijtihâds was the second
one. Yes, the Ansâr were of great help to Islam. And the relations of
Rasûl-i-ekrem, on the other hand, were very honourable. Yet caliphate was not a
chair for rest granted as a reward for past services. Nor was it an inheritable
property to be handed over to relations. The second ijtihâd entailed that
caliphate was to be given to the Qoureish tribe not because Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ was from this tribe, but because
the Qoureish was a tribe renowned throughout Arabia for its honour, power,
influence and dignity. For caliphate was an office to provide unity, loyalty
and social order among Muslims. And doing this, in its turn, would necessitate
being authoritative. The Khalîfa’s duty is to prevent mischief and instigation,
to secure peace and freedom, to administer Jihâd, and to maintain order so that
Muslims carry on their affairs and businesses easily and smoothly. Doing all
these things requires power.
What the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’ took into
consideration in the caliphate election was to unite the Muslim tribes so as to
establish a powerful state. Giving the office of caliphate to the Hâshimîs, who
were only one out of the ten Qoureishi tribes, would hardly provide this unity.
The higher the number of the people establishing a government, the more
powerful the government. For this reason, it would be necessary to elect one of
the notables of the Qoureish. And the person to be elected would have to be a
superior one, not only in tribal identification and genealogy, but also from
the Islamic point of view. The highest Qoureishi tribe at that time was (Beni
Umayya). And the most outstanding personage in that tribe was Abû Sufyân bin
Harb. Yet the harms he had inflicted on the Muslims during the Uhud war had not
yet been totally forgotten. He had already become a true and staunch Muslim.
Yet the other Muslims could not fully trust him yet. Consequently, no one could
be placed before Rasûlullah’s faithful companion
in the cave, who had become a Muslim earliest and caused others to become
Muslims, too, and who had been appointed (by Rasûlullah)
as the imâm (to conduct public prayers). It was certain that everyone
would vote for him. In addition, since the normal procedure was
for all the Sahâba to come together and elect the Khalîfa, the Ansâr’s attempt
for an election among themselves could cause a commotion. Thus, by running to
the place, hadrat Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ forestalled this danger
and saved Muslims from a grave tumult.
During these events hadrat Alî was at his wife hadrat
Fâtima’s home ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’. Zubeyr, who was Abû Bekr as-Siddîq’s
son-in-law, and Mikdâd and Selmân and Abû Zer and Ammâr bin Yâser ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhum’ were there, too. Their ijtihâd concurred with that of the third group. So
Abbâs came to hadrat Alî and held out his hand in homage to him. Yet the latter
had heard that hadrat Abû Bekr had become Khalîfa; he therefore refused the
offer. Abû Sufyân said, “Hold out your hand and I shall pay homage to you. I
shall fill everywhere with cavalrymen and infantrymen if you want me to.”
Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ refused the notion, saying, “O Abâ Sufyân! Do
you want to cause faction among the Islamic nation?”
As it is seen, both Abû Bekr as-Siddîq and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhumâ’ were sensitive about a probable instigation or controversy among the
Muslims. At first hadrat Alî was somewhat sorry because he had not been called
to the election held under Sakîfa’s brushwood shelter. As is explained in the
book Musâmarât, by Muhyiddîn-i-Arâbî,
and in the book Daw ’us-sabâh, by Hamîd bin Alî Imâdî (1175 [A.D. 1757]), Abû Ubayda came to the
house where hadrat Alî was. He told him all the statements he had heard from
hadrat Abû Bekr and ’Umar. [These statements, very long and effective, are
quoted in Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ].
Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ listened. The statements were so
impressive that he felt as if he had been penetrated to the marrow. He said, “O
Abâ Ubayda! My sitting in the nook in a house is not intended to become Khalîfa
or to protest against the Emr-i-ma’rûf or to castigate a Muslim. Separation
from the Messenger of Allah has shocked me out of my senses and driven me mad.”
The following morning he went to the Mesjîd-i-sherîf. Walking past all the
others, he went near hadrat Abû Bekr, paid homage, and sat down. The Khalîfa
said to him, “You are blessed and honoured to us. When you are angry, you fear
Allah. And when you are happy you thank Him. How lucky for the person who will
not demand any more than a position bestowed on him by Allah. I did not want to
be Khalîfa. I had to accept it lest there should arise a fitna (instigation,
mischief). There is no resting for me in this duty. A heavy
burden has been imposed on me. I do not have the strength to carry it. May
Allah give me strength! Allâhu ta’âlâ has taken
this burden off from your back. We need you. We are aware of your superior
qualities.”
Hadrat Alî and Zubeyr said that Abû Bekr was more
suitable than anyone else for the caliphate. They said they had been sorry for
not having been informed about the election beforehand, and they apologized for
this. The Khalîfa accepted their apology. [The statements which hadrat Alî made
in praise of Abû Bekr as-Siddîq that day are written with documents in the
(Turkish) book Se’âdet-i ebediyya, in the twenty-third chapter of the second volume;
that chapter is the translation of the ninety-sixth letter]. Then hadrat Alî
asked for permission and stood up. Hadrat ’Umar very kindly saw him off. As
hadrat Alî left, he said, “My being so late to come here was not intended to
oppose (Abû Bekr as) the Khalîfa. And my coming here now is not out of fear.”
All the Hâshimîs followed hadrat Alî’s example and paid homage. Thus a unanimity
was realized.
Both hadrat Abû Bekr and hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’ managed very vigilant and wise performances throughout
the caliphate election. Hadrat Alî’s not being called to the meeting under
Sakîfa’s brushwood shelter was a fortunate event. Had he been there that day,
the discussions between the Ansâr and the Muhâjirs would have been doubled with
the joining of the Hâshimîs, which in turn would have made things all the more
complicated.
Differences of ijtihâds pertaining to the caliphate election are
not for us to discuss or to comment on. They are the best Muslims. Each and
every one of them is a star guiding to salvation. It is from them that the
meaning of Qur’ân al-kerîm was acquired. It is
through them that hundreds of thousands of hadîth-i-sherîfs
were heard. And it is via them that the commandments and prohibitions of Allâhu ta’âlâ were learned.
It would not be worthy of us to attempt to use the
teachings we obtained from them as criteria for assessing their behaviours.
Yes, erring is a human attribute. Mujtahids will err,
too. Yet a mujtahid will be rewarded with thawâb anyway; ten times for not
erring, and one reward if he errs.
Each and every one of the As-hâb-i-kirâm is a pillar
of Islam. Differences among them were based on ijtihâd. They knew one
another’s value even when they criticised one
another. If hadrat Zubeyr had preferred his personal considerations to his
religious conceptions, he would not have disagreed with hadrat Abû Bekr, his
father-in-law. Hadrat ’Umar was the most eager supporter of hadrat Abû Bekr in
the caliphate election. On the other hand, he, again, was the person who
cherished and praised hadrat Alî most. One day hadrat ’Umar asked hadrat Alî a
question. The latter answered the question. Upon this he said, “I entrust
myself to Allah’s protection from confronting a difficult question in hadrat
Alî’s absence.” Hadrat Alî used to say, “After Rasûl-i-ekrem, the most useful
people in this Ummat are Abû Bekr and ’Umar.” ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în.’
A month later hadrat Abû Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’
mounted the menber and said, “I want to resign from the office of caliphate. If
you expect to see me following precisely the same way taken by the Messenger,
this is impossible. For the devil could not approach him. In addition, he would
be revealed the Wahy from heaven.” Could the hearts of such noble persons
harbour any ambitions for rank, positions? Could any tongue speak ill of them?
Actually, Fâtima-t-uz-Zehrâ ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ was
so deeply distressed with the bereavement of her father’s death that she could
not go out. Hadrat Alî also mostly stayed at home to keep her company in her
bereavement; therefore he could not frequently attend the Khalîfa’s sohbat.
However, after hadrat Fâtima’s passing away he paid homage again. He would
often enter the Khalîfa’s presence, help him and make suggestions.
‘radiy-Allâhu anhum ajma’în’.
As will be concluded from the abovementioned information which we
have derived from Qisâs-i-enbiyâ, the Shiite allegation that hadrat Alî and six
other Sahâbîs did not pay homage to hadrat Abû Bekr, is ungrounded. To stand
against the unanimity of the As-hâb-i-kirâm by not accepting hadrat Abû Bekr (as
the Khalîfa) and to make immoderate statements in this subject would not only
have been incompatible with Islam, but it would also have meant to disobey Rasûlullah’s command to his Sahâba: “Be in unity and
avoid controversies.” To say that hadrat Alî and six other Sahâbîs and
Fâtima-t-uz-Zehrâ the highest of women did not carry out this command and
disobeyed Islam would mean, let alone loving them, to controvert and belittle
those great religious leaders. The controversy imputed to them is so grave that
it has inflicted a
fatal wound in Islam and caused millions of Muslims to deviate
from the right way till the end of the world. The harms done to Islam and the
bloodbaths of millions of Muslims perpetrated by those who dissented from the
Ahl as-sunna by reading the lies and slanders fabricated by Hurûfîs, are the
causes of Islam’s status quo. The harms which groups named Ahmadî and Qâdiyânî inflicted on
Muslims are in the open. Could a wise and reasonable person with a light of
Islam and a love of îmân in his heart say that hadrat Alî was the cause of this
great malice?
Abd-ul-qâdir-i-Geylânî ‘quddisa sirruh’, one of the greatest
Awliyâ, gives the following account in his book Ghunya:
“Of the seventy-two groups of bid’at
(aberration), nine are the most prominant. Shiites are one of these nine
groups. They have parted into twenty sub-groups, all of which dislike one
another. The group of Abdullah ibni Saba’ are like Jewry. For instance, Jews
say that the right to become an imâm belongs to a certain class of people.
Likewise, these people allege that caliphate is a right which belongs to
Imâm-i-Alî’s descendants, and that it is not permissible for other people to
preside over Muslims. According to Jews, Jihâd [War] is not permissible until
the emerging of Dadjdjal. And according to the Saba’ group, Jihâd is not
permissible until the emerging of Mahdi. The twelfth imâm, i.e. Muhammad Mahdi,
who was the tenth grandson of hadrat Alî, was the son of Hasan Askerî. He was
born in 259. When he was seventeen years old he entered a cave and never came
back out. The Saba’ group think that he was the promised Mahdi who according
Islam’s teachings will appear in the latest time. Jews do not break their fast
before stars appear in the sky. This is the case with the Saba’ group, too.
Jews make masah on their socks (in ritual ablution). The Saba’ group do the
same. It is permissible for a Jew to kill a Muslim. And it is permissible for
the Saba’ group to kill the Sunnite Muslims. A woman divorced by a Jew can
marry (another man) without having to wait for the time of iddat (according to
Islam, length of time during which a divorced woman cannot marry another man).
The Saba’ group also do not wait for the time of iddat. According to Jews,
having divorced a woman three times will not prevent from marrying her again.
The Saba’ group also will marry a woman whom they have divorced three times.
Jews changed the Torah. There is not a single copy of the Bible that has
remained intact on the earth today; nor is there a true copy of the Torah.
Likewise, the Saba’ group wrote the defiled forms of some âyats of Qur’ân al-kerîm in their heretical
books. This they did because they thought there were deductions
and additions in Qur’ân al-kerîm.”
This faqîr, [’Uthmân Efendi means himself], the
author of the book Tezkiya-i-Ahl-i-Bayt, was attending the Ministry of Education, when a pile
of drafts of tafsîr (explanation of Qur’ân al-kerîm)
written by the Saba’ group arrived in a couple of chests. Permission was not
given for their printing. They asked the reason: “Is there anything
incompatible with Islam in it?” “Yes,” I replied. “You write that hadrat Alî
was a disbeliever.” He was exasperated. “Don’t be angry,” I pacified. “Listen!
According to the allegation written in the introduction, hadrat Talha asked
hadrat Alî, ‘It has been rumoured that hadrat ’Uthmân deducted seventy âyats
from Qur’ân al-kerîm and that hadrat ’Umar deleted eighty âyats. Is this
rumour true?’ When hadrat Alî affirmed Talha queried again, ‘It is said that
you possess the unchanged copy of the Qur’ân. Do you?’ Hadrat Alî’s answer was:
‘Certainly. And the copy I have is twice as copious as the existing ones.’ When
he was asked why he did not reveal it to Muslims, he complained, ‘I would have
given it to them if they had elected me Khalîfa instead of Abû Bekr. Because
they did not elect me, I am not going to give it to them. I shall advise in my
will that it should be kept in secrecy by my offspring till the end of the
world.’ These things are written in your tafsîr. Now I ask you for Allah’s
sake: Because Jewry concealed the twenty Pentateuchal verses informing about
Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, Allâhu ta’âlâ
declares in Qur’ân al- kerîm
that they are disbelievers: ‘Could there be anyone more cruel, more
heretical than one who conceals my âyats?’
According to your allegation, hadrat Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ concealed a copy twice as extensive as Qur’ân al-kerîm, thus retaining more than three thousand âyats. Doesn’t this
allegation of yours impute worse cruelty and heresy to the Lion of Allah? For
Allah’s sake, answer this properly.” Astounded, he could not find any answer.
He said, “I am neither Shiite nor Sunnite. I am a freemason.”
Jews feel hostility to Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’.
Likewise, asserting that by mistake Jebrâîl brought the Wahy to Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’ instead of revealing it to hadrat Alî, the Saba’ group have
become hostile to Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’.
These facts show plainly that the fabricator of these
lies could not be Shiite or Sunnite. Actually, he is a Jew named Abdullah bin
Saba’.
One day I asked Mirza Ridâ, a Persian scholar who had
travelled in Muslim countries for thirty to forty years: “You
know all the Shiite groups. What is your impression about those people called
Mulhid who live around Syria and Antioch?” “They are unbelievers because they
worship Imâm-i-Alî.” When I asked him about the group called kýzýlbaþ
(Kisilbash) who lived in Iraq, he informed, “They, too, are disbelievers
because they deny most of the âyats of Allâhu ta’âlâ.”
Then I inquired about Hurûfîs, who covered themselves with the innocent name,
Bektâshîs. His answer was: “These people camouflage their credal system; it is
not known well what their cult is really like. However, they deny the farz
(commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ stated clearly in
Qur’ân al-kerîm). They say ‘halâl’ about harâms.
For this reason, Hurûfîs are unbelievers, too.” [Hadrat Hâcý Bektâþ-ý Velî
(Hâdji Bektâsh Walî), a Sunnî Islamic scholar and a Walî, was born in Nishâpur,
Iran. He was a descendant of Imâm-i-Mûsâ Kâzim. He came to Anatolia, where he
began to promulgate the teachings of Ahl as-Sunna. The then Ottoman Pâdishâh,
namely Sultân Orhan Gâzî [b. 680; d. 761 (A.D. 1359)] visited him and was
blessed with his benediction. This great scholar asked a blessing on the
Janissaries, too. He passed away in 773 [A.D. 1371], during the reign of the
third (Ottoman) Pâdishâh Sultân Murâd Hudâvendigâr [b. 726; martyred in 791
(A.D. 1389)]. His mausoleum is at a site called Hâcý Bektaþ in Kýrþehir. His disciples
and people who followed the true way guided by that great Walî were called
Bektâshî. The Bektâshîs in our country (Turkey) follow the way taken by those
true Muslims. When Shâh Ismâîl was routed in the Çaldýran war and fled, the
Kýzýlbaþ, or Hurûfî, soldiers in his army spread in Anatolia. In order to
survive they took asylum in Bektâshî convents. In the course of time they
infested these convents with their heretical Hurûfî beliefs. As of today there
is next to none of these indecent drunkards left in our country]. Upon this I
said, “Now there is only one Shiite group left: the Imâmiyya group. There are
five to ten million of these people. Today the number of the Sunnite Muslims is
well over three hundred and fifty thousand million. There is no controversy
among them to cause faction among Muslims. They all obey Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs.
They all have the same heart, the same îmân. How could one’s tongue and
conscience condone imputing to hadrat Alî a controversy that would lead to a
tumult so grave as to break Muslims into groups oppugnant towards one another?”
He answered, “The Sunnites are right in every respect. The Shiites are wrong.
Only,” he added, “one mistake the Sunnîs have
been making is their fanatical advocacy of Mu’âwiya.” This faqîr
(I) said, “We, too, hate Yezîd and those who tormented and cursed the
Ahl-i-Bayt and we say that they were wicked people. As for hadrat Mu’âwiya; we
acknowledge that he erred in his ijtihâd and that hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd was
correct. Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s disagreeing with hadrat Alî and fighting him was
based on ijtihâd ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’. Yet he never criticised or
vituperated hadrat Imâm (Alî). Even as he fought against him he respected him,
acknowledged his superiority, praised and lauded that noble Imâm. The person
whom you suppose to be hadrat Mu’âwiya’s enemy is actually very munificent. And
his Rabb (Allah) is very compassionate, too. We therefore do not comment on the
wars that took place among them. Quoting the âyat-i-kerîma
at the end of Fat-h sûra, we say that they were very merciful towards one
another.”
[The book Berekât, which is also named Maqâmât-i-Serhendiyya or Zubda-t-ul-maqâmât, was written in the Persian language by Muhammad Hâshim-i-Kishmî in
India in 1037 [A.D. 1627]. A copy of the book exists at number
Kerâmats (miracles that occur through the Awliyâ or
other pious Muslims) of Imâm-i-Rabbânî Ahmad Fârûqî are written in the eighth
chapter of the second section of the book Berekât. Muhammad Hâshim narrates the
seventh of these kerâmats as follows: I had a young Sayyed class-mate in madrasa.
One day he came panting. He gasped out a wonderful event he had experienced. He
had witnessed a great wonder through hadrat Imâm-i-Rabbânî. He said:
I used to dislike those people who had fought against hadrat Alî;
of them, hadrat Muâwiya was the one I hated most. One night I was reading the
book Mektûbât (Letters) written by your master, [i.e. Imâm-i-Rabbânî]. It read,
“Imâm-i-Enes bin Mâlik said that hating or censuring hadrat Muâwiya is like
hating or censuring hadrat Abû Bekr and hadrat ’Umar. If a person curses him,
he must be punished as if he cursed these two great Sahâbîs.” When I read this
I felt rather annoyed and said to myself, “How come he wrote this nonsense
here!” I dropped Mektûbât on the floor, lay in my bed, and soon fell asleep. I
had a dream: That exalted shaikh of yours came towards me, indignant. With his
both blessed hands he pulled me by the ears and said, “You ignorant child! You
don’t like what we have written and dump our
book unto the floor. You were consternated when you read my
writing; and you don’t believe it. Now I will take you to a noble person so
that you see for yourself! Let him tell you how wrong you are hating his
friends, who are the As-hâb of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’.” He pulled me along till we reached a garden. Leaving me in the
garden, he proceeded alone. He entered a large room seen in the distance. A
luminous faced great person was seated in the room. Bashful and respectful, he
greeted that great person, who in his turn acknowledged the greeting, smiling.
Observing the rules of manner due at such places, he kneeled before him. He was
telling him something and pointing to me at the same time. I could see him
looking at me from the distance and I knew he was telling him about me. After a
while, that noble shaikh of yours stood up and beckoned to me. “That exalted
person sitting in there is hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. Listen well and see
what he says,” he warned. We entered. I greeted. The luminous faced person
said, “Never, never harbour any resentment in your heart against Rasûlullah’s ‘sall- Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ As-hâb!
Never speak ill of any one of those great people! We and those brothers of ours
know what our intentions were in those deeds of ours which look like wars in
their outward appearances.” Then, mentioning the honourable name of that
elevated shaikh of yours, he added, “And never be opposed to his writings!”
After listening to his advice, I searched my heart and found that the discord,
the hostility I had felt against those who had made the so-called wars was
still there. He knew how I was and became angry. Looking at your noble shaikh,
he said, “His heart needs better cleaning. Give him a slap in the face!” Hadrat
Shaikh dealt me a good slap in the face, which made me think to myself, “It was
my love for this person that made me hate those people. And now he was so badly
offended with my grudge against them. He wants me to cease from this mood. So I
must forget about this animosity!” When I searched my heart once again, I found
it perfectly purified of the hostility it had had. At that moment I woke up. My
heart is quite free of that hatred now. The spiritual flavour I received from
the dream and words has actuated drastic transformations in me. Now my heart does
not contain any sort of love except that of Allah and I have much more belief
in your exalted shaikh and the ma’rifats in his writings.
No one will be blamed in the Hereafter for not having
cursed others or for having held one’s tongue in the world.
We have not been commanded to curse or swear at anyone, be it
those unbelievers who inflicted very bitter torments and persecutions on our
master the Fakhr-i-kâinat ‘alaihis-salawâtu wa-t-teslîmât’ and the Sahâba for
thirteen years, nor even the five or six ferociously cruel people who were
their chiefs. Even the names of these exorbitant brutes have long been
forgotten, with the exception of Abû Jahl. It is not an Islamic commandment to
curse or vituperate any people belonging to any religion on the earth. If a
person performs the commands of Allâhu ta’âlâ and
avoids His prohibitions, the harâms, he will not be called to account for not
having cursed the devil even once in his lifetime. Nor will he be accused of
having been friendly with the devil. On the other hand, if a person neglects
the commandments and curses the devil hundreds of times daily, he will be
called to account in the Hereafter and his having cursed the devil will not
save him from torment. This person will be considered not as an enemy of the
devil, but as one of his friends. Consequently, cursing this person or that in
order to prove one’s love for the Ahl-i-Bayt would be both preposterous from
the mental point of view and futile, and even piacular, according to Islam.
Nâdir Shâh, the Iranian Emperor, ascended to the throne in 1148. He captured
Delhi in India in 1152 [A.D. 1739]. He tried to capture Baghdâd, too. He was
killed during a mutiny that broke out in 1160. When this Nâdir Shâh raised the
siege of Baghdâd, he convened an assembly of Sunnite and Shiite scholars and
appointed Abdullah bin Huseyn Suwaydî [b. 1104; d. 1174 (A.D. 1760)]
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’ to preside over the assembly.[1] This assembly
took a unanimous decision to eliminate the beliefs that caused differences between
the Sunnite and Shiite Muslims, and the decision was undersigned by all the
scholars who took part in the debates. Upon Nâdir Shâh’s death this useful
attempt had to remain on paper. At this point I should like to relate an
episode which this subject reminds me of:
Nâdir Shâh asked the Shi’î scholars, “Will Jews,
Christians and magians (unbelievers without a heavenly book, e.g. communists
and freemasons) go to Paradise or Hell?” The unanimous answer was that these
disbelievers would go to Hell. And when he asked where the Sunnite Muslims
would go, “They will go to Hell,” they said. This made the Shâh angry. He said,
“Did Jenâb-i-Haqq (Allah) create the eight worlds of Paradise for only a group
of
---------------------------------
[1] See the first part, Documents of The Right Word.
This faqîr (I) went on Hajj in 1282 [A.D. 1866]. On
the way I met an Iranian scholar named Hasan Efendi. I said to him, “The
As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’ are praised through many hadîth-i-sherîfs. While this is the case, why do you feel hostility towards them
and curse all of them?” He said, “I am not hostile against them. However,
according to the majority of Shiites, Abû Bekr as-Siddîq took caliphate from
Alî by violence, and the Sahâba supported him, thus becoming renegades.” In
response to this I said, “Did not our master Rasûl-i-ekrem ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wa sallam’ know that these people would some day become renegades when he
praised and lauded them?” His answer was, “He did not know that they would do
so at the end. If he had known, he would not have praised any of them. He would
have cursed all of them.” Then I questioned, “Allâhu ta’âlâ praises the
As-hâb-i-kirâm through various âyat-i-jalîlas. Did not Allâhu ta’âlâ know, either?” The Shiite could not answer this. I pursued: “Would
it not be denigratory towards hadrat Alî to allege that he rowed over a worldly
position?” He replied, “Hadrat Alî’s raising a row with the Sahâba was not
intended for a worldly rank, position. Our Master, Fakhr-i-kâinât, had advised
that Alî be appointed Khalîfa. The Sahâba became renegades because they
disobeyed this command. And hadrat Alî fought against them for the execution of
this command of Rasûlullah’s.” Upon this I asked this counter-question:
“Shiites disobeyed so many of Rasûlullah’s commands. They invented numerous bid’ats. Very few
of them perform the Islamic commandments and sunnats. Aren’t they renegades
according to your syllogism?” He could not answer. I went on, “Supposing hadrat
Alî and hadrat Fâtima were offended with the As-hâb-i-kirâm, the former being
so because he was not elected Khalîfa and the latter because she was not given
the date orchard. It is harâm for a Believer to be offended or to become angry
with his Muslim brothers and to remain cross with them for more than three
days. How could it be justifiable to allege that they remained cross till the
end of the world?” “Their being cross was because the others did not perform
the commandment,” he said. Upon this I said, “If Believers disobey Islam, it
will be farz to be offended with them and to admonish them to observe their
duties. This, in its turn, will be done by the state by using force and by
scholars by preaching. Other people will be offended in their hearts, which is
the lowest grade of îmâm. Now, hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was
the lion of Allah. Why did he not have the
commandment executed by using force? Was he too weak to do that? Although a
person has the right to demand that the murderer of his father, mother or child
be given death penalty for retaliation, the two hundred and thirty-seventh âyat
of Baqara sûra purports, ‘If you forgive, this will be closer to
taqwâ,’ and the
forty-eighth and the hundred and sixteenth âyats of Nisâ sûra purport, ‘Allâhu
ta’âlâ will forgive the sins except þirk [disbelief] of anyone He likes,’ and the thirty-eighth âyat of Mâida sûra purports, ‘If a
person commits zulm, that is, sins and then makes tawba and then performspious
deeds, Allâhu ta’âlâ will certainly accept his
tawba.’
There are some thirty other similar âyats promising
that tawba will be accepted. While an average born slave who has committed all
sorts of sins and then made tawba attains Allah’s forgiveness, how do you know
that Rasûlullah’s As-hâb ‘ridwânullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajmâ’în’ did
not make tawba and attain forgiveness supposing we were to admit that they were
wrong in their decisions pertaining to caliphate?” Once again, he could not
answer.
Arûs zâda Efendi, the Mufti of Baghdâd, told this
faqîr (me) the following episode which he had heard from the keeper of our
master hadrat Huseyn’s ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ anh’ mausoleum in Kerbelâ
(Karbala):
One night the keeper dreamt of hadrat Huseyn
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, who said to him, “Tomorrow a corpse will be brought from
Iran. Never let him be buried anywhere close to me.” The next day a corpse was
brought from Iran. They wanted to bury him near the mausoleum. At first he
would not let them. However, being very rich, they persuaded him to permit them
to do so by giving him a large amount of money. So they buried the corpse at a
distance of about two thousand steps from the mausoleum. That night the keeper
dreamt of Imâm-i-Huseyn ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ again. This time the Imâm was angry
with the keeper and shouted at him. The keeper said he was very sorry and
begged for forgiveness. The following night the Imâm came into his dream again
and rebuked him. The keeper said he was going to exhume the corpse and bury it
somewhere farther away. Yet the beloved grandson of the Messenger of Allah
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ said, “If a (dead) person lies somewhere close to us for two
nights, he will be forgiven. He has been forgiven already, yet this has cost me
a great deal of inconvenience.” Thus he denoted that the keeper as well as the
dead person had been forgiven. When the keeper
related this event to Arûs zâda, the valuable Mufti
asked the keeper, “While a sinner rejected by the Imâm for his wickedness
attains forgiveness by staying two nights at a distance of two thousand steps
from his shrine, haven’t the Shaikhyan [Abû Bekr and ’Umar] ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhumâ’, who have been lying side by side with Rasûlullah in the
Hujra-i-mu’attara-i-Nabawiyya (the Prophet’s Shrine)
for twelve hundred and sixty years, attained forgiveness yet?” He was appalled
and could not answer. His incompetence and ignorance became apparent. What a
lovely rebuttal, and how grave an embarrassment!...
Of the Shaikhayn, ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ conquered cities and
countries during his caliphate in order to propagate Allah’s religion and Rasûlullah’s fame all over the world. His armies
spread heroically over the Arab peninsula and over the farthest places in the
east and in the west, destroying the darknesses caused by unbelief and
immorality and illuminating those places with Islam’s light. I wonder if hadrat
Alî would not forgive him for the sake of all these services he did to Islam?
As hadrat ’Umar left for the conquest of Qudus-i-sherîf (Jerusalem), he
appointed hadrat Alî his deputy for the caliphate. Hadrat Alî undertook the
duty as the acting Khalîfa, carried on this duty until hadrat ’Umar’s coming
back, and returned the office to him when he came back. Does not this indicate
the amount of mutual love between them? Had there been the tiniest amount of
discord or row between them, would hadrat ’Umar have appointed him his deputy?
Would hadrat Alî have so willingly returned the office of caliphate after
having obtained it? If it should be said that “Afterwards he must have
forgotten about caliphate. He would not have given it to ’Umar if he had not
forgotten about it,” then there must not have been any disagreement or discord
left between him and the person he deputized, which in turn means that it is
not permissible to criticize that person.
During the caliphate of hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’, hadrat Alî “kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’ gave his daughter Umm-i-Gulthum in
nikâh (marriage as prescribed by Islam) to the Khalîfa for forty thousand
silver coins in the seventeenth year of the Hijrat. Hadrat ’Umar had a son
named Zeyd and a daughter named Ruqayya from Umm-i-Gulthum. Thus hadrat ’Umar
became hadrat Alî and hadrat Fâtima’s son-in-law ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum’, and the long-time mutual love between them became several
times stronger. Most of the time they would be together day and night and
search for ways of helping Muslims in
their businesses. Did hadrat Alî reserve his grudge
and hostility despite all this closeness? What a grave slander it would be
towards that exalted Imâm to say so.
I knew a person who had served as Pâsha and Vizier and yet who
had later swerved into the heresy of Hurûfî, which had been disguised as the
Bektâshî way. After some time this person came to his senses and made tawba.
When this faqîr (I) asked him why and how he had made tawba, he told me the
following story: A book highly esteemed by these false Bektâshîs calls hadrat
’Umar a disbeliever. To forestall the natural question how it happened that
hadrat Alî gave his daughter to a disbeliever, the book gives the following
account: One day ’Umar the Khalîfa sent for hadrat Abbâs and told him that he
wanted to marry hadrat Alî’s daughter. When the latter answered that the girl
would be too young for him, he said, “Alî’s answer was the same when I told him
about my intention. Go and tell him! If he will not marry his daughter to me, I
shall find two false witnesses, bring an action against him, decide that he is
a thief, and mutilate his both hands.” Helpless, hadrat Alî had to give his
daughter to ’Umar. Upon reading this in the book, I said to myself, “If a cruel
person tried to force me to give my daughter to a disbeliever and threatened to
kill me if I should not obey him, I would rather die than give my daughter to a
disbeliever although I am a black-faced, sinful person. Subsequently, hadrat
Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’, the Lion of Allah, the beloved one of the Messenger
of Allah, and a perfect, sinless Muslim, could not have thrown his daughter,
who was at the same time Rasûlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihi wa sallam’ beloved granddaughter, into an
abominable, foul rubbish heap forbidden by Islam only for fear of a doubtful
danger.” I realized that I had been in the wrong way, made tawba for good, and
saved myself from the heresy called Hurûfî.
One of the (Ottoman) viziers, during his service as
the governor of Baghdâd, asked a Persian what he knew about this marriage of
hadrat ’Umar’s. The insolent man made some dirty, slanderous statements about
hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ blessed daughter and left the place.
As it becomes clear from the detailed information
given above, the great Walî Abd-ul-qâdîr Gheylânî ‘qaddas-Allâhu ta’âlâ sirrah ul’azîz’ is very right in his comparing Hurûfîs to Jews in
fifteen ways. It is obvious that the Hurûfî sect was invented by a Jew named
Abdullah bin Saba’ with a view to breaking Islam.
In order to sow hostility among Muslims, this Jew
alleged that hadrat Alî was deprived of his right of caliphate by force, thus
leading to a long era of blasphemy throughout which one hundred and twenty-four
thousand Sahâbîs have been wrongfully blemished with disbelief.
[Jews are the descendants of the twelve sons of the Prophet Ya’qûb (Jacob) ‘alaihis-salâm’. Because
Ya’qûb’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ name was Isrâîl, these people were called Benî
Isrâîl, (Children of Isrâîl, or
Israelites). Isrâîl means Abdullah. When Mûsâ (Moses) ‘alaihis-salâm’ went to
Mount Sinai (Tûr), these people abandoned their faith and began to worship a
calf. Later they repented and made tawba. Therefore they were called Jews
(Yahûdî, Judah). Judah means person who finds the way to salvation. Jews caused
a great deal of trouble to Mûsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Their later generations
martyred one thousandProphets. They calumniated Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’
because he did not have a father. They called his mother hadrat Meryem (Mary)
unchaste. They assailed them and tried to kill them. They poisoned Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’, the Prophet of the latest time.
In the time of hadrat ’Uthmân they aroused a fitna, which ended in the
Khalîfa’s martyrdom. They invented the Hurûfî sect and thus broke Muslims into
groups hostile to one another. Throughout centuries they tried to annihilate
the religions revealed and the Prophets sent by Allâhu
ta’âlâ. In order to destroy religions they established freemasonry.
After the end of the First World War in 1336 [A.D. 1918] they founded
communistic states which were inimical towards chastity, honesty and faith. In
the meantime, Hayim Naum, who was the chief Rabbi, formerly of Istanbul and
later of Egypt, carried on intrigues between the capitalistic and imperialistic
states in order to demolish the world’s unique Islamic (Ottoman) Empire. As a
result, this great Empire, which was the leader of the Islamic world,
collapsed. Muslims were called regressive people. Islam lost its power and was
driven to the verge of extinction.]
Books, Religious
and history books unanimously state that hadrat Abû Bekr was elected
Khalîfa on Monday. The following
day, Tuesday, hadrat Alî and a few other people came to the Mesjîd and
willingly paid homage to Abû Bekr. Hadrat Alî obeyed every command of the
Khalîfa until the Khalîfa’s passing away. He spared no effort, no help in the
promulgation of Islam. For all these facts, these people impute wicked habits
prohibited by Qur’ân al-kerîm to this great
Imâm. Would not a Muslim shudder at the thought of slandering hadrat Alî in
this manner?
Hadrat Abû Bekr,
’Umar and ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’, as they were elected Khalîfa, said
there were people better than themselves; each of them thought of himself as a
person not good enough for the office of caliphate. For they had the attribute
of modesty commanded by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Is the
allegation that “The following day hadrat Alî came forward with arrogance, one
of the gravest sins, and defied others, asking if there was anyone better,
braver, more learned than he was,” something commensurable with being Muslim?
Most of the paths of Tasawwuf begin with hadrat Alî. Leaders of Tasawwuf
educate their disciples in accordance with hadrat Alî’s instructions. And the
first lesson they teach is modesty. While many âyat-i-kerîmas
advise us to forgive our brothers in Islam their faults, how could it ever be
justifiable to refer the wickedness of nursing a grudge for thirty years and
advising others to maintain this hostility till the end of the world to a mean
sinner, let alone to hadrat Alî? Great teachers of Tasawwuf educate their
disciples by quoting the âyat-i-kerîmas teaching
that everything is made by Allâhu ta’âlâ and
advising contentment with qadhâ (fate, destiny). How could a person who advised
this have been against qadhâ himself? Is it something believable? Is this
allegation not a sheer slander? How could hadrat Alî be said to have been
impatient with a problematic situation despite the âyat-i-kerîmas
advising patience at times of trouble? Could hadrat Alî have forgotten about
all the âyat-i-kerîmas warning against worldly
ambitions and sowed seeds of instigation and faction among the
Ummat-i-Muhammadiyya only for worldly ambitions? Could it be permissible to
make such allegations about that honourable Imâm, whose statements have been
used as maxims of sagacity and virtue by Muslims?
The three
Khalîfas accepted caliphate unwillingly and only because it was farz for them
to do so since the Sahâba of the Messenger of Allah elected them. They did not
make a will to advise that they be succeeded by their sons in caliphate.
Doesn’t this fact prove that our statement is right? When the Sahâba
unanimously appointed hadrat Alî Khalîfa, he accepted the duty unwilling as he
was. Yet upon hadrat Muâwiya’s (claiming to be the rightly-guided Khalîfa as a
result of his) erroneous ijtihâd, he went to a great deal of trouble to subdue
him to obedience because it was Islam’s commandment. There is next to no one
who does not know this fact. Furthermore, there are so many âyats and hadîth-i-sherîfs commanding to have mercy and
compassion for Muslims and for all the creatures on the earth, and hadrat Alî,
who is a source of beautiful moral qualities, is famous for his kindness
and mercy, a fact
proven through many widely known events; so much so that Allâhu ta’âlâ has given the good news that He will show his mercy
and compassion to His born slaves by making him deal out blessed water from the
Kawther pond on the Judgement Day. Now, how could one ignore all these facts
and allege that millions of Believers will remain eternally in Hell because of
him, a charge which could not be justified if it were, let alone hadrat Alî,
made aganist a sordid sinner. For mercy for people means to try to secure their
hereafter and to protect them against Hell fire. Helping them in their worldly
affairs, when compared with helping them with their hereafter, is nothing.
According to the charges concocted, millions, even billions of Muslims are to
burn eternally in Hell because of hadrat Alî.
With all the so many âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs warning against backbiting, calumniating, making fun of Muslims,
how could it be a right way to vituperate day and night and impeach with
disbelief all the As-hâb-i-kirâm and all the Sunnite Muslims ‘rahmatullâhi
ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’, who have merely been obeying the Prophet’s
commandment? Is it worthy of a Muslim to assert that all this was because
hadrat Alî, badly offended with the Sahâba’s considering him ineligible for
caliphate, commanded to do that abominable deed? The As-hâb-i-kirâm
‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’ and the advanced ones among this Ummat deemed it their
first duty to struggle against their nafs. Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that
hadrat Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’ would not have committed such a grave sin
even if his blessed nafs had been hurt. And it is a fact brighter than the sun
that there was no reason for him to commit that sin since his nafs was not hurt
at all.
We invite them to being reasonable, for among the Sahâba whom
they consider to be their eternal enemies are hadrat Alî’s maternal aunt and
first paternal cousin and many other relatives. With the existence of âyat-i-kerîmas teaching that it is wâjib to be kind
and generous towards one’s relatives and to visit them, is it something a
person with îmân could do to allege that that great person (hadrat Alî) advised
in his will that all those people be looked on as enemies? While it has been
declared through âyat-i-kerîmas that Rasûlullah’s wives are Believers’ mothers and it is a
commandment (of Islam) to obey and respect one’s parents, how could a person
with the light of îmân shining in his heart admit the allegation that hadrat
Alî felt hostility against these blessed wives and called them disbelievers
because they paid homage to Abû Bekr?
Since a person who arouses fitna is accursed
according to hadîth-i-sherîfs, can hadrat Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’ be said to
have stirred up a fitna among the Ummat-i-Muhammad?
Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ said, “When I meet a
disaster, I am pleased for three reasons. First, the disaster has been sent by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Anything coming from the beloved one will be sweet. Second, I
thank Allâhu ta’âlâ for not sending me a more serious disaster. Third, Allâhu ta’âlâ will not send human beings something which is vain or useless. In
return for disasters He will give blessings in the Hereafter. I am pleased with
disasters because worldly disasters are insignificant when compared with the
everlasting blessings in the Hereafter.” Even today there are many Sunnite
Muslims who take pleasure from troubles and disasters because they have
purified their hearts by following hadrat Alî’s path. Who on earth would
believe the sophistry that hadrat Alî did not take pleasure from a troublesome
situation, suffered the so-called trouble unwillingly for years, and before
dying made a will advising hostility towards millions of Muslims and the
As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘ridwânullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’?
Despite the various âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs commanding Hubb-i-fillâh and Bughd-i-fillâh, i.e. to love
Muslims because they are Muslims and to dislike disbelievers and enemies of
Islam, and while all the As-hâb-i-kirâm have been blessed with good news
through an âyat-i-kerîma which purports, “Allah is pleased with
them all. And they, too, are pleased with Allâhu ta’âlâ,” and with all the innumerous hadîth-i-sherîfs praising and lauding the Muhâjirîn-i-kirâm and the Ansâr-i-izâm
‘ridwân-ullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’, and while ten of those people were
honoured with the name (Ashara-i-mubash-shara) because they had been given the
good news that they would attain Paradise and it has been stated through
various hadîth-i-sherîfs that these people must not be treated with
hostility, is there any likelihood that hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, the
highest member of the Ahl-i-Bayt and the gate to the town of knowledge, might
have fostered rancor against them? Would such an extremely detestable
imputation incur friendliness or resentment against that great Imâm?
It is explained in âyat-i-kerîmas
and hadîth-i-sherîfs that one would be sinful
for not joining the jamâ’at for Friday prayer or for (any of) the five daily
prayers of namâz. Everyone knows that the prayers of namâz that are farz are
performed in the Mesjîd-i-Nabawî in Medîna-i-munawwara and the Khalîfa conducts
these prayers as the imâm. Now, if hadrat Alî called these three Khalîfas,
(i.e. Abû Bekr, ’Umar and ’Uthmân) disbelievers, then he must have followed
people he called disbelievers whenever he performed the namâz in jamâ’at behind
one of these three imâms. If a person performs
namâz (in jamâ’at) behind another person though he knows for
certain that the latter, (who conducts the namâz as the imâm), is a disbeliever,
he himself will become a disbeliever. If hadrat Alî did not perform namâz
behind these three imâms, then he must have neglected Friday prayers and
prayers that were performed in jamâ’at, which, in its turn, would be a sinful
attitude, too. It is impossible for hadrat Alî to have committed any of these
sins.
Hadrat Alî gave hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’
his daughter. A person who gave his daughter to another person whom he knew to
be a disbeliever would become a disbeliever. Would that have been worthy of
that noble person?
Thus far we have explained clearly how some Shiite groups have
been polluted with Hurûfî beliefs and lies. Now we shall give some information
about how and why this pollution took place. The inventor of the Hurûfî sect is
a Jew of Yemen named Abdullah bin Saba’. He did this in order to confuse,
mislead and break the Ummat of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, and to wreak vengeance
on the Ahl-i-Bayt, the source of Islamic light. To conceal his inner purpose by
camouflage, he pretended to have extreme love for hadrat Alî, alleged that he
had been deprived of his right of caliphate, and asserted that the three
Khalîfas and the Sahâba were disbelievers. He concealed his hatred for hadrat
Alî under the cloak of excessive love for him. He fabricated a number of
follies that are not only irreligious but also preposterous. And some
half-witted, senseless people, quite unaware of faith and knowledge and as
blind to light as a bat, fell into the trap set by this Jew, believed in
slanders quite incommensurable with hadrat Alî’s high merits, and bluntly
supported his efforts to blemish the great Imâm. [Valuable books, which were
the fruits of the profound knowledge and powerful pens possessed by scholars of
Ahl as-sunna, awakened Muslims in every age and the heretical ideas of Abdullah
bin Saba’ were about to be forgotten for good, when a Persian Jew named
Fadl-ullah Hurûfî rekindled this fitna before he died in 796 (A.D. 1393)].
The wicked imputations which Hurûfîs besmeared this
great imâm with are written also in the Bible and the Torah. It is for this
reason that Jews and Christians acknowledge that these slanders bear hostility
instead of friendliness towards hadrat Alî.
Three things are
required for attaining guidance to happiness:
1- It is necessary
to be a Muslim. A person who utters this statement becomes a Muslim: LÂ ILÂHA ILLÂ-ALLAH MUHAMMADUN
RASÛLULLAH, (which means, "There is
no god
but Allah; and Muhammad
'alaihis-salam' is the
Messenger of
Allah.")
2- To
let your
acquaintances and angels know that you ha become a Muslim, you say, "Esh-hadu an lâ
ilâha illâ-Allah wa esh-hadu an-na Muhammadan 'abduhu wa rasûluh." (This statement means,
"I believe and testify that there is no god but Allah; and I believe and testify
that Muhammad 'alaihis-salâm’ is Allah's slave and Messeenger.")
3- To purify the heart, to attain
happiness in this world and in
the Hereafter, to be immune
against sorrows, disasters, maladies,
malevolence, incantation, sorcery and assaults of
jinnees, and to attain blessings, every Muslim should say through his heart (a
certain word
called) istighfar very often daily. Istighfâr means to
say, "Estaghfirullah."
If a person obeys the Ahkâm-i-islamiyya, (which means the principles and commandments of Islam,) Allâhu ta'âlâ (promises that He) will certainly accept his prayers and invocations. It is unnecessary to repeat the word of istighfâr or the prayer of istighfâr throughout the night, which would cost a sleepless night. If a person does not say the istighfâr with a pure heart, or if he only articulates it mechanically without meditating on its meaning, it will be quite useless to him. Once a person has expressed the word of istighfâr three times with his mouth, he will begin to say it through his heart. Persistent oral repetition is necessary for the purification of a heart which has become black because of its owner's habitual sinning. If a person earns his living through (ways which Islam does not sanction and therefor terms) harâm, or if he does not perform his (daily prayers that are termed) namâz, his heart becomes pitch black. To make a heart as black as that begin saying istighfâr, it is necessary to say the prayer of istighfâr three times and then to say the word of istighfâr, i.e. to say, "Estaghfirullah," sixty-seven times.