1- Enemies of Islam have been writing various books
in order to mislead Muslim children. A group of them deny the Madh-habs. They
say that our religion does not contain any heavenly commandment justifying
people’s splitting into various different Madh-habs. They would not say so if
they knew the meaning of Madh-hab. Nothing could bring one a disgrace as deep
as one’s ignorance. Their ignorance blindfolds them so badly that they
criticise Islam and Qur’ân
al-kerîm. These writings of theirs have
been given detailed answers in the chapter Müslimâna Nasîhat (Advice for the Muslim) of the book Kýyâmet
ve Âhýret (The Hereafter).
2- There were no controversies among Muslims in the time of Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’. The last
âyat of Fat-h sűra purports that the As-hâb-i-kirâm loved one another
continuously and very much. Allâhu ta’âlâ informs
that this love among them continued to exist after Rasűlullah’s
passing away, too. As Rasűlullah passed away, it
was hadrat Âisha who waited in tears at his bedside. When Rasűlullah died, none of the As-hâb-i-kirâm struggled
for position. They did not even think of seizing power. Enemies of Islam
compare the four caliphate elections to disbeliever kings’, dictators’ and
revolutionists’ seizing power. The case with the four Khalîfas, however, is
quite the other way round, for, let alone criticizing them, each of their deeds
must be taken as a documentary example by Muslims. Rasűlullah
stated, “Hold fast to the way guided by my four Khalîfas!” There were cruel, sinful ones among the Umayyad and Abbasid
Khalîfas. Yet none of them was a disbeliever. None of them was an enemy of
Islam. All of them were Islamically rightful Khalîfas. They were elected not in
accordance with the laws of presidential elections for, say, France, but in a
manner prescribed by Allâhu ta’âlâ. A person who
denies Allah’s prescription will certainly dislike the procedures followed in
their election. Hadrat
Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ gave so much freedom that an
equal level of tenderness and patience can never be seen on the dictators
governing today’s so-called democratic socialist countries. A poet who was
indignant about a personal interest did not hesitate to remonstrate with the
Khalîfa:
“O Mu’âwiya! We are human beings like you. Do not divert
from justice!” Even governors and commanders appointed by Prophets
‘alaihim-us-salâm’ had shed Muslims’ blood unjustly. Hadrat Mu’âwiya
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ cannot be blamed for some wrong behaviour exhibited by a
governor appointed by him!
3- Qur’ân al-kerîm is Wahy-i-metlű. That is, the angel named Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ said
the words and letters, which we know, and the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ memorized them as he heard them and then recited them to his
As-hâb. This fact is informed by numerous âyat-i-kerîmas. Books
written by separatists who distort the meanings of âyat-i-kerîmas should not be believed.
4- Some people allege that “Originally there are 6666
âyats in Qur’ân al-kerîm. Today’s existing copies contain 6234 âyats. 432
âyats were annihilated by ’Uthmân, who would not let those âyats informing
about the virtues of Hâshimîs be recorded in the Qur’ân. He changed the Qur’ân
from the Hâshimî dialect to the Qoureishî dialect.”
They put forward their own books as documents to
prove their allegation. On the other hand, that the Qur’ân al-kerîm contains six thousand and two hundred and thirty-six âyats is
informed by hadrat Alî, a fact written in the hundred and forty-eighth chapter
of the book Bostân-ul-ârifîn, by the great scholar hadrat Abű-l-leys-i-Semmerkandî.
In some copies, several short âyats are written in
the form of a long âyat. So the number of âyats seem to vary. This numerical
variation does not by any means indicate any interpolation in the âyats.
As is written in the book Tuhfa-i-isnâ ash’ariyya, the best response to this calumniation directed towards the three
Khalîfas is given by Allâhu ta’âlâ: the ninth
âyat of Hijr sűra purports, “We revealed this Qur’ân to thee. And We
shall protect it.” Can any man defile
something protected by Allâhu ta’âlâ? The
above-mentioned allegation of theirs show that they consider hadrat ’Uthmân to
be more powerful than Allâhu ta’âlâ. On the
other hand, these people take every opportunity to vilify the three
Khalîfas. And yet in this occasion they promote hadrat ’Uthmân to
partnership with Allâhu ta’âlâ.
Kuleynî, a religious authority in Iran, says that Hishâm bin
Sâlim and Muhammad bin Hilâlî stated that the Qur’ân had been changed. And
scholars of Ahl as-Sunna write that Allâhu ta’âlâ purports,
“No one can change Qur’ân al-kerîm.” The forty-second âyat-i-kerîma of
Fussilat sűra purports, “No change can reach that Qur’ân from any
direction. For It has been revealed by One whose every deed is hakîm and
mahműd.” Who could change something protected
by Allâhu ta’âlâ? It was wâjib for our Prophet to communicate Qur’ân
al-kerîm exactly as it was revealed. In the time of Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’, when a
person became a Muslim, he would first learn Qur’ân
al-kerîm. And everyone who learned Qur’ân
al-kerîm would teach it to others. There were thousands of Muslims who
had memorized Qur’ân al-kerîm in the presence of
the Messenger of Allah. It is written in history books that more than seventy
hâfidh al-Qur’ân (people who had memorized the Qur’ân) were martyred in some
Holy Wars. Until today hundreds of thousands of hâfidh have been educated in
Muslim countries. Their reciting the Qur’ân was a great worship. Every Muslim
recites Qur’ân al-kerîm both as he performs
namâz and elsewhere. Every Muslim child, as soon as it reaches school age, is
first taught passages from Qur’ân al-kerîm. Qur’ân al-kerîm is unlike the book written by Kuleynî
or Abű Ja’fer Tűsî’s book Tez-hîb, which are kept locked in chests and read
secretly by one or two people! In fact, it is written in all Shiite books that
all the Ahl-i-Bayt-i-Nabawî and the twelve Imâms read this very Qur’ân al-kerîm. They put forward this Qur’ân al-kerîm as a document to friends and enemies
alike. They explained its very âyats. The book of Tafsîr which they have been
keeping as the Tafsîr of Imâm-i-Hasan Askerî is the tafsîr (explanation) of
this Qur’ân. The twelve Imâms would teach their children, their women and their
disciples this very Qur’ân al-kerîm. It is for
this reason that Shaikh Ibni Bâbawayh, a Shiite scholar, says in his book I’tiqâdât
that it would be wrong to attack hadrat
’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ in this matter.
5- A zindiq[1] (a kind of
heretic) studied Qur’ân al-kerîm for years. He saw the word (Salât)
at more than sixty-five places.
So he said that ‘Salât’ meant ‘Prayer’ and therefore one could make salât
continually day and night. He confused the word Salât,
---------------------------------
[1] Terms of this sort are explained in various places of the book.
which actually means Namâz, with the word Prayer. It
is stated as follows in the thirty-eighth page of the Turkish book Dürr-i
yektâ Ţerhi: “Recently
some zindiqs have been misleading young people by disguising themselves as
Shaikhs of dervish convents. They put forward some heretical beliefs in the name
of Islam. They assert that ‘the word (Salât) which is written in âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs does not mean actions of bowing, prostrating and getting up as
practised by people today. It means Dhikr and Murâqaba. That is, it means
mentioning the name of Allah, sitting, closing one’s eyes, and meditating on
the existence and the greatness of Allah.’ The fact, however, is not so simple
as that; Dhikr, which means to remember Allâhu ta’âlâ through
the heart, is a very difficult job. Performing namâz facilitates making Dhikr.
Murâqaba means to meditate over the fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ sees
and knows you every moment. And this, in its turn, can be managed by performing
namâz. The zindiq (mentioned above) puts forward the spiritual maturities that
will be attained through the namâz and then denies the namâz. He who denies the
namâz will be a disbeliever. He who believes in it but neglects it out of
laziness will be a sinner. He is to be imprisoned until he begins to perform
namâz again. Every Muslim should, before anything else, learn the procedures
that are farz, wâjib and mufsid in namâz. If there are daily prayers of namâz
he has omitted, he must perform them as soon as possible. It is equally sinful
to delay such omitted prayers, which are called qadhâ (qazâ). When a child
reaches the age of seven, it is necessary to teach him how to perform namâz by
having him perform it in your presence. And when he is ten you should sort of
force him – if he is unwilling to perform namâz – to perform it. This you can
do, if necessary, by hitting him gently with your hand.” Other types of prayers
can be done any time. But there are certain times prescribed for each of the daily prayers of
namâz. This fact is detailed in the Bukhârî hadîth, which is an account of the night of Mi’râj.
There are many hadîth-i-sherîfs commanding the five daily prayers of namâz. Our
beloved Prophet would perform the five daily prayers of namâz even
at the hardest times of trouble, during combats, for instance, and would
command all those around him to follow his example. He was extremely ill before
his death when he walked with utmost difficulty to the mosque, appointed hadrat
Abű Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ imâm for his place, and performed namâz behind
hadrat Abű Bekr.
That the meaning of the word Salât is Namâz is
explained
clearly at the end of the Jum’a (Friday) sűra and in
the âyat which purports, “Do not approach Salât when you are drunk!”
Muslims, learning the times of
the five daily prayers of namâz and how to perform them from their Prophet, have
always performed namâz like the Messenger of Allah did all over the world for
fourteen hundred (1400) years.
Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs state that prayers can be done openly as well as
secretly. Yet it is a commandment that the five daily prayers of namâz be
performed in jamâ’at in mosques. Enemies of Islam, by quoting the âyat-i-kerîmas stating that prayers are to be done secretly, are trying to
extirpate the tradition of performing namâz in jamâ’at in mosques. While saying
on the one hand that they obey only Qur’ân al-kerîm, they
are, on the other hand, putting forward Biblical and Pentateuchal documents to
prove that the namâz is superfluous. Pointing to the fabricated statements in
the false copies of the Bible existing all over the world today, they are
attempting to make away with the five daily prayers of namâz. Prayers of namâz
that are farz must be performed in mosques even if there is the danger of
pretention and ostentation. Mosques are made for performing namâz in them.
Muslims do not believe books written by aberrant parvenus and enemies of
religion. They perform their worships correctly as they learned from their
fathers and grandfathers, who were true Muslims. Disbelievers and heretics
follow the wrong courses they learned from their fathers. Allâhu ta’âlâ castigates such disbelievers in Qur’ân al-kerîm, and
commands Muslims to learn what they do not know by asking those who know.
6- All the people without a certain Madh-hab attack the four
Sunnite Madh-habs as if they had made an agreement among themselves to do so.
They never seem to understand what (Madh-hab) means.
There cannot be differences of Madhhab in the
religious principles to be believed. The belief held by Muslims throughout the
world has to argee with the belief held by Rasűlullah and the
As-hâb-i-kirâm. Anyone who believed otherwise would be either a heretic or a
disbeliever. Some of the teachings which true Believers need in carrying on
their worships and worldly affairs are not clearly stated in Qur’ân al-kerîm or in hadîth-i-sherîfs. Such covert teachings, (which have been trusted to
the comprehension and explanation of Islamic scholars), must be taken for
granted as Islamic scholars understand them. Thus a person who adapts himself
to the understanding of a profound
scholar will be in his Madh-hab. In matters not
clearly explained in Qur’ân
al-kerîm or by hadîth-i-sherîfs, it is certainly more appropriate for Muslims to adapt
themselves to a profound Islamic scholar who obeys Qur’ân al-kerîm in whatever he says and does rather than following the
fabrications of heretics and enemies of religion.
People who adapt themselves to a Madh-hab will do
their worships correctly. People without a certain Madh-hab, on the other hand,
will be wrong both in belief and in deeds. They will swerve into various ways.
They will arouse faction in society. They will instigate people against one
another. Instead of adapting themselves to Muhammad’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ Islam,
they will either follow their personal inadequate views or part into the
corrupt and harmful ways invented by heretics, by enemies of religion.
Muslims love one another. They dislike separatists. Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs state that it is a great worship to dislike such
people. People who are hostile to religion, to chastity, to life and to people
will certainly be hated. Namâz of janâza will not be performed for a
disbeliever (when he is dead).
Muslims do not accuse a person who is negligent in namâz and
fasting with disbelief. However, a person who denies the fact that it is farz
(a plain religious commandment) to perform namâz five times daily, becomes a
disbeliever. Our master, Rasűlullah, curses such
disbelievers regardless of whether they are dead or alive. A Muslim will be
proud about adapting himself to his Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’. Disbelievers, however, are proud about
attacking Islamic scholars.
What we would like to tell those people attacking
Islamic scholars is this: Islamic scholars observed the approval of Allâhu ta’âlâ in all their actions. Whatever they did, they did it for Allah’s
sake. They performed their duty of Emr-i-ma’rűf and Nehy-i-anil-munker towards rulers. In other words, they gave them advice
for Allah’s sake. They did not fear anyone in guiding to the right way. Hadrat
Imâm A’zam Abű Hanîfa, the greatest Islamic scholar, sacrificed his life in
this way, a fact that no one could deny to know. Likewise, all Islamic scholars
had no hesitation whatsoever to state facts. Millions of books which they wrote
with dedication and ikhlâs have spread knowledge and beautiful moral principles
throughout the world and thus their blessed names have become known far and
near. They have reflected the light of Qur’ân al-kerîm on all
nations. On the other hand, people without a certain Madh-hab, somehow mixing
with Muslim religious men, have
swerved from the way guided by Qur’ân al-kerîm and striven to hush up the truth. For these people are quite
unaware of spiritual responsibility. Scholars of Ahl as-Sunna ‘rahmatullâhi
ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’ have not left any religious fact covered or veiled. Yet
those who are in the aberrant way have been planning to make sure that younger
generations be quite ignorant in this respect. To this end, they have been
endeavouring to eradicate the facts taught by scholars of Ahl as-Sunna.
7- To perform namâz five times daily is a commandment
declared in Qur’ân al-kerîm and in hadîth-i-sherîfs. The
seventy-second (72nd) âyat-i-kerîma of Ahzâb sűra purports, “Verily,
We offered the deposit (the
responsibility) to heavens, to earth, to mountains. They
refrained from assuming it. They shuddered with fear of it. Men shouldered it
and thus did cruelty to their selves. They did not know the result.” It is stated in the book of Tafsîr called Beydâvî
that [This âyat-i-kerîma denotes the greatness of the felicity promised in
the âyat-i-kerîma previous to itself. The previous âyat purports,
“Those
who obey the commandments and prohibitions ofAllâhu ta’âlâ will attain
happiness in the world and in theHereafter.” The
commandments and prohibitions mentioned in this âyat-i-kerîma
are compared to a deposit. Since a deposit is to be returned to its owner, this
comparison expresses the importance of doing the worships. Some scholars have
stated that the word ‘deposit’ means ‘wisdom and Islam’ in this context. For a
person who has wisdom will obey Islam]. This âyat-i-kerîma,
whether the word ‘deposit’ used in it be interpreted as ‘wisdom’ or be it said
to mean ‘soul’, points out the importance of doing the worships, e.g.
performing the five daily prayers of namâz. The fifty-eighth (58th) âyat of
Nisâ sűra purports, “O Believers! Obey Allâhu
ta’âlâ and His Messenger!” The
Messenger of Allah understood the word ‘deposit’ used in the âyat-i-kerîma as ‘worship’ and therefore commanded
Muslims to perform namâz five times daily. Those who wish to obey the Messenger
of Allah should perform namâz five times daily. Whatever those who do not want
to perform namâz may say, Muslims should attach paramount importance to the
namâz.
It is stated in the book of Tafsîr named Beydâvî, one
of the most valuable books of Tafsîr, “Hadrat Abdullah ibni Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’ was asked: In what part of Qur’ân al-kerîm is the
âyat-i-kerîma commanding the five daily prayers of namâz? He
answered: Read the seventeenth and eighteenth âyats of Rűm sűra. These two âyat-i-kerîmas purport, “Make tesbîh of
Allâhu
ta’âlâ at evening and morning times. Thehamds performed by heavenly and earthly
beings and donein the afternoons and at noon times are for Allâhu ta’âlâ.” The ‘tesbîh’ to be done ‘at evening time’ represents
the prayers of namâz to be performed in the evening and at night. The tesbîh to
be done in the morning stands for the namâz be performed in the morning. The
‘hamds done in the afternoons and at noon times’ symbolize early and late
afternoon prayers of namâz. The âyat-i-kerîmas command to
perform namâz five times daily.” Those who deny the five daily prayers of namâz
become startled when they hear this âyat-i-kerîma. They say
that this âyat-i-kerîma does not contain the word ‘Salât’. When they are
quoted the âyat-i-kerîma commanding to ‘make salât’ and told that there are
more than sixty-five such âyats, they make a U-turn and say that “Salât means
prayer. We obey these âyats and pray in seclusion. Namâz is not an Islamic
commandment.”
The two hundred and thirty-ninth (239th) âyat of Baqâra sűra
purports, “Protect the salâts and the salât of wustâ! [That is, perform namâz continuously]. Obey
Allah and make salât!” ‘Protect the salât’
means ‘Perform the five daily prayers of namâz at their proper times and
observing their conditions.’ It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf,
which is written in the book Musnad by Imâm-i-Ahmad and in Imâm-i-Munâwî’s book Kunűz-ud-deqâiq:
“The salât of wustâ is the late afternoon namâz.”
Hadrat Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’ narrated: Our Prophet stated
in the combat of Hendek (Trench), “The enemy did not let
usperform the wustâ [late afternoon namâz]. May Allâhu
ta’âlâ fill their abdomens and graves with fire!” Salât means both prayer and namâz. Hence the word
‘salât’ used in this âyat-i-kerîma means the ‘namâz’ which we know. The âyat-i-kerîma says to perform the prayers of namâz and the late afternoon
prayer. According to the Arabic grammar, the word ‘salâts’ means ‘three salâts
in the least’. Since the late afternoon salât is called (Wustâ), which means
‘the namâz in the center’, the number of salâts meant here cannot be only
three. There have to be at least four salâts in addition to the late afternoon
so that the late afternoon salât be exactly in the center, that is, between the
second and the fourth salâts. Kemâleddîn-i-Shirwânî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’
quotes the fifty-ninth âyat-i-kerîma of Nűr sűra in his book Miftâh-us-sa’âda
to prove that the number of
salâts to be performed daily is five. The names of morning and night prayers of
namâz are written clearly, i.e. as ‘Salât-i-fejr’ and ‘Salât-i-ishâ’, in the fifty-ninth âyat of Nűr sűra.
The hundred and second (102nd) âyat of Nisâ sűra purports, “To
perform namâz at certain times has become farz forMuslims.” It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf,
which exists in the books Riyâd-un-nasihîn and Hulâsat-ud-delâil: “I was by theentrance to
Ka’ba, when Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ came near me twice. He performed early
afternoon prayer with me as the sun left its position at the zenith.” In another hadîth-i-sherîf, which
is written in Abulleys-i-Semerkandî’s book Muqaddimat-us-salât existing with number [701] at the section called (Es’ad
efendi) in the library of Süleymâniya and
also recorded in the book Fath-h-ul-qadîr at the section named Ayasofia (Saint Sophia), our Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ states: “Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salam’ made
me performnamâz for two days by the entrance to Ka’ba. The first day, we
performed morning prayer as the fejr-i-thânî [whiteness]
appeared, early afternoon prayer as the sun left it zenith, late
afternoon prayer as shadows were as long as the real objects they represent,
evening prayer as the sun set, and night prayer as dusk disappeared. The second
day weperformed morning prayer at daybreak, early afternoonprayer when
everything had a shadow as long as itself, lateafternoon prayer when the shadow
of everything was twice as long as itself, evening prayer at the time of
breaking fast, and night prayer when one-third of the night time had elapsed.
Then he said: O Muhammad! These are the timesof namâz for thee and for past Prophets
and for thine Ummat.” As Suleymân bin
Berîda narrates from his father in the book Muslim, somebody asked Rasűlullah about
the times of namâz. The Messenger of Allah said, “Perform
namâz with me for two days!” As the
sun left the zenith, he ordered Bilâl Habashî to call the adhân. We performed
early afternoon prayer. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf,
“Late afternoon prayer is performed before sunset.”
It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, which
is reported by Jâbir bin Abdullah in the books Bukhârî
and Muslim:
“As there would be no dirt left on your body if you washed yourself in astream
flowing by your house, so Allâhu ta’âlâ will
forgive the faults of those who perform namâz five times daily.” It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, “Namâz
is the pillar of the religion. He who performs namâz will have fortified
hisreligion. And he who does not perform namâz will haveruined his religion.”
A hadîth-i-sherîf, which exists in the books Bukhârî
and Muslim
and belongs to the category
called Mesh-hűr, states, “Islam has five fundamentals. The first
one is to utter the word
Shahâdat.
The second one is to perform namâz.” It is stated in another hadîth-i-sherîf,
reported by Abű Dâwűd and written in the book Halabî: “Allâhu
ta’âlâ has commanded to perform namâz five times daily. Allâhu
ta’âlâ will forgivethose who make a proper ablution, perform these
prayers of namâz at their proper times, and observe the rukű’ (bowing) and sajda (prostration) in them.”
Another hadîth-i-sherîf reads as follows:
“Allâhu ta’âlâ has made it farz for His born slaves to perform
namâz five times daily. If a person makes a beautiful ablution and performs
namâz correctly, on the rising day his face will shine like the full moon and
he will pass the bridge of Sirâtas fast as lightning.” The author of the book Riyâd-un-nâsihîn ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’ relates, “I have studied books of Hadîth. I
have seen that it is stated in various hadîth-i-sherîfs
reported by more than twenty Sahâbîs: ‘A person who omits a prayer
of namâz without any religiously sanctioned excuse will become a disbeliever.’ ”
It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, which
is reported by hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ and exists in the books Târîh-i-Bukhârî
and Kitâb-ul-îmân:
“He who gives up the namâz will become a disbeliever.” That is, a person who is not sorry for neglecting the
namâz and does not feel shame towards Allâhu ta’âlâ for
this reason, will take his last breath without îmân.
There is detailed information in this respect in the
(Turkish) book Se’âdet-i ebediyye.
A hadîth-i-sherîf, which the book Bukhârî reports from Abű Sa’îd-i-Hudrî, states, “The
thawâb that will be given for the namâz performed in jamâ’at is twenty-five
times as much as that which is given for the namâz which one performs by oneself.”
However, according to a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Abdullah ibni ’Umar, it is “twenty-seven
times as much.”
A hadîth-i-sherîf, which is reported by Dâr-i-Qutnî ‘rahmatullâhi
aleyh’ and is written in Kunűz, states, “A personwho lives near a mosque should perform
his namâz in the mosque.”
It is stated in a hadîth narrated in the books Firdaws-ul-ahbâr
and Riyâd-un-nâsihîn:
“Not to go to the mosquethough one hears the adhân would be a sign of being a
munâfiq.”
It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf
reported in Imâm-i-Ahmad’s ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’ book Musnad
and in Kunűz: “If a
personforgets something during his salât, he should make two additional
The forty-third âyat of Baqara sűra purports, “Perform
the prayers of namâz and pay zakât and make rukű’ with those who make rukű’.” It is explained in Beydâvî and in all books of Tafsîr that this âyat-i-kerîma commands to perform namâz in jamâ’at.
The purpose in representing the namâz with the word rukű’ in this âyat-i-kerîma is to distinguish it from the Judaic
namâz and to emphasize that it is the Islamic namâz. For the namâz performed by
Jewry does not contain rukű’. It is stated in the book Hulâsat-ul-fetâwâ,
“Accepting the muadh-dhin’s call (of adhân)
is to be done by foot, not only orally. If a person who hears the adhân repeats
it only and does not go to the mosque, he will not have accepted the
muadh-dhin’s call.”
8- There were mosques in the time of Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ and in the times of the
As-hâb-i-kirâm. There were imâms in these mosques. The namâz would be performed
in jamâ’at. The imâm does not necessarily have to be innocent, sinless. For no
one except Prophets ‘alaihim-us-salawâtu wa-t-taslîmât’ is innocent. Allâhu ta’âlâ commands to build mosques. Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “If a person builds a mosque Allâhu
ta’âlâ will bless him with a kiosk inParadise.”
The last âyat of Jum’a sűra purports, “O
Believers! When the adhân for salât is called on Friday, stop shopping and run
for the Dhikr of Allah! Disperse when the salât is over!”This âyat-i-kerîma also shows that salât means namâz. The namâz has
been called Dhikr. Because Muslims assemble in mosques on Friday, the day has
been called Jum’a.
People without a certain Madh-hab say, “There is no
heavenly commandment concerning the construction of mosques. Since the
demolition of mosques it has been considered more appropriate and more virtuous
to do the worships in homes.” This assertion is an extremely odious lie, a very
wicked slander. And their misinterpreting âyat-i-kerîmas in order
to convince Muslims that they are telling the truth, is disbelief and heresy.
The history book which they put forward as a document was written by a Hurűfî
of Shîrâz.
When the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ migrated from Mekka to Medina, his first stay was in the vilage called Kubâ, where he stayed for more than ten days. He built a
mosque called Kubâ Mesjîd in this village. Carrying a big stone with his blessed hands, he
put it under the mihrab as a foundation
stone for the mosque. Then he said, “O Abâ
Bekr! Bring another stone and put it beside my stone!” Then he had hadrat ’Umar and hadrat ‘Uthmân each put
a stone. Hadrat ’Umar and hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’ had
arrived in Medîna before. Rasűlullah performed his prayers of namâz in this mosque.
During his stay in Medîna he would come here every week and perform two rak’ats
of namâz called Tehiyyat-ul-mesjîd.
Mesjîd-i-dharâr:
It was during the preparations
for the Holy War of Tebuk when some munâfiqs in the village of Kubâ, such as
Hizâm bin Khâlid and the sons of Abű Jayba and Ibni Âmir, namely Majmâ and
Zeyd, and also such vagabonds as Tabtal and Tajruj and Bejad and Abâd and
Wedîa, provoked by Abű Âmir, designated a place of meeting for themselves and
termed this place the Mesjîd-i-dharâr. Abű Âmir was the maternal first cousin of Abdullah
ibni Ebî, the chieftain of munâfiqs. They asked the Messenger of Allah to
perform namâz in that mosque. The Prophet said he
would do so on returning from the Holy War. When he was back from the Holy War
they came to him and begged him. Allâhu ta’âlâ informed
His Messenger that these people were munâfiqs and told him not to go there. So Rasűlullah sent Mâlik bin Dehshem, Sa’d bin Adî and his brother Âsim bin Adî
to the so-called place and had it demolished. It is not known for certain today
where the place exactly was. During the construction of the mosque, hadrat Abű
Bekr, ‘Umar and ’Uthmân were off in Medîna, with the Messenger of Allah. They
were helping Rasűlullah with his preparations for the Holy War of Tebuk.
Mesjîd-i-Jum’a:
is in the valley of Ranona,
between Medîna and Kubâ. This is
the place where the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ performed
his first namâz of Friday.
Mesjîd-i-Fadîh:
is to the east of Kubâ. In the
Holy War of Benî Nadîr Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ had the army encamped
somewhere around this place and he and his As-hâb performed namâz for six
nights in this mosque.
Mesjîd-i-Benî
Qureyza: Our master, the
Messenger of Allah, performed namâz by the minaret of this mosque.
Mesjîd-i
Ummi Ibrâhîm: is to the
east of the mosque of Benî Qureyza (the previous one). The Prophet
performed namâz here, too.
Mesjîd-i-Benî
Zafer: is to the east of Bakî’
cemetery. The Messenger of Allah performed namâz in this mosque and then,
sitting on a rock, he had (some âyats from) Qur’ân al-kerîm recited and listened to it.
Mesjîd-ul-ijâba:
is to the north of Bakî’. The
Messenger of Allah, after performing namâz with his As-hâb in this mosque,
prayed that his Ummat (Muslims) should not be afflicted with such disasters as
famine and drowning.
Mesjîd-ul-Fat-h:
is on top of a hill accessible through a set
of stairs. In the Holy War of Hendek (Trench) the Messenger of Allah prayed
very earnestly for victory from Monday till Wednesday in this mosque.
Mesjîd-ul-qiblatayn:
is close to Mesjîd-ul-Fat-h. Two
months before the Holy War of Bedr, the Messenger of Allah was conducting an
early afternoon prayer in this mosque and they were making the rukű’ in the
second rak’at of early or late afternoon prayer, when (the order from Allâhu ta’âlâ arrived and) they changed their direction from Jerusalem to Ka’ba.
Mesjîd-i-Zuhâba:
is somewhere on the way from
Damascus to Medîna, on a hill on the left hand side. They (Rasűlullah and his As-hâb) were encamped and performed namâz here.
Mesjîd-i-Jebel-i-Uhud:
On his way back from the Holy
War of Uhud, the Prophet performed early and late afternoon prayers here.
Also, âyat-i-kerîmas praising religious scholars were revealed here.
Mesjîd-i-Jebel-i-Ayniyya:
is the place where hadrat Hamza
(Rasűlullah’s blessed paternal uncle) was martyred. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ performed namâz with his weapons
on his blessed body here.
Mesjîd-ul-wâdî:
is the place where Rasűlullah performed morning prayer and the namâz of janâza for hadrat
Hamza.
Mesjîd-ul-Bakî’:
is on the right hand side as you
exit the Bakî’ cemetery. Rasűlullah performed many prayers of namâz here.
Names and places of thirty-eight other mosques where
the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ performed namâz are
written in detail in the book Mir’ât-i-Medîna.
Mesjîd-un-Nebî:
is the greatest mosque in Medîna-i-munawwara.
It is the place where Rasűlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ camel knelt down first when he migrated to Medîna. First he
stayed as a guest at Khâlid bin Zeyd Abű Eyyűb al-Ansârî’s home for seven
months. With the ten golds donated by hadrat Abű Bekr they bought a building
plot and leveled it. Construction of the mosque was completed by the Safer
month of
the second year. It was roofed with branches and leaves of date.
It had three entrances. The Mihrâb was at the place where the (entrance called)
Bâb-i-Tawassul is today. The
jamâ’at would go in and out through the entrance where the Mihrâb stands today.
The depth of the foundation was three arshins [one and a half metres], the same
size as the thickness of the walls. The foundation was laid with stones and the
walls were built with sun-dried bricks. The mosque was a hundred arshin long
and wide, and seven arshins tall. He (the Prophet)
placed the first foundation stone with his blessed hands. Then he ordered
hadrat Abű Bekr, ’Umar, ’Uthmân and Alî each to put a stone by this stone,
respectively. When he was asked the reason why, he stated, “This
is to signify the order of their caliphates!” On the right and left hand sides of the mosque nine additional
rooms were made for his blessed wives. The room which was nearest the mosque
was alotted to hadrat Âisha.
From the month of Safer till the time of his passing
away, the beloved Messenger of Allah performed all his prayers of namâz in
jamâ’at in this mosque whenever he stayed in Medîna. Despite the apparent fact
that Rasűlullah and his As-hâb performed namâz in the abovenamed
mosques, these communists assert that “Salât means prayer. Islam does not
contain any commandment pertaining to the performance of namâz.” It is such a consternating
assertion.
The hundred and twenty-fifth âyat of Baqara sűra
purports, “Perform namâz at the place called Maqâm-i-Ibrâhîm in the
Mesjîd-i-harâm! We have ordered Ibrâhîm and Ismâ’îl to‘Clean My Home for those
who visit it and who make rukű’ (in it) and who sit (in it) and who make sajda in it!’ ” In this âyat-i-kerîma Allâhu ta’âlâ calls Ka’ba ‘My Home.’ For this reason, Ka’ba is called
‘Baytullah’ (the Home of Allah). And in Hűd sűra Allâhu ta’âlâ calls
Sâlih’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ camel ‘Nâqatullah’ (the Camel of Allah). These namings
do not come to mean that Allâhu ta’âlâ
is in Ka’ba or that the Camel is
with Him. Even an ignorant idiot would not infer such stupid meanings. Like
Ka’ba, all mosques are called Beytullah. This designation is intended to point
out the value and honour of mosques.
The thirty-sixth âyat of Nűr sűra purports, “Allâhu
ta’âlâ has commanded that some homes be valued highly. He commanded that His
Name be mentioned in these highlyvalued homes. Tesbîh of Allâhu
ta’âlâ is made in these places in the morning and in the evening.”
On the other hand, in an âyat-i-kerîma which we
have quoted earlier Allâhu ta’âlâ calls
namâz ‘Dhikr’. So this âyat-i-kerîma shows that
mosques are for performing namâz. Hadrat Abdullah ibni Abbâs said that [Mosques
are called Baytullah. Therefore, to interpret the expression ‘homes’ in this âyat-i-kerîma as ‘their homes’ would mean to change
the âyat-i-kerîma].
The hundredth âyat of Nisâ sűra purports, “When
you setout on a journey on the earth you may shorten the Salât!”After the revelation of this âyat-i-kerîma the Messenger of Allah performed two rak’ats of his prayers of
namâz during journeys. After this âyat-i-kerîma, another âyat-i-kerîma, which purports, “When you and your As-hâb
perform Salât during a combat, let a group of the jamâ’at perform it with you
withtheir weapons on them. When one rak’at is completed they should resume
their positions against the enemy. Then those who have not made Salât (because they have been fighting) should
come and continue the Salât with you!”, shows very plainly that Salât means Namâz, not (only) prayer.
A hadîth-i-sherîf reported in Tabarânî and Munâwî states, “Do
not make mosques into a (place
that you walk through on your) route! Enter mosques (only) for Dhikr and Salât!”
Another hadîth-i-sherîf, which
states, “The Salât’s perfection depends on straightening the
lines,” points out that Salât
means Namâz and that the namâz which is farz is to be performed in
jamâ’at.
A hadîth-i-sherîf, which is cited in Ibni Âbidîn, at the end of its
chapter dealing with acts of makrűh in the namâz, states, “Your
salât in your own home is more valuable than yoursalât in my mosque. However,
this is not the case with (the
salât which is) farz.” As this hadîth-i-sherîf shows, Salât means Namâz and it is better to perform
the namâz which is farz in a mosque and that which is sunnat at home. It is
stated in another hadîth-i-sherîf, “The salât performed in my mosquedeserves
a thousand times as much thawâb as the salât performed elsewhere. And the salât
performed in the Mesjîd-i-harâm will be given a hundred times as much thawâb as
the one performed in my mosque.”
A group of those
people without a Madh-hab and zindiqs do not perform namâz. They assert that
“Salât is a commandment. It means prayer. Islam does not contain any worship
consisting of such acts as bowing and prostration or building mosques. Prophets
say not to attend mosques but to entreat Allah in the mosque of your heart.”
The âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs
quoted above are
plain evidences proving that these people are liars whose goal is to mislead
Muslims.
9- Some of the people without a Madh-hab claim that adhân
also means prayer. On the contrary, our Prophet taught
Bilâl-i-Habeshî, his muadh-dhin, how to call the adhân (ezân). He had him mount
a high place and call the adhân. The âyats that purport, “When
the call for salât reaches you (when you hear it),” and “When it is called for salât
on Friday,” denote the
adhân. A hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Hâkim and Munâwî states,
“The
namâz of those who do not come there although theyhear the call, will not be
accepted.” Nidâ (the
Arabic word used in the two hadîth-i-sherîfs quoted above) means calling the adhân. The first
minaret for a mosque was built in Egypt, by hadrat Selmet-ebni Halef, one of
the Sahâba. He was Egypt’s governor in the time of hadrat Mu’âwiya.
It is a worship to make Dhikr of Allâhu ta’âlâ with a soft voice. It is for this reason that members of the group
called Turuq-i-aliyya make Dhikr. Yet it would be nescience and heresy to
confuse this Dhikr with adhân. Our master, the Messenger of Allah, praised
muadh-dhins (people who called the adhân) by stating, “On
the Rising Day muadh-dhins will have long necks.” This statement denotes that on that day they will
rise with luminous foreheads and swollen chests. Another hadîth-i-sherîf, reported by Hâkim and Daylamî, states, “Do
not say the initial tekbîr for salât (do not begin to perform the salât) until
the muadh-dhin has finished (calling) the adhân!” Abű Dâwűd and Munâwî report a hadîth-i-sherîf which states, “Do not call the adhân before dawn!” Hurűfîs compare muadh-dhins’ calling the adhân to
braying of an ass. People who make such a comparison become disbelievers. The
next generation will remember these zindiqs with curses.
10- True Muslims, who are called Ahl
as-Sunna, very well reconize the
value of our Prophet’s Ahl-i-Bayt ‘ridwânullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’.
They love the twelve blessed Imâms very much. They try to follow the fruitful
way of the Ahl-i-Bayt, which guides to the luminous felicity. Words alone could
not be the indication of love. One would have to adapt oneself to them.
Hadrat Abű Hanîfa ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’, the exalted
religious leader and the greatest scholar among the Sunnite Muslims, left aside
all his worldly occupations, his duties and his disciples, and attended the
sohba of hadrat Imâm Ja’fer Sâdiq for two years. He obtained plenty of lore
from Imâm Ja’fer Sâdiq’s
ocean of knowledge. He received fayz from his blessed heart,
which reflected the spiritual lights coming from the Messenger of Allah. He
stated, “If I had not served hadrat Imâm Ja’fer Sâdiq for two years, I would
have been quite unaware of everything.” Hadrat Imâm A’zam Abű Hanîfa reached
maturity through the knowledge and fayz which he acquired from Imâm Ja’fer
Sâdiq. He attained high degrees that did not fall to the lot of other people.
It was from the Imâms of Ahl-i-Bayt that the leaders
of Ahl as-Sunna learned most of their teachings pertaining to îmân and fiqh,
the majority of their ma’rifats pertaining to Tasawwuf, and even a major part
of their knowledge pertaining to Tafsîr and Hadîth. In their training systems
did they reach maturity. With their tawajjuh did they attain high grades. From
them did they receive glad tidings. Shiite books acknowledge this fact, too.
Ibni Mutahhir-i-Hullî, a Shiite scholar, writes in his books Nahj-ul-haqq
and Minhej-ul-kerâma
that Imâm-i-A’zam Abű Hanîfa and
Imâm-i-Mâlik learned from Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim’ and
attained high grades in his company. Imâm A’zam Abű Hanîfa was taught also by
Imâm-i-Muhammad Bâqir and Zeyd-i-Shehîd. Why do Shiites, while advocating
respect for their (false) dervishes who have not even seen any one of the Imâms
of Ahl-i-Bayt, vituperate the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna who served those blessed
Imâms for years and acquired knowledge and received fayz from them? Is it not
farz for Shiites to obey also these scholars, who were authorized by those
noble Imâms to give fatwâ and to perform ijtihâd? Shaikh-i-Hullî, a Shiite
Imâm, states that Imâm-i-A’zam Abű Hanîfa was authorized (was given ijâzat) to
give fatwâ by Imâm-i-Bâqir, by Zeyd-i-Shehîd and by Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq. That
Imâm-i-A’zam possesssed the requirements of ijâzat is testified by the (twelve)
faultless Imâms. To speak ill of Imâm-i-A’zam would mean to deny the testimony
of the twelve Imâms, who were sinless people. And this, in its turn, would be
disbelief according to the Shiite credo. Since there is not a sinless Imâm
today, is it not especially farz now for all Shiites to join the Madh-hab of
Imâm-i-A’zam?
Shaikh Hullî reports from Abu-l-muhâsin, who reports from
Abu-l-buhtur: Abű Hanîfa visited Abű Abdullah Ja’fer Sâdiq. Upon seeing Abű
Hanîfa, Imâm Ja’fer Sâdiq said to him, “You will promulgate my father’s Sunna
everywhere. You will show the right way to those who have lost their way. You
will help those who are in peril. You will be a guide to salvation. May Allâhu
ta’âlâ help you!” Almost all Shiite books unanimously narrate the
following event: Abű Hanîfa visited Abű Ja’ferMensűr, the time’s Abbasid
Khalîfa. Îsâ bin Műsâ was there, too. Upon seeing Abű Hanîfa, he said, “O
Khalîfa! This newcomer is the world’s greatest scholar!” Mensűr asked, “O
Nu’mân! Who did you learn knowledge from?” “I learned it from Alî through Alî’s
disciples and from Abbâs through Abbâs’s disciples,” was the answer. Upon this
the Khalîfa said, “The documents you have given are very tenable”. Another
episode narrated in Shiite books reads as follows: Abű Hanîfa was sitting in
the Mesjîd-i-harâm. There were many people around him, asking him a variety of
questions, and he was answering them. He scattered the answers as easily as if
they were all ready in his pocket. Suddenly, Imâm-i-Abű Abdullah Ja’fer Sâdiq
came near him and stopped. As soon as Abű Hanîfa saw the Imâm he stood up, and
said, “O the grandson of the Messenger of Allah! If I knew you were here I
wouldn’t even attempt what I am doing now.” Hadrat Imâm Ja’fer Sâdiq’s answer
was, “Please sit down, o Abâ Hanîfa! Go on teaching Muslims what they do not
know! Teach all people what you have learnt from my forefathers.” The two
narrations given above are written in Ibni Hullî’s explanatory book Tejrîd.
Question:
Shiites may inquire about the
paradox that Abű Hanîfa and other scholars of Ahl as-Sunna, although they were
disciples of the twelve Imâms ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’, gave
fatwâs not agreeable with those given by the twelve Imâms. How can this be
explained?
Answer:
An answer to this question is written in the
book Mejâlis-ul-mu’minîn, by Qâdî
Nűrullah Shushterî. It reads as follows: “Abdullah Ibni Abbâs was a disciple to
hadrat Emîr (Alî). Under his supervision he attained the grade of ijtihâd. He
would perform ijtihâd in his presence. Most of the time the ijtihâd he
performed would disagree with the ijtihâd of his master (hadrat Alî). Yet
hadrat Emîr ‘qaddas-Allâhu ta’âlâ wejheh’ would accept such ijtihâds of his.
Hence, a mujtahid is to answer (a religious matter requiring explanation) in
accordance with his own inferences. It goes without saying that ijtihâd is not
needed in teaching those âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs the meanings of which are already
clear. In other words, it is harâm to disagree with such plainly explained
religious teachings. However, understanding those teachings that have not been
stated clearly necessitates ijtihâd. Nevertheless, an Imâm who is impeccable
will never err in his ijtihâd. Others may. Yet such errors of theirs will
be rewarded rather than punished, i.e. they will be given thawâb
(for their painstaking performance of ijtihâd).” Identical statements are
written in the Shiite book Me’âlim-ul-usűl. However, teachings inferred through ijtihâd should not disagree
with Qur’ân al-kerîm or hadîth-i-sherîfs
or the ijmâ’i ummat (unanimity of the Sahâba).
If it had been a sin to give a fatwâ disagreeable
with the ijtihâd of the Ahl-i-Bayt, hadrat Huseyn would have been sinful. As it
is stated by Abű Muhnel Ezdî, a Shiite scholar; Hadrat Husayn did not like his
(elder) brother hadrat Hasan’s making peace with hadrat Muâwiya. He told his
brother that he had made a mistake. If refusing the ijtihâd of one of the
twelve Imâms and saying that he erred in his ijtihâd indicated enmity towards
him, hadrat Hasan would necessarily have been inimical towards hadrat Huseyn.
This is another point of view from which it is seen quite clearly that those
who criticize hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ and who wage a campaign of
vilification aganist him, are following a profane course.
Sunnite scholars of Hadîth and mujtahids
‘rahmatullâhu alaihim’ are renowned for their taqwâ, equity, and piety. The
hatred Shiites feel against scholars of Ahl as-Sunna originates from the fact
that the belief held by these scholars does not agree with their credo. They
cannot say that these scholars are sinful, mendacious or fond of worldly
advantages. On the other hand, they censure some people whom they themselves
call scholars.
The earliest people who called themselves Shi’î
(Shiite) were unit commanders in hadrat Alî’s army in the Siffîn War. All the
statements and behaviours quoted and described in Shiite books and ascribed to
hadrat Emîr (Alî) were narrated by these people. On the other hand, it is
written in Shiite books again, e.g. in Nehj-ul-belâgha, that these people were treacherous, sinful, mendacious, and
disobedient to hadrat Emîr. Emîr ‘kerrem-Allâhu ta’âlâ wejheh’ informed that
these people were munâfiqs. The beliefs held and the worships practised by the
inhabitants of Kűfa city were all in accordance with the reports given by these
people. The innocent (twelve) Imâms always uttered maledictions against them,
cursed them. They always repelled these people. Let us take one of them, namely
Kesâî. It is not known for
certain whether he was a Muslim. Another one is Zekeriyyâ
bin Ibrâhîm. Abű Ja’fer Muhammad
bin Hasan Tűsî and others wrote what they had heard from them. However, this
Zekeriyyâ was a Christian.
Abbasid Rulers put the Imâms of Ahl-i-Bayt into
dungeons. It was forbidden to visit them or to talk to them. No one was allowed
to go in and see them. Scholars of Ahl as-sunna would risk the danger and visit
them. Thus they would acquire knowledge and receive fayz from them. It is
stated in all history books that when hadrat Műsâ Kâzim ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’
was in dungeon, Muhammad bin Hasan Sheybânî and Qâdî Abű Yűsuf ‘rahmatullâhi
alaihimâ’, two Sunnite scholars, frequently visited him, asking and learning
from him what they did not know. Having the courage of visiting hadrat Imâm at
such a critical time would require strong love and ikhlâs. These facts are
written in Shiite books, too. A scholar belonging to the Imâmiyya group of
Shiites wrote a book titled Fusűl, in which he relates hadrat Műsâ Kâzim’s kerâmets. One of them,
which he narrates from Imâm Muhammad and Imâm Abű Yűsuf, reads as follows:
Hârűn Reshîd imprisoned hadrat Imâm Műsâ Kâzim. One day we two visited him. We
were sitting in his presence, when one of the guardians entered and said, “If
you need something tell me! I’ll bring it with me tomorrow.” Hadrat Imâm
answered that he did not need anything. When the man left the Imâm turned to us
and said, “This man surprises me. He asks me if I need anything and says he
will bring it tomorrow. Yet he is going to die suddenly tonight.” Later we
heard that he had died that night.
It is stated in the book Kâműs-ul-a’lâm, “Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq is a grandson of hadrat Alî’s grandson.
His mother, Umm-i-Ferwa, was a daughter of Qâsim, hadrat Abű Bekr’s grandson.
Therefore, the Imâm (Ja’fer Sâdiq) ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’ attained not only the
maturities of Wilâyat coming through hadrat Alî but also the perfections of
Nubuwwat coming through hadrat Abű Bekr. He bestowed plenty of both sources of
perfection on Imâm-i-A’zam Abű Hanîfa. Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq was learned in jefr,
chemistry and other sciences. Jâbir, the celebrated Muslim Chemist, was a pupil
of Imâm Sâdiq’s. Abű Muslim Khorasânî, who had been fomenting an insurrection
against the Umayyads, wanted to declare Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq Khalîfa in order to
be successful in this attempt. Hadrat Imâm would not accept his suggestion. In
fact, he burned Abű Muslim’s letters. Ismâ’îl, the oldest of his seven sons,
had died before his father’s death. Therefore the Imâm was succeeded by his
second son Műsâ Kâzim ‘rahimahum-Allâhu ta’âlâ’. A group of people who called
themselves Shiites took a different course and recognized Ismâ’îl and his sons
as successors to the Imâm. These people were called
Ismâ’îliyya.
It is written in the book Esmâ’ul-muallifîn
that Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq wrote three books,
namely Taqsîm-i-ru’yâ, Al-jâmiat-u-fil-jefr, and Kitâb-ul-Jefr. Jefr means a four month old lamb. In scientific terminology it
means a branch dealing with guessing future events beforehand. Plato and
ancient Indians had written books on Jefr. The first Islamic book written in
this science was by hadrat Alî. Because the two of the three books mentioned
above were written on sheepskin sheets, the science dealt with in the two books
was called Jefr. This information is written in Kâműs.
Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq did not write any books on
religious teachings or worships. The book Imâm-ý Ca’fer Buyruđu (Imâm-i-Ja’fer’s Command), which is possessed by
Shiites today, was written by Ja’fer bin Huseyn Qummî. This man died in Kűfa in
340 [A.D. 951]. It is informed in the well known book Munjid
also that this man was the first
to write on fiqh, on religious practices in the Shiite sect. Also, it is stated
in Kâműs-ul-a’lâm that
the book Risâla-i-Ja’feriyya possessed by Shiites was written by Abű Ja’fer Muhammad Tűsî. This
person died in 460 [A.D. 1068]. His Tafsîr is of twenty volumes. Putting
forward the book written by these two Ja’fers, Shiites call themselves Ja’ferî,
thus attempting to prove that
they are following Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq. Exploiting the similarity between the
words Ja’fer and Jefr, they assert that these (two) books also were written by
hadrat Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq.
11- In order to ruin Islam from the interior, Hurűfîs
assail hadrat Imâm-i-A’zam Abű Hanîfa ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’, the great scholar,
the most beloved leader of the Ahl as-Sunna. They do not feel shame at writing
all sorts of abominable slanders and base lies in their efforts to malign this
exalted Imâm.
A biography of this noble Imâm is written in the (Turkish) books Se’âdet-i
Ebediyye, Fâideli Bilgiler and Eshâb-ý
Kirâm. We have considered it appropriate to
write a few more words by borrowing from the Arabic book Khayrât-ul-hisân,
by the great Islamic scholar hadrat Ibni
Hajar-i-Mekkî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’, from the Persian book Tezkira-t-ul-Awliyâ,
by hadrat Ferîdeddîn Attâr, and from the
Turkish book Mevdű’ât-ül’ulűm, by Taţköprü zâde.
Imâm-i-’Azam’s name is Nu’mân ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
aleyh’. ‘Abű Hanîfa’ means ‘Father of Muslims following the right way’.
Contrary to some fabricated bruits, he did not have a daughter named Hanîfa.
Nor did the name belong to his mother. If his
mother’s name had been Hanîfa, he would have been
calledNu’mân ibni Hanîfa, like Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’ has beencalled
Îsâ-ibni Meryem (Jesus the Son of Mary). He has been called Nu’mân bin Thâbit
(Nu’mân the Son of Thâbit) by all people, friends and enemies alike. His
father’s name is written in all books, with the exception of those written by
enemies of Ahl as-Sunna, who assert that his mother’s name was Hanîfa and forge
abhorrent stories about him.
Hadrat Imâm-i-A’zam Abű Hanîfa’s ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
aleyh’ grandfather’s name is Zűtâ, which is written as such in numerous books, e.g. in
the book Jâmi’ul-usűl, by the great scholar hadrat Ibni Esîr Jezrî. This high person was
a slave. Most scholars of fiqh have been from among slaves. Thâbit, the Imâm’s
father, was born through Muslim parents. Thâbit attended hadrat Alî’s sohbats
and thus received abundant fayz from hadrat Imâm (Alî). Imâm-i-Alî asked
blessings on Thâbit and progeny in his prayers. Zűtâ’s second name was Nu’mân.
On a Nevrűz Day, this Nu’mân offered hadrat Alî some jelly sweatmeat. Hadrat
Imâm-i-A’zam was educated by Imâm-i-Sha’bî and, when the latter passed away in
104, by Hammâd. When Hammâd passed away in the hundred and twenty-fourth year
of the Hegira, lovers of knowledge from all Islamic countries streamed into
Imâm-i-A’zam’s quarter. Thus he started to educate pupils. At that time there
was not a scholar named Shaddar. Nor is it written in any Islamic book that he
was taught by a person in that name.
Everything hadrat Imâm-i-A’zam Abű Hanîfa Nu’mân bin
Thâbit said or did would be in agreement with Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs. It is stated in the book Mîzân-ul-kubrâ: If a person studies the statements made by the Imâms
of the four Madh-habs reasonably and without any prejudice or recalcitrance, he
will see that they all were like celestial stars. He will look on their traducers as imbeciles who take stars’
images in limpid water as stars themselves. Imâm-i-A’zam stated, “Qiyâs is not
valid when there is nass [âyats and/or hadîths (with plain meanings)]. We do
not perform qiyâs unless it is inevitably necessary. When we confront an
enigmatic question, we first look it up in Qur’ân
al-kerîm. If we cannot find an answer, we search through hadîth-i-sherîfs. If there is still no answer, we look
the matter up in the statements made by any of the As-hâb-i-kirâm. If we cannot
find a solution to the question in these documents, either, we find its answer
through qiyâs.” At some other time he said, “When we meet a question and cannot
find its answer in
Qur’ân al-kerîm or
among hadîth-i-sherîfs, and if the answers given
to this question by the Sahâba vary, we choose one of the answers through
qiyâs.” And once he said, “In matters to which we cannot find an answer through
Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs,
we choose one of the answers given by hadrat Abű Bekr, ’Umar, ’Uthmân, and Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’. We hold the hadîth-i-sherîfs
coming from the Messenger of Allah on top of everything. We do not make a
statement contradicting them.” When Imâm-i-A’zam performed qiyâs on a matter
because he had not found its answer in any of the sources and then heard a
statement made by hadrat Abű Bekr on that matter, he would give up his own
ijtihâd and answer the question compatibly with that statement. He would follow
this same policy when any of the As-hâb-i-kirâm was involved. Abű Mutî’
relates: One Friday morning Abű Hanîfa and I were in Kűfa mosque.
Sufyân-i-Sawrî and Muqâtil and Hammâd bin Muslim and Ja’fer Sâdiq and others
came in and questioned Abű Hanîfa: “We have heard that you have been answering
questions on religious matters always by way of qiyâs. We are worried about
you.” Imâm-i-A’zam discussed with them till noon. He explained his Madh-hab in
detail. He told them how he would look up a religious matter first in Qur’ân al-kerîm, then in hadîth-i-sherîfs
and finally in the unanimous statements of the Sahâba before answering a
question asked on that matter. They all stood up, kissed the Imâm’s hand, and
said, “You are the master of scholars. Please forgive us! We are sorry for
annoying you, though inadvertently.” The Imâm’s response was: “May Allâhu ta’âlâ forgive us and you and have mercy on
us!” All the mujtahids in the Hanafî Madh-hab followed their leader’s example
and did not perform ijtihâd unless it was strongly necessary to do so. So was
the case with the other Madh-habs. They would not have recourse to qiyâs in
matters which had been explained through the nass (âyats and/or hadîth-i-sherîfs).
All the hadîth-i-sherîfs narrated to us by Imâm-i-A’zam Abű Hanîfa were reported from the As-hâb-i-kirâm to him by a group. He recorded each hadîth-i-sherîf together with a list of its reporters. Those who protest against the Imâm’s ijtihâd are people who did not realize the subtlety of his Madh-hab. Or they are a group of heretics inimical towards the Ahl as-Sunna. There are approximately twenty matters on which Hanafî and Shâfi’î Madh-habs differ from each other. And this difference originates from the methodical and regulational differences between the two Madh-habs. I have studied all the hadîth-i-sherîfs which Imâm-i-
A’zam ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’ put forward as
documents. I have seen that his and his disciples’ evidences are all tenable
and true. I say these words not only as perfunctory statements or for the sake
of courtesy like some people do, but as a result of long and painstaking
observation. I have seen that all the hadîth-i-sherîfs
reported by Imâm-i-A’zam were taken from the eminent ones of the Tâbi’în, who,
as is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, were all virtuous and good people.
Hadrat Tâj-ud-dîn-i-Subkî ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’ says
in his book Tabakât-ul-kubrâ, “One should be watchful about one’s attitude towards
the Imâms of the Madh-habs! One should not value the rumours and slanders
spread about great religious scholars! A person who protests against the
statements of the religious Imâms will end up in catastrophes. Everything they
say is based on an evidence, a document. People who are not like them cannot
comprehend these evidences. What devolves on us is to praise these noble people
and not to comment on their disagreeing on some matters. The disagreements
between them are like the disagreements between the Sahâba. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ prohibited us to censure the
As-hâb-i-kirâm on account of the disagreements among them. He commanded us to
mention them all with praises.”
If you wish to realize that the hadîth-i-sherîfs
reported by Imâm-i-A’zam ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’ are dependable and his
Madh-hab is correct, join the way of Ahlullah (people who have completely
trusted themselves to Allah and are therefore devoted to Islam). Make progess
with ikhlâs in knowledge and worshipping! Attain Islam’s ultimate essence! You
will then see that the Imâms of the four Madh-habs and those scholars who
follow them are in the right way and all their statements are compatible with
Islam.
Hadrat Shakîk-i-Belhî states that Abű Hanîfa had a
great deal of wara’ and religious lore and he was extremely pious [worshipping
much], noble and very diligent in religious matters. He never made personal
comments on religious matters. When he was asked a question, he would get his
disciples together, discuss the question with them and, when a unanimous
conclusion was reached, he would tell Abű Yűsuf or another disciple to “record
it in such and such page of a certain book.” Abdullah Ibni Mubârak relates,
“During a stay in the city of Kűfa I visited various scholars and asked them
each who (they thought) was the greatest scholar among them. The answer was the
same: they all
thought Imâm-i-A’zam was the greatest. When I asked
who was the most zâhid (person who has completely turned away from worldly
interests), the unanimous answer was again: Abű Hanîfa. When I asked them who
was the one who was most deeply devoted to knowledge, each and every one of
them acknowledged that it was Abű Hanîfa.” Here we end our translation from Mîzân-ul-kubrâ.
The hundred and fifty-ninth (159) âyat of An’âm sűra
purports, “O My Messenger! You could not have anything todo with
those who break into various groups in their religion. Allah shall punish them.
On the Rising Day Allâhuta’âlâ shall remind them of what they did in the
world”.”The various groups
mentioned in the âyat are the groups of heretics. This âyat-i-kerîma states plainly that such people are out of Islam and without îmân.
Since the Madh-habs of the four Imâms of Ahl as-Sunna do not differ from one
another in matters pertaining to îmân, it is obvious that this âyat indicates
heretical groups of bid’at.
12- It is alleged in a book written by a heretic
without a certain Madh-hab that “the day of Qurbân, i.e. the day when (Prophet)
hadrat Ibrâhîm attempted to sacrifice his son (to Allâhu ta’âlâ), is not certainly known, and the person to be sacrificed was
Is-haq (Isaac), not Ismâîl (Ishmael).”
Alî Zeynel’âbidîn and Muhammad Bâqir and Abdullah Ibni Abbâs and
Hasan-i-Basrî state that the intended sacrifice was Ismâîl. Our Prophet stated, “I am the child of two (intended) sacrifices.” This hadîth-i-sherîf shows that
the person intended to be sacrificed was hadrat Ismâîl. For our Prophet is a descendant of hadrat Ismâîl.
A hadîth-i-sherîf, reported by Abdullah Ibni Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhumâ’ and recorded in Bukhârî and in other books of Hadîth, states, “No
worship could be as virtuous as one performed during the first ten days of the
month of Zilhijja.” It is stated
in another hadîth-i-sherîf, “Fasting performed on the day of Arafa
will be kaffârat (will
indemnify) for the sins belonging to the previous one year and the
future one year.” This hadîth-i-sherîf can be paraphrased as follows: The fasting performed on the ninth
day of Zilhijja will be useful for the acceptance (by Allâhu ta’âlâ) of the tawba you will make for the sins you have committed
during the previous year and those you may commit the following year.
Putting forward the fake copies of the Torah
possessed by
Jewry, they attempt to prove that the intended
sacrifice was hadrat Is-haq. However, Qur’ân al-kerîm
informs that the existing copies of Torah are defiled, interpolated copies.
That the intended sacrifice was Ismâ’îl ‘alaihis-salâm’ is indicated through Qur’ân al-kerîm. The hundredth and later âyats of Sâffât sűra purport, “Yâ
Rabbî (o my Allah)! Give
(me) a son
from among the good. So We gave him the good news of a halîm [very good-tempered] son.
When the child reached the age to walk with Ibrâhim ‘alaihis-salâm’, Ibrâhîm
said untohim: ‘O my dear son! I have been having dreams in which Iam jugulating
you. Lo, what would you say about it?’ (The son said), ‘O my dear father, do
whatsoever you have beenordered to do! Inshâ-allah (If Allâhu
ta’âlâ wills it be so), youwill
find me among the patient.’ Both of them beingsubmissive to the decree of Allâhu
ta’âlâ, Ibrâhîm had his son lie on his forehead on the
ground. [The knife would not cut
the child’s throat]. We said, ‘O Ibrâhîm! You have provedtrue to
the dream. So we reward those who behave well.’ This event was an open test. We
gave him a big ram [to be
jugulated] instead of his son.”
“Thereafter
we gave him the good news of Is-haq (Isaac)from among the good as a Prophet. We
bestowed abundance on him and on Is-haq. Among their descendants there are good
ones as well as those who arecruel to their nafs.”
These âyat-i-kerîmas show
clearly that the would-be sacrifice was Ismâ’îl ‘alaihis-salâm’. For, when
Ibrâhîm ‘alaihis-salâm’ said, “I shall go wherever my Rabb (Allah) commands me
to go,” and migrated, he was first blessed with Ismâ’îl ‘alaihis-salâm’. Is-haq
‘alaihis-salâm’ was bestowed on him afterwards. We do not understand why they
are trying to conceal this fact.
As it is stated in the book Mir’ât-i-Mekka:
In the time of ’Umar bin
Abdul’azîz, a Jewish rabbi became a Muslim. The Khalîfa, ’Umar bin Abd-ul’azîz
asked him, “Who was the child to be sacrificed, Ismâ’îl or Is-hâq?” The new
Muslim’s answer was: “O Khalîfa! Jews know that the intended sacrifice was
hadrat Ismâ’îl. Yet because Ismâ’îl ‘alaihis-salâm’ was Muhammad’s
‘alaihis-salâm’ ancestor they say that their own ancestor, Is-hâq
‘alaihis-salâm’, was the sacrifice.” And now these people, following the course
guided by Jews and Christians, deny the fact that Ismâ’îl ‘alaihis-salâm’ was
the intended sacrifice.
To know which one of his sons Ibrâhîm ‘alaihis-salâm’
intended to sacrifice is not one of Islam’s principles of belief. Yet these
people, in order to attack Sunnite scholars, put forward this
matter as if it were something important. They
censure Ummayyads, Abbasids and Ottoman Turks. For Mukhtâr-i-Sekâfî was razed
by Umayyads, Qarmatîs (Carmatians) and Fâtimîs (Fatimids) by Abbasids, Hurűfîs
by Tîműr Khân (Tamerlane), and Safawîs by the Ottoman Turks. It is stated atthe
end of the fifth book of Ibni Âbidîn, “It is not an approvable behaviour for
Muslims to discuss religious matters that do not concern themselves. Such
questions as “Who is more virtuous, (Prophet) Ismâ’îl or
(Prophet) Is-hâq?”, “Who was going to besacrificed?”, “Who is
higher, hadrat Âisha (Rasűlullah’s blessed wife and hadrat Abű Bekr’s daughter) or
hadrat Fâtima (Rasűlullah’s blessed daughter)?” We are not supposed to know
the answer to these questions. Allâhu
ta’âlâ has not commanded us to learn
facts of this sort. May Allâhu ta’âlâ
bless these heretics with wisdom
and hidâyat so that they will give up their efforts to destroy Islam from the
inside.
13- It is allegedly stated in a book that the Umayyads changed
Islam. This allegation is a grave slander. There were scholars of Ahl
as-Sunna in the time of Umayyads. The way
taught by these scholars are the way guided by the Messenger of Allah and the
As-hâb-i-kirâm. The book misleads Muslims by calling the way guided by the
Messenger of Allah ‘a fabrication of Umayyads’.
14- A few of the sacred nights are named clearly in Qur’ân al-kerîm. Our Prophet taught all these nights to his As-hâb. And our
religious Imâms, learning them from the Ashâb-i-kirâm, wrote them in their
books. The Umayyad Khalîfas did not attack the Islamic religion. Today’s Islam
is the very Islam itself taught by our master, the Prophet.
Calling the holy nights ‘bid’at’, which some people do, means calling our Prophet’s hadîth-i-sherîfs ‘bid’at’. Islam is to be protected not by falling for the
statements made by some ignorant idiots, but by following the instructions
which scholars of Ahl as-Sunna learned from the As-hâb-i-kirâm and wrote for us
in their books.
15- To say that “They were derelict in leaving Rasűlullah’s janâza unattended” would mean grave calumniation against hadrat
Alî. Yes, when the sad news was heard, hadrat Alî was no less deeply depressed
than the others, so that he did not know what to do. He shut himself up in his
home, weeping and lamenting.
Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ had appointed hadrat Abű Bekr
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ imâm for Muslims before he passed away. Upon Rasűlullah’s death, therefore, Muslims
unanimously elected Abű Bekr imâm for themselves.
Hadrat Abű Bekr sent for hadrat Alî and commanded him to do the funeral
services for Rasűlullah. Thus the Prophet’s funeral
was held.
Hurűfîs vilify the As-hâb-i-kirâm by alleging that
“after our Prophet’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihi wa
sallam’ death they recruited soldiers against hadrat Alî and fought him.” This
allegation is another lie, another slander. The three Khalîfas cherished hadrat
Alî very highly. They never did anything to hurt his blessed heart. Those who
read Islamic histories know these facts. They will not fall for these lies.
Exploiting the insolent behaviour displayed by a couple of cruel
idiots during Imâm-i-Hasan’s funeral, they distort the events into grounds
convenient for attacking Sunnite Muslims. Thereby they try to mislead pure
Muslims. ’Umar, who fought aganist hadrat Huseyn at Kerbelâ and caused his
martyrdom, was the son of Sa’d Ibni Ebî Waqqâs, one of the
Ashara-i-mubash-shara, i.e. the ten fortunate Sahâbîs who had been given the
good news that they would go to Paradise. Now these enemies of Islam are trying
to generalize this ’Umar’s sin so as to include all Muslims and attempt to
exploit it as an excuse for cursing even those Muslims who had died earlier
than the perpetration of that sin. We should not fall for the mournful and
exaggerated stories forged by these people and cause segregation among Muslims.
It is harâm to have a bad opinion of a muslim, to backbite him, to slander him,
or to hurt him. Each of these things is a grave sin in itself. Another sin is
to nurse a grudge against a Muslim. Each of these sins is forbidden in Qur’ân al-kerîm. The interior enemies of Islam, Jewish
converts, whose real purpose is to break Muslims into inimical groups and to
set them against one another, rekindle covered historical events with
exaggeration, try to dig out some sad events which, let alone being principles
of belief to be learned, are to be covered, and provoke brothers against brothers.
Let us not fall for the lies of these insidious enemies and break into groups.
Let us be united in the right way taught by scholars of Ahl
as-Sunna, who are praised through hadîth-i-sherîfs. Unity will produce power. And
disunity will bring disasters.
These people sow disunity of îmân and ideas among
Muslims and make brothers hostile against one another.
The Sunnite Muslims’ parting into four Madh-habs is
not a disunity of îmân and ideas. Muslims being in the four Madh-habs are in
agreement with respect to îmân and thoughts. They look on one another as
brothers in Islam. They love one another. They
differ from one another only in a few unimportant
matters that have not been taught clearly through Qur’ân al-kerîm or hadîth-i-sherîfs. And then they follow one of the other three
Madh-habs when they have to in these matters.
It would be disastrous for Muslims to be broken into
credal sects. Our master the Prophet informed that Muslims would be broken into
seventy-three different groups and that seventy-two of these groups would go to
Hell. The group called Ahl as-Sunna ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’ is the one with
the correct belief. These Muslims have parted into four Madh-habs, which differ
only in some Islamic practices. This parting is a rahmat (Allah’s compassion)
on Muslims and facilitates matters for them.
Those who had copies of Qur’ân al-kerîm
trampled by horses were a number of people without a certain Madh-hab living in
Hidjâz, chiefly a heretic named Abű Tâhir Qarmatî. The names of the people who
turned the Rawda-i-mutahhara into a battlefield and plundered the Messenger’s
treasury are recorded in Mir’ât-ul-harameyn. Yes, there were some tyrants among the governors appointed by
Umayyads and by hadrat Alî. These people tormented Muslims. Yet these people
cannot be grounds for censuring or blaming hadrat Alî or hadrat Mu’âwiya. For
both of them are Sahâbîs and hadrat Alî is more virtuous than hadrat Mu’âwiya. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ informed
that none of the Sahâba would become a disbeliever afterwards and that they
would all go to Paradise. He prohibited us to criticize any one of them. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that He loves the
As-hâb-i-kirâm and that He is pleased with them. The Attributes of Allâhu ta’âlâ are eternal. His loving them is
eternal. As-hâb (or Sahâba) means Sahâbîs, that is, Companions. A person who
has îmân and sees the Messenger of Allah (at least) once becomes a Sahâbî. The
first three Khalîfas and hadrat Mu’âwiya and Amr Ibni Âs were Sahâbîs. None of
the As-hâb can be a renegade or a munâfiq. The fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ loves them will never change. If a person who states
that one or more of the As-hâb-i-kirâm renegaded or became sinful after Rasűlullah’s death makes this statement because he interprets
a doubtful nass (âyat or hadîth) incorrectly, he will become an aberrant man of
bid’at. If an ignorant person
who is quite unlearned in such branches as Nass and Ta’wîl makes this same
statement, he will become a disbeliever. Munâfiqs cannot have been Sahâbîs.
That some munâfiqs revealed their hypocricy afterwards does not mean that some
of the Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ became
Abd-ul-’azîz Dahlawî gives the following explanation about the
sixty-eighth Shiite allegation in his book Tuhfa-i-isnâ-Ash’ariyya:
“There were munâfiqs among the
As-hâb-i-kirâm. Formerly it was not known who they were. However, Muslims were
distinguished from munâfiqs towards the termination of our Prophet’s lifetime. A short time after Rasűlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ passing
away, there was none of these munâfiqs left still alive. The hundred and
seventy-ninth âyat of Âl-i-’Imrân sűra purports, ‘O
munâfiqs! Allâhu ta’âlâ will
not leave you to yourselves. He will distinguish true Believersfrom munâfiqs!’ It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf,
‘The city of Medîna will sever munâfiqs from Believers. It will do
so likea blacksmith’s furnace severing rust from iron.’ The âyat-i-kerîma and the hadîth-i-sherîf quoted above show quite plainly that
the four Khalîfas and hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’, whom our master the
Messenger of Allah had praised till his death, did not become disbelievers
afterwards.”
Muslims will not curse, and have never cursed, Rasűlullah’s Ahl-i-Bayt ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’ anywhere, nonetheless in
mosques. Muslims know that loving and praising the Ahl-i-Bayt will cause them
to die as Believers. To generalize a wrongdoing committed by a couple of
munâfiqs so as to involve all Muslims in it and thus to arouse fitna among
Muslims, is an act of animosity against Islam. These treacherous people traduce
Muslims as enemies of the Ahl-i-Bayt. To call the followers and lovers
Ahl-i-Bayt ‘enemies of Ahl-i-Bayt’ is a horrifying attack launched by
ill-willed, malevolent munâfiqs with the sheer purpose of breaking Muslims into
groups.
Muslims love Rasűlullah’s
Ahl-i-Bayt ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ more than anyone else and they love
also those who love the Ahl-i-Bayt. Muslims who love the Ahl-i-Bayt and follow
the right way guided by the Ahl-i-Bayt are called Ahl
as-Sunna.
As it is stated in the book Tuhfa, the twenty-fourth allegation made by Hurűfîs is that the Ahl
as-Sunnat Muslims are inimical towards the Ahl-i-Bayt. In order to convince
others that they are right, they fable some sad stories. All these detestable
stories are lies and slanders. Scholars of Ahl as-Sunna unanimously state that
it is necessary, it is farz for every male and female Muslim to love all the
members of the Ahl-i-Bayt. It is one of the principles of îmân to love them.
Scholars of Ahl as-Sunna wrote numerous
books telling about the virtues of the Ahl-i-Bayt ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’. For their sake these scholars stood against Umayyad
and Abbasid governors and even sacrificed their lives. Sa’d bin Jubeyr and
Nesâî and many others were martyred on account of their struggles for the
Ahl-i-Bayt. A considerable number of them suffered persecutions and spent their
lives in dungeons. Meanwhile, those who did not belong to a certain Madh-hab
concealed themselves in a hypocritical way termed Taqiyya
and pretended to be against the Ahl-i-Bayt
in order to attain their goals, which were either money or worldly positions.
It is the Ahl as-Sunna who have always supported the Ahl-i-Bayt. All Sunnite
Muslims have been asking blessings on the Ahl-i-Bayt in all their prayers of
namâz.
Sunnite Muslims love all the members of the
Ahl-i-Bayt without discriminating among them. This is not the case with people
who do not have a certain Madh-hab. When one of their imâms died, his own
brothers and relatives would call him a disbeliever. They would appoint one of
their sons as their new imâm, cursing and vituperating the others. No one
except Sunnite Muslims loved all the Ahl-i-Bayt and would always run to help
any one of them in need of help. Our Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “I am leaving behind me
twoguides for you: I am leaving Allah’s Book and my Ahl-i-Bayt.” As this hadîth-i-sherîf
indicates, as it will be useless to believe a certain part of Qur’ân al-kerîm and to disbelieve the rest, so will it do one no good in the
Hereafter to believe and love some of the Ahl-i-Bayt and to curse and vilify
the others. As it is necessary to believe in Qur’ân al-kerîm as a
whole, so is it a must to love all the members of the Ahl-i-Bayt. And loving
all the members of the Ahl-i-Bayt, which is a blessing of Allâhu ta’âlâ, has not devolved to anyone’s lot except Muslims holding the belief
of Ahl as-Sunna. For
instance, Khârijîs entangled themselves in the opprobrium of harbouring a
grudge against hadrat Alî and his pure children. Some Shiite groups tumbled
into the curse of bearing hostility towards hadrat Âisha-i-Siddîqa and hadrat
Hafsa, who are Muslims’ blessed mothers, and towards Zubeyr bin Awwâm, who was Rasűlullah’s paternal aunt’s son. The Kirâmiyya group denied hadrat Hasan’s
and hadrat Huseyn’s being Imâms. The Muhtâriyya group disbelieved Imâm
Zeynel’âbidîn, the Imâmiyya group denied Zeyd-i-Shehîd, and the Ismâ’îliyya
group would not accept Imâm Műsâ Kâzim. These are only a few examples of
numerous people who deprived themselves of the great fortune of
loving the Ahl-i-Bayt and obeying the hadîth-i-sherîf quoted above.
When Imâm Alî Ridâ arrived in Nishâpur, more than twenty scholars
met him. They begged him to recite a hadîth-i-sherîf
transmitted through his ancestors (coming from his earliest grandfather, Rasűlullah). The noble Imâm quoted the hadîth-i-qudsî
that purported, “(The
word) Lâ ilâha il-l-Allâh, is My shelter. He who says this word
will have taken asylum inthe fortress. And he who has entered the fortress will
be safe against My torment.” Scholars
of Ahl as-Sunna state that if this hadîth-i-qudsî is recited in the manner that
will be prescribed below and blown unto an ill person, that person will heal.
When the love which Sunnite Muslims have for the Ahl-i-Bayt is so exuberant,
would it not be either sheer nescience or idiocy or blind hostility against the
Ahl as-Sunna to suppose that Sunnite Muslims were inimical against the
Ahl-i-Bayt? Here we end our translation from Tuhfa. The following prayer must be written in its (original) Arabic
letters and read correctly: “Rawâ Aliy-yul-Ridâ, fe-qâla, Haddasanî Ebî
Műsal-Kâzim an ebîhi Jâ’fer-is-Sâdiq an ebîhi Muhammad-il-Bâqir an ebîhi
Zeynel’âbidîn Alî an ebîh-il-Huseyn an ebîhi Alî bin Ebî Tâlib ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhum’, qâla haddasanî habîbî wa qurratu aynî Rasűlullâhi ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wa sallam’, qâla haddasanî Jibrîlu, qâla sami’tu Rabb-ul-’izzati yaqűlu, ‘Lâ
ilâha il-l-Allâhu hisnî, man qâla-hâ dahala hisnî, wa men dahala hisnî emina
min’azâbî.”
16- Whenever we Muslims say or write the name of any
of the beloved Ahl-i-Bayt or the virtuous As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihim ajmâ’în’ of our master the Prophet, we say,
“radiy-Allâhu anh.” This expression means, “May Allâhu ta’âlâ be
pleased with him.” As is written in the section before the one dealing with
Farâiz in the fifth book of Durr-ul-mukhtâr, one of Muslims’ most valuable books, and also in its
commentary, “It is mustahab (an act which deserves much reward in the
Hereafter) to say ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ for the As-hâb-i-kirâm. For all of them
struggled very hard to please Allâhu
ta’âlâ. They welcomed everything
coming from Allâhu ta’âlâ with pleasure. Allâhu ta’âlâ is
pleased with them. The thawâb given to others for their alms in gold as big as
a mountain could not equal the thawâb that would be given to these people for
dispensing half a handful of barley as alms.”
The book Mesâbîh-i-sherîf and the book Izâlat-ul-hafâ an
khilâfat-il-khulafâ, the latter
by Shâh Waliyyullâhi Dahlawî
‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’, quote Abdullah Ibni ’Umar
‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ as having said, “In the time of the Messenger of Allah we
would say ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ whenever we mentioned the names of hadrat Abű
Bekr, ’Umar and ’Uthmân.”
We Muslims do not like people who do harm to the Islamic
religion. We remember their names with hatred. Therefore we remember with
hatred the names of such villains as Abdullah bin Saba’, Hasan Sabbâh, Abű
Tâhir Qarmatî, Shâh Ismâ’îl Safawî, who caused thousands of Muslims to be
martyred. We love very much hadrat Abű Bekr, hadrat ’Umar, hadrat ’Uthmân,
hadrat Alî and hadrat Mu’âwiya, who dedicated themselves faithfully to the
Islamic faith and who loved the Messenger of Allah very much and therefore
would sacrifice their lives, property and homelands for his sake. We also love
and praise people who love our Prophet’s
Ahl-i-Bayt and these Sahâbîs ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’. Could a
Muslim sympathize with those who cast such preposterous aspersions and
slanderson Sahâbîs such as hadrat Mu’âwiya and hadrat Amr Ibni Âs, who rendered
great services to Islam and fought against Byzantines, the enemies of Islam,
for years? They are poisoning the pure young brains with their irrational,
unfounded interpretations. This poison is evil property to be inherited. In
order to transfer this property to the sinless, innocent generations of the
future, they are publishing heretical books and aberrant magazines and
distributing them everywhere. Have we forgotten the hadîth-i-sherîf,
“When fitnas and lies become widespread, may those who do not tell
the truththough they know it be accursed!”?
By the way, we
would like to relate the following episode: As hadrat Jâbir bin Abdullah
narrates, a villager came to hadrat Alî and asked, “O Emîr-al-mu’minîn! Is Abű Bekr in Paradise?”
This question hurt hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ considerably. So he said, “I
wish I had never come to the world. This statement has never been made by
anyone else before, neither by Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ nor by any other Muslim after him. Abű Bekr
as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was always with the Messenger of Allah; he was his
vizier and counsellor. He succeeded him as the Khalîfa after his passing away.
He who denies this fact will become a disbeliever. O villager! Hadrat Abű Bekr
as-Siddîq sent for me towards his passing away. He said to me, ‘O my darling
brother! I am going to pass away soon. When I die, wash me with those blessed
hands of yours with which you washed the Messenger of Allah! Wrap me in my
shroud and put
me in my coffin!
Take my corpse to the entrance of Hujra-i-sa’âdat! Say unto Rasűlullah: Abű Bekr is at the door. He asks for
(your) permission to enter.’ O my brother in Islam! When Abű Bekr as-Siddîq
passed away, I did whatever he had told me to do. When we put his coffin in
front of the door of Hujra-i-sa’âdat and I asked
for permission, we heard a voice saying, ‘Bring the darling near the
darling!’ Therefore we buried hadrat Abű Bekr
beside the Messenger of Allah!”
Hadrat Alî “kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’ and all the twelve
Imâms narrated hadîths from hadrat Abű Bekr and from the other Khalîfas and
from Jâbir bin Abdullah ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’. This means to
say that they confirmed the hadîth-i-sherîfs transmitted by them. They acknowledged that those
noble people were just and faithful. For this reason, a person who follows
hadrat Alî and Ahl-i-Bayt ought to have the same love for hadrat Abű Bekr
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’. For it is a generally known fact
that a friend’s friends will be liked, and a friend’s enemies will be disliked.
Qur’ân al-kerîm informs that all the As-hâb-i-kirâm loved one
another very much. Our master, the Prophet, declared, “He
who loves me will love myAs-hâb, too! Love all my As-hâb!” Some people today have abandoned the way prescribed
by Qur’ân al-kerîm and guided by Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. They say,
“Among the Sahâba there were people inimical toward the Ahl-i-Bayt. So we are
inimical to them.” Such allegations – may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect
us from believing them – are vilifications fabricated by the Jewish convert
named Abdullah bin Saba’. We Muslims should not fall for such lies! We should
love very much both the Ahl-i-Bayt and all the As-hâb-i-kirâm. For our master,
the Prophet, stated, “My As-hâb are like the stars
in the sky. A person who follows any one of them will attain hidâyat!” That is, a person who does so will go to Paradise.
They are trying to destroy Islam from the interior.
These people deny the true teachings which scholars of Ahl as-Sunna learned
from Qur’ân al-kerîm and wrote in their books. In order to deceive
Muslims, they say that these teachings are extraneous to Qur’ân. In order to
make their lies believable, they give wrong meanings to âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs. They call these heretical meanings the true
Islamic religion. According to these zindiqs, Muslims all over the world have
been holding wrong beliefs and practising wrong worships for more than fourteen
hundred years and now they are recovering the original correct forms.
17- Heretics attempt to call things that are
forbidden to eat ‘permissible’ and vice versa.
It is stated in Muslim and Abű Dâwűd, “Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ prohibited to eat
those wild animals that have canine teeth and birds that hunt their preys with
their talons.” It is not halâl (permitted) to eat insects, that is, small
animals that have their nests in earth. It is haram to eat rats, lizards,
hedgehogs, snakes, frogs, bees, fleas, lice, mosquitos, flies, ticks. For they
are insects. It is not halâl to eat meat from domestic donkeys, which live
among people. Meat and milk obtained from wild donkeys living in mountains are
halâl. Meat from a mule is not halâl. Hyenas, foxes, tortoises, (turtles),
carrion crows, vultures, wolves, elephants, mountain lizards, field mice,
weasels, eagles, cats, squirrels, sables, polecats, other animals of this sort,
insects without blood, maggots living in fruits, cheese or meat are not edible.
A mountain lizard, which is termed ‘dab’ in Arabic, is similar to an ordinary
lizard.
Field crows are halâl. For they eat field grains. It
is halâl to eat rabbit meat, too.
It is written in the book Multaqâ
that it is halâl to eat rabbit
meat. It is not makrűh (prohibited by the Prophet). This fact
is explained as follows in the book Majmâ’ul-enhur: It is halâl to eat rabbit meat. They brought some
kebab made from rabbit meat to our master the Prophet. He said to
his As-hâb, “Eat this!” It is stated in the book Durr-ul-muntaqâ, “It is halâl to eat rabbit meat. For the rabbit is
not a beast of prey.”
The author of the book Qudűrî
“rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’
states that it is halâl to eat all sorts of rabbit meat. Commenting on this,
the book Jawhara states that “It is halâl to eat rabbit meat, for a rabbit is not a
beast of prey and does not eat carrion. A rabbit is like a deer.”
Mawlânâ Abd-ul-halîm Efendi ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’,
Qâdî of Damascus, states in his commentary Durer, “It is stated unanimously (by scholars) that erneb,
that is, rabbit meat, is mubâh
(permissible) to eat. For a rabbit is not a beast of prey and does not eat
carrion. It is like a deer. It is herbivorous. It is written plainly in books
of fiqh that rabbit meat is halâl. This means to refute those who say that it
is harâm.”
As is seen, eating rabbit meat is halâl according to the
unanimity of scholars. No Islamic scholar has said ‘harâm’ or even ‘makrűh’
about rabbit meat. Above all, since our master the
Prophet advised to eat
rabbit meat, could a Muslim say that rabbit meat should not be eaten?
Certainly, no Muslim could say that rabbit meat is harâm. There has never been
a dispute among Muslims on whether or not rabbit meat can be eaten. Yet these
people say that rabbit meat should not be eaten. No Muslim has taken any heed
of this assertion of theirs. All Muslims have been eating rabbit meat for
centuries. Our Prophet’s stating “Eat the
rabbit” has shed a light for all Muslims. This subject is not worth being dwelt
on. Our master the Prophet has settled the
matter. Hurűfîs’ gossips could not change our Prophet’s
prescription.
They allege that rabbit meat should not be eaten
because it is stated in the Torah that it should not be eaten. Muslims adapt
themselves to Qur’ân al-kerîm and to the commandments of our master, the Prophet, in
whatever they do. They do not follow the Torah. Qur’ân al-kerîm has
abrogated, invalidated most of the commandments in the Torah. Moreover, nowhere
in the world today is there left an original copy of the Torah revealed by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Is it worthy of a Muslim to say that rabbit meat is not edible
only because it is stated so in the copies of the Torah manufactured by Jews?
However, Hurűfîs, who are the followers of a Jew of Yemen named Abdullah bin
Saba’, imitate him and value the Torah highly.
The forty-first âyat of Baqara sűra purports, “Believe
in the Qur’ân, which verifies the Torah you possess in the knowledge pertaining
to the unity of Allah, to the tormentsand rewards, and in (the teachings pertaining to) îmân!”
And its sixty-third âyat
purports, “We said: o the sons of Isrâîl! Adhere respectfully to the
Book We have given to you!”These
âyats do not show that the Qur’ân is the Torah. Its ninety-first âyat purports,
“That Qur’ân is true. It confirms the Torah, which existed at that
time.” Yes, teachings
pertaining to belief are not different in the Torah than they are in the Qur’ân
or in any other heavenly Book. Yet teachings pertaining to worships, halâls and
harâms are different in every heavenly Book. The ninety-seventh âyat, which
purports, “The Qur’ân confirms the Books previous to itself,” points out that teachings of belief are all the same
in those heavenly Books that have not been interpolated.
The fifty-second âyat of Mâida sűra purports, “We
have revealed the Qur’ân as the right Book to thee. It confirms the previously
revealed books.” The twelfth âyat of
Ahkâf sűra purports, “Before the Qur’ân, the Torah, the Book of Műsâ
(Moses), was revealed as the
Book to guide to the way to follow
and as
(Allah’s) compassion on those
whowould follow it. And this Qur’ân, which has been revealed to threaten the
cruel with Hell and to give the good news ofParadise to those who do good, is a
Book that confirms the Torah.”
Imâm-i-Baydawî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’, a scholar
of Tafsîr, states that [The expression, “The Qur’ân confirms the Torah,” which
is purported in these âyat-i-kerîmas, means, “The Qur’ân is the Book (whose revelation
was) informed (beforehand) by the Torah. Yes, the two Books agree on principles
of belief, episodes, information given on various events, on the torments in
Hell and the blessings in Paradise, enjoining worships and justice and
prohibiting wicked deeds. Yet, kinds of halâls and harâms and forms of worships
are not the same. These things could not be the same for different people
living in different times. Each heavenly Book contains a formula of principles
suitable and useful for the Ummat for whom it has been sent down. Our Prophet
stated, “If Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ were alive now, he would do
nothing butfollow me.”]
The fiftieth âyat-i-kerîma of
Âl-i-’Imrân sűra answers Hurűfîsexpressly. Allâhu ta’âlâ quotes
the statements made by Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in the âyat-i-kerîma, which purports, “I have come to confirm what
was declared in the Torah before me. I have come to make halâl the things that
were made harâmfor you.” This âyat-i-kerîma shows clearly that the Ijnîl of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ confirms the
Torah on the one hand and makes halâl some of the harâms in it on the other. By
the same token, Qur’ân
al-kerîm both confirms the Torah and
abrogates its permissions and prohibitions. Most of these changes are explained
in books written by the Islamic scholars.
Followers of Ibni Saba’ are called Hurűfîs. These people attach
wrong meanings to âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs. He who gives wrong meanings to Qur’ân al-kerîm becomes a disbeliever. For instance,
the fifth âyat of Jum’a sűra purports, “Those who deny the Torah are
likened to an ass loadedwith a burden of books on its back.” However, this âyat-i-kerîma is
explained as follows in books of Tafsîr: “People whohave been commanded
to carry the burden of obeying the Torah’s principles and yet only read it and
do not observe its commandments and prohibitions, [i.e. Jews], are like an ass suffering the toil of
carrying books of knowledge fornothing.” We
Muslims believe in the Torah as a heavenly Book revealed by Allâhu ta’âlâ. What we do not believe is that the book
possessed by Jews today is the
original Torah itself. Jews defiled, changed many parts of that
Torah. The fifteenth âyat of Mâida sűra, which purports, “They
changed the words in theBook of Allah, that is, in the Torah,” informs with this fact. The seventy-fifth âyat of Baqara sűra
purports, “A group of Jews would hear the Torah. After understanding
the commandments and prohibitions in it, they would change them.”
A hadîth-i-sherîf, which is reported by Tabarânî and written in Kunűz,
states, “Israelites
followed a religious book they themselves wrote. They deserted the Torah of
Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.” This hadîth-i-sherîf informs that the existing books named Talmud,
Mishna and Gemara,
which Jews have been keeping in
the name of Torah, are not the Book of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.
What animals are edible and which ones should not be
eaten? Muslims learn this from Qur’ân
al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs. Jews and heretics, however, look it up in the existing copies
of the interpolated Torah. The Islamic religion has prohibited the consumption
of carrion, liquid blood, pork, meat from beasts that hunt their preys with
their canine teeth or paws (or talons), and insects. Others are halâl. If an
animal that is halâl to eat is killed in the name of someone other that Allâhu ta’âlâ or by an unbeliever who does not believe in any heavenly Book, it
becomes harâm to eat it.
The hundred and forty-fifth âyat of An’âm sűra
purports, “Say: things that are forbidden through the Qur’ân to
eatare carrion and liquid blood and the foul pork and animals killed in any
name except that of Allah.” This âyat-i-kerîma informs that four things are harâm. And six more
harâms were reported by our master the Prophet. It is
narrated by Abdullah ibni Abbâs that the Messenger of Allah prohibited beasts
of prey that have canine teeth and birds of prey that hunt with their talons.
The liquid (running) blood mentioned in the âyat-i-kerîma is the
blood running out of the veins of a living or newly butchered animal. It is
halâl to eat meat with blood in it, such as a liver or a spleen.
Then, it is halâl to eat mutton, beef and rabbit meat
even when they have blood in them. It would be wrong to say that a rabbit is
wholely blood. After the blood is gone, the rabbit is cooked or roasted and
then eaten. It has a delicious flavour. As a matter of fact, our master, the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihi wa sallam’, had his As-hâb eat rabbit meat.
The hundred and forty-sixth âyat of An’âm sűra
purports,
“We
prohibited Jewry to eat all sorts of nailed animals. Wealso prohibited the suet
of sheep and cattle.” Qur’ân
al-kerîm informs that Jews were
prohibited to eat suet. Would it be correct to say it should be harâm for
Muslims because it was harâm for Jews? Of course, it would not. These zindiqs,
who are the inner enemies of Islam, are misleading Muslims by saying that since
nailed animals are harâm, the rabbit should be harâm, too. They are distorting
the facts by giving the impression as if nailed animals were harâm for Muslims.
Actually, Qur’ân al kerîm informs that nailed animals were made harâm for Jews,
not for Muslims.
Their statement, “Meat of an animal with an ugly
outward appearance should not be eaten,” is another lie. There is not a hadîth-i-sherîf saying so. Hurűfîs make this allegation in order to use it as a
fulcrum for comparing the rabbit to an ass, which would automatically lead to
the conclusion that rabbit meat should not be eaten inasmuch as the ass is not
an edible animal. We would like to ask these heretics this question: Only a
while ago you were saying that the rabbit was blood entirely and there would be
nothing left when the blood was gone. And now you are saying that rabbit meat
is like the meat of an ass. How can these two statements be reconciled?
A person may or may not like rabbit meat. Yet,
calling something which one does not like ‘harâm’ and giving wrong meanings to âyat-i-kerîmas in order to prove this lie true would indicate heresy and sheer
emnity towards Islam.
So far we have proved through âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs that rabbit meat is halâl. We should not push aside
âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs and
read and believe copies of the Torah defiled by Jews or misleading books
written by enemies of Islam!
18- Allâhu
ta’âlâ is the Rabb of both Muslims and
disbelievers and zindiqs. However, He has informed that He likes Muslims and
hates disbelievers and zindiqs.
Every Prophet
‘salawâtullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’ held the same îmân. Yet their Sharî’ats
are different. Furthermore, the heavenly Books revealed to past Prophets were
changed by vicious people afterwards. Yet the religion revealed to Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm has never changed. Qur’ân al-kerîm
informs that no one will be able to change it till the end of the world.
Enemies of Islam are striving to change this religion. Books written by
scholars of Ahl as-Sunna are spreading this religion in its correct form all
over the world and protecting it
In order to deceive Muslims’ children, these people
put forward various âyats of Qur’ân
al-kerîm, e.g. the sixty-second âyat of
Ahzâb sűra, which purports, “Munâfiqs are accursed. They are to be arrested
and killed whereever they are found! Since the earliest times it has been the
divine law of Allâhu ta’âlâ that
people who do so should be killed. Youwill find no change in the divine law of
Allâhu ta’âlâ.” They say
that this âyat-i-kerîma shows that all Prophets ‘salawâtullâhi ta’âlâ
alaihim ajma’în’ taught the same religion. However, this âyat-i-kerîma shows that it is the divine law of Allâhu ta’âlâ to
reward Believers and torment disbelievers and that this divine law will never
change.
The sixty-sixth âyat of Âl-i-’Imrân sűra purports, “Ibrâhîm
‘alaihis-salâm’ was neither a Jew nor a Nazarite. He was a Muslim with correct
belief. Nor was he a polytheist.” This âyat-i-kerîma shows that Jews and Christians are not Muslims. Ibni
Âbidîn states in its chapter about the namâz for janâza that the word Islam has
two distinct meanings: (1) the religion brought by Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’;
(2) obedience. The same definition is written in the books Kâműs and Munjid.
It is purported as follows in Hujurât sűra: “Those
who came from the desert said, ‘We believe’. Say unto them: ‘You donot believe.
Yet say that you have entered Islam and obey. Îmân has not settled in your
hearts’.” The word ‘Islam’ in this
âyat-i-kerîma means ‘to obey, to follow’. It does not mean ‘to
believe in Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. All Ummats had the same îmân. Yet not all
of them are called Muslims. The eighty-ninth âyat of Nahl sűra purports, “We
have sent thee the Qur’ân, which informs with everything and which is hidâyat
andrahmat for everybody and which gives Muslims the goodnews of Paradise.” The nineteenth âyat-i-kerîma of
Âl-i-’Imrân sűra purports, “The religion which Allâhu
ta’âlâ approves isthe Islamic religion.” The eighty-fifth âyat of the same sűra purports, “If a
person wishes any religion except Islam, thereligion he wishes will be
rejected. This person will be a loser in the Hereafter!” The word ‘Islam’ used in these âyat-i-kerîmas covers both meanings at the same time; it means ‘belief in the
religion brought by Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ and obedience to him.’ Allâhu ta’âlâ gives Muslims the good news of Paradise. Each Muslim is a
Believer.
19- Our Prophet Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’ was born in the city of Mekka towards a Monday morning on the
twelfth night of the month of Rebî’ul-awwal, that is, on the night between the
eleventh and the twelfth days, fifty-three years
before the Hijrat (Hegira). History books write that the Mawlîd-i-Nebî (birth
of the blessed Prophet) took place on the twentieth of April five hundred
and seventy-five years after Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ Mîlâd (birth). Since Îsâ’s
‘alaihis-salâm’ birth-year is not known exactly, that the Hijrat took place in
the six hundred and twenty-second year of the Mîlâd is not a scientifically
proven fact.
Like all other Prophets, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, too,
said that Allâhu ta’âlâ is One. Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher
contemporary with Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ proposed the doctrine of three gods. This
doctrine, which was called Trinity, did not find much acceptance. Constantine the Great,
East Roman Emperor, accepted Christianity. With a view to unifying
Christianity, which had been broken into sects, he convened three hundred and
nineteen priests in
Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihi wa
sallam’ passed away in the city of Medîna on a Monday afternoon, which was the
twelfth of the month of Rebî’ul-awwal in the eleventh year of the Hijrat.
20- Mourning is not Islamic. Our master the Prophet
prohibited mourning. A hadîth-i-sherîf reported in the book Muslim
states, “If a
mourner has not made tawba before dying,
he shall be subjected to severe torment in the Hereafter.” Our Prophet states in another hadîth-i-sherîf,
which, too, is reported in Muslim, “Two things would drift one to
disbelief. The first one is to swear at someone’s ancestors and the second is
to mourn.”
It is written in the initial pages of Tuhfa that mourning, crying and wailing on the Ashűra day,
the tenth of Muharram, is a practice invented by Muhtâr Seqâfî. The bid’at
spread like a kind of worship among people without a certain Madh-hab.
Actually, Muhtâr’s real purpose was to exploit this as a stratagem to dupe the
inhabitants of Kűfa into fighting against the Umayyads and thus to seize power.
If mourning had not been prohibited, our master the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihi wa salam’ would have taken priority over anyone else to be
mourned for upon his death. Then we would
have mourned over the martyrdoms of hadrat ’Umar,
hadrat Alî and hadrat Huseyn. Whe love them all very much. We are deeply sad
about their martyrdoms. Yet we do not mourn over them. We do not mourn although
we do feel extremely sorry. We do not mourn because Muslims are forbidden to
mourn or to curse others.
Islam licenses celebrating one’s birthday and
thanking Allâhu ta’âlâ for this. Our master the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihi wa sallam’ would fast on Mondays. When he was asked the
reason, he stated, “It is my birthday. I am fasting to show my
gratitude.”
21-Birthday celebrations and holy nights should be
observed in accordance with the Hijrî calendar. The thirty-seventh âyat of
Tawba sűra purports, “The number of months have been twelve since Allâhu
ta’âlâ created heavens and earth. Four of them are months that are
harâm. It is a powerful faith, [that is, it has been known since the times of Ibrâhîm and Ismâîl
‘alaihis-salâm’], that these four months are harâm. Do not
torment yourselves in these four months!”That the four harâm months are Rajab, Zilqa’da, Zilhijja, and
Muharram was informed by our master the Prophet. The twelve
months are the Arabic months whereby hijrî years are calculated.
The thirty-eighth âyat of Tawba sűra purports, “To
postpone a month’s being harâm to another month wouldonly aggravate the state
of disbelief. Disbelievers deviate in this matter. In order to equalize the
number of months made harâm by Allâhu ta’âlâ, they
make a harâm monthhalâl for one year and make it harâm again in another
year.Thus they make halâl what Allah has made harâm.” Before Islam it was a common practice among the
Arabs; when they wanted to make war in a harâm month, say, in Muharram, they
would give the name Muharram to the month following the actual month of
Muharram, giving in turn this second month’s name to the month of Muharram.
Thus the month immediately coming after Muharram would become the harâm month.
This âyat-i-kerîma prohibited to change months’ places. To say that the
observed months move ten days forward each year would be a void explanation of
the matter. A more correct explanation would be that the Arabic year whose
months are mentioned in Qur’ân
al-kerîm and used in the Islamic
technicalities is ten days shorter than a solar year. The hijrî lunar new year
is therefore ten days earlier than the hijrî solar and the Christian new years.
Consequently, Muslims’ holy days and nights are ten days earlier each year when
they are calculated by solar
years. After all, Muslims’ sacred days are calculated
and arranged not by solar months, but by hijrî lunar months. This is a
commandment of our religion. A sacred day of the year means a certain day of
the Arabic month, not a certain day of the week. For instance, the Day of
Ashűra means the tenth of Muharram. This day cannot be the same day of the week
every year. It can as well be other days. However, there are sacred ones among
the days of the week, too. For instance, Monday is a valuable day on account of
its always being the day when happy events took place.
The tenth of Muharram is a sacred day for Muslims.
Our master the Prophet informed that that day was a holy day. He gave the
good news that abundant thawâb would be given for worships performed on that
day. It became sunnat to fast that day.
In Islam solar months do not contain a certain holy day. For
instance, the Nevruz day, which is the twentieth of March, the Hýdýrelles day,
the sixth of May, and the Mihrican (Mihrgân) day, which is the twenty-second of
September, are observed as holy days in some places. These days are valuable
not in Islam, but among disbelievers, i.e. non-Muslims. So is the case with
Christmas day and eve. Durr-ul-mukhtâr, while giving information on miscellaneous matters towards the end
of its fifth book, treats this matter as follows: “It is not permissible to
offer anything to anyone in honour of the days of Nevruz on Mihrgân. In other
words, it is harâm to give presents in the name of these days or with the
intention of observing these days. If a person does so because he respects
these days, he becomes a disbeliever. For these days are respected by
polytheists. Abul-Hafs-i-kebîr states that if a person worships Allâhu ta’âlâ for fifty years and then gives an egg
as a present to a polytheist in honour of the Nevruz day, he will become a
disbeliever. The thawâb for all the worships he has performed will become null
and void. However, if he gives a present to a Muslim on this day without paying
a special attention to this day or because he has to follow the custom, he will
not become a dissbeliever. Yet it would be safer to give the present one day
earlier or later. If a person who bought on that day something which he would
not buy on any other day did so because he respected that day, he would become
a disbeliever. If he bought it only for consuming it without specially
observing that day, he would not become a disbeliever.”
22- Hurűfîs allege that “The conflicts between Sunnites and
Shiites, which have been continuing throughout centuries, originated from the
vulgar curses put upon hadrat Alî ‘kerrem
Allâhu wejheh’ and his Ahl-i-Bayt in the time of a person
accursed by Allah, namely Mu’âwiya the son of Sufyân.” This statement of theirs
is not only false, but also vulgarly ignorant and idiotic. People called Alevî
in Turkey should not believe these lies. The Islamic history does not contain
any event in the name of Sünnî-Alevî conflict. What took place in the name of
Sunnite-Shiite conflict was a result of provocations done for political and
imperialistic considerations. Sunnites have proven in their books that Shiites
are wrong. In these books of theirs they have shown their respect and love for
Alevîs. They have borne the name Alevî like a crown on their heads. For Alevî
means Sayyeds and Sherîfs. In other words, our noble Prophet’s
descendants were called Alevî. Who would not love these Alevîs? Certainly we
all love them. Enemies of Islam, upon seeing that Muslims loved Alevîs very
much, called Hurűfîs Alevî in order to dupe Muslims. Hurűfîs curse the four
Khalîfas and hadrat Mu’âwiya. Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ is one of the
As-hâb of our master the Prophet. At the same
time, he is the Prophet’s brother-in-law. That
is, he is one of the Ahl-i-Bayt of our master the Prophet.
He is a champion of Islam who served as the governor of Damascus and performed
Jihâd against the Byzantine Greek armies during the caliphates of hadrat ’Umar,
hadrat ’Uthmân and hadrat Alî. Hadrat Hasan relinquished his right of caliphate
to hadrat Mu’âwiya of his own volition. He would not have yielded his right to
him if he had not thought he would be worthy of it. On the contrary, he would
have fought him. To say that hadrat Hasan waived his right of caliphate to
someone who did not deserve it would mean to vilify hadrat Hasan.
Our master the Prophet stated, “Love
my As-hâb! He who is hostile to my As-hâb, is hostile to me.” It is for this reason that we true Muslims love
hadrat Mu’âwiya very much. For we true Muslims love Muhammad’s ‘alaihis-salâm’
Ahl-i-Bayt very much. People without a certain Madh-hab claim that they love
hadrat Alî’s Ahl-i-Bayt. They love the Ahl-i-Bayt for the sake of hadrat Alî.
On the other hand, we true Muslims call them Muhammad’s ‘alaihis-salâm’
Ahl-i-Bayt. We love the Ahl-i-Bayt for the sake of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’.
And we love hadrat Alî because he is one of the Ahl-i-Bayt.
No Muslim has slandered or would slander Muhammad’s
‘alaihis-salâm’ Ahl-i-Bayt. A few of the Umayyad Khalîfas and most of the
Abbasid Khalîfas did not recognize the value of some of the descendants of the
Ahl-i-Bayt. They hurt those blessed
people on account of some worldly differences. Yet
they never swore at them or vilified them. And their hurting the Ahl-i-Bayt was
because of some meddlesome, provocative heretics. Some politicians, whose aim
was to obtain high positions, to wield power and thus to disturb Muslims and
defile Islam from the interior, pretended to be supporters of the Ahl-i-Bayt in
order to allure partisans for themselves and become powerful. They went in for
politics in the name of the Imâms of Ahl-i-Bayt. They aroused fitna and
turbulences. They did get their deserts in the end, of course; yet the sad
conclusions had to be shared by the blessed innocent Imâms, too.
Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ had deep respect
for the descendants of Ahl-i-Bayt, so that he would frequently give them
presents.
People who were disrespectful towards some of the descendants of
the Ahl-i Bayt cannot be censured; and they are not to be called disbelievers,
either. Some of these descendants treated one another disrespectfully,
persecuted and even vilified one another. These facts could not be any grounds
for us to criticize any one of them. Commenting on the mistakes of those people
who conveyed to us the religious information we possess now, could not devolve
on us.
Muslim Alevîs in Turkey are far from the detestable
attributes possessed by these people who do not have a certain Madh-hab. The
following historical document exemplifies the abhorrent, vicious attributes of
these attackers.
It is stated as follows in a fatwâ recorded in the
book Behjet-ul-fatâwâ, by Abdullah Efendi of Yeniţehir, who was the fifty-seventh
Shaikh-ul-islâm of the Ottoman State: “Is a person who imputes fornication to
Âisha-i-Siddîqa ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’, Muslims’ mother, and who swears at and
vituperates hadrat Abű Bekr and hadrat ’Umar and denies the fact that they are
rightly-guided Khalîfas and who imputes disbelief to most of the As-hâb-i-kirâm
and says that the twelve Imâms are more virtuous than Prophets and asserts that
it is mubâh (permissible) to kill Sunnite Muslims and holds many other wrong,
heretical beliefs, within Muslim community or not? Is it legal (in Islam) to fight
them, and what will their position be if they are killed in a fight of this
sort?
Answer:
Hurűfîs, who live in certain
parts of Iran, Iraq and Syria, are without the Islamic community. They are
apostates. It is wâjib to fight them. It is not permissible to leave them to
muddle through on their own unless there is some strong necessity to do
so or some benefits are anticipated from doing so.
When they die they are to go to Hell. Namâz of janâza should not be performed
for them. They should not be buried in Muslim cemeteries.”
He states in his fatwâ which is recorded two pages
ahead:
Answer:
“Being called ‘Sayyed’ would not
save a person from the state of apostasy.” People who are excessively hostile
to the Ahl as-Sunna have been (erroneously) called Sayyed. These Sayyeds are
not real Sayyeds.
May Allâhu
ta’âlâ protect our Sunnî and Alevî
brothers from falling for corrupt, separatist allegations. May He bless us all
with the lot of being united in the right way and loving oneanother! Âmîn.
O
owners of majestic property!
Who’s the first owner of thine property?