O MY BROTHER! IF YOU
WISH TO DIE IN
ÎMÂN YOU MUST LOVE THE AHL-I-BAYT
AND THE AS-HÂB
We have received possession of a magazine and a book. The former was a magazine printed in the Autumn of 1967.
Its pages contained political and historical articles. These articles were not
surprising, inasmuch as there is freedom of thought. However, some of its pages
consisted of lies and slanders told by a Jewish
convert of Yemen who was contemporary with hadrat
’Uthmân. The slanders were directed towards the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘ridwânullâhi
ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’. The purposeful allegations, which were like venomous
daggers thrust into Muslims’ hearts, were by far more of destructive,
deleterious and condemnatory propagandas than of mere statements of thoughts.
They were bare criminal activities. They were reminiscent of the story of “a
wolf in sheep’s clothing.” They were intended to mislead young people who
would, so to speak, read and believe them to be true and thus brothers would be
inimical towards one another. We realized how right our friends and
acquaintances had been in trying to persuade us. We knew that the tasks of
awakening our darling compatriots and separating right from wrong had been
awaiting us.
As for the book; it was printed on first quality
paper, covered with cloth binding, and it had a gilded and interesting title.
It had been printed in Istanbul in 1968. Its contents page was in no way
informative about the book. So we had to go through its pages. It was a book of
’Ilm-i-hâl (book teaching about Islam, its tenets, worships, etc.). And it went
into some delicate matters, too. It was a subject of curiosity as to how it was
going to cover all those matters. And all of a sudden the real subject came
into our sight. It was those old allegations of the Jewish convert contemporary
with hadrat ’Uthmân, and they were disguised in such a way that few people
could recognize them. They were staged insidiously. Yâ Rabbî! What a grisly
murder! They were like poison offered in a sweet covering. They had been
prepared elaborately with utmost diligence. Yet the dose administered was
considerably too much! It seemed necessary to answer them. In fact, it was a
religious obligation. For a hadîth-i-sherîf, which is recorded in the first page of the book Sawâ’iq-ul-muhriqa,
states, “When
fitna and fasâd (mischief,
instigation, tumult) become widespread, when Muslims are misled, let
those who know the truth tell it to others! Otherwise, may the curse of Allâhu
ta’âlâ, of angels, and ofall people be on them!”
Trusting ourselves to Allâhu ta’âlâ, we
begin with the Autumn magazine and answer the lies of its Hurűfî writer:
1-“As hadrat Muhammad fought against the likes of Abű Sufyân (on the
one hand) and against the irreligious Meccan notables on the other hand, so
hadrat Alî struggled against the same types of irreligious people contemporary
with him. As a matter of fact, the unbelievers had been harbouring a grudge and
animosity towards hadrat Alî since the
so-called earliest times,” he
states.
Islamic scholars have given valuable answers to
Hurűfîs’ slanders and innumerable books have been written to this effect. One
of them is the book Izâlat-ul-hafâ an khilâfat-il-khulafâ, by Shâh Waliyyullah Dahlawî, one of India’s greatest
Islamic scholars. Together with its Persian and Urdu versions, it comprises two
books. It was reproduced in Pakistan in 1382
[A.D. 1962]. It explains in a splendid style and in
detail how superior each and every one of the As-hâb-i-kirâm was. We shall give
our response with the translation of a passage from the book Tuhfa-i-Isnâ
Ash’ariyya, which was
written in Persian by Abd-ul-’azîz ’Umarî Dahlawî. This scholar was Shâh
Waliyyullah Ahmad Dahlawî’s son. He passed away in Delhi in 1239 [A.D. 1824].
The book Tuhfa exists
in the library of the University of Istanbul with the code number 82024. Its
Urdu version was printed in Pakistan. Abd-ul-’azîz Dahlawî states:
In a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by hadrat Abű Sa’îd-i-Hudrî, our Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ says to hadrat Alî, “As I
fight over the revelation of Qur’ân al-kerîm, so
you will fight over its interpretation.” This hadîth-i-sherîf shows that Sunnites are right. For it informs that
in the combats of Camel and Siffîn there will be disagreements in the
interpretation of Qur’ân
al-kerîm, that is, there will be
different ijtihâds. Their quoting this hadîth-i-sherîf for
refuting Sunnites is an indication of sheer ignorance. For this hadîth-i-sherîf shows that those who fought against hadrat Alî (in the combats of
Camel and Siffîn) were wrong in their interpretation of Qur’ân al-kerîm. And it is a fact admitted by Shiites as well that wrong
interpretation of Qur’ân
al-kerîm is not a cause of disbelief.
2-“While one of them was vying for the office of caliphate, putting
forward his old age, another was fighting to bring others into subjection,” he says.
With the expressions ‘old age’ and ‘vying for the office of
caliphate’, he casts allusions to hadrat Abű Bekr. That hadrat Abű Bekr was
elected Khalîfa by the unamimous vote of the Sahâba and that hadrat Alî said,
“I know Abű Bekr is superior to us all,” are naked facts written in full detail
in books by all scholars. Many a time the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ appointed hadrat Abű Bekr as the Emîr. After the Holy War of
Uhud some intelligence arrived informing that Abű Sufyân was going to attack
Medîna. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wa sallam’ sent forth hadrat Abű Bekr for a counteroffensive.
During the Holy War of Benî Nadîr, in the fourth year of the Hegira, one night
he (the beloved Messenger of Allah) appointed hadrat Abű Bekr as the commander
and he (himself) honoured his home with his blessed presence. In the sixth year
he (the Prophet) appointed hadrat Abű Bekr as
the Emîr and sent him forth against the tribe of Kűrâ’. During the preparations
for the Holy War of Tabuk, he (Rasűlullah) first
commanded that the army should assemble outside Medîna. He appointed hadrat Abű
Bekr as their commander. His blessed head ached during the Holy War of Hayber.
He therefore rested and sent forth hadrat Abű Bekr to deputize him (as the commander-in-chief)
and conquer the fortress. That day hadrat Abű Bekr displayed great heroism. In
the seventh year he (Rasűlullah) sent an army
under hadrat Abű Bekr’s command onto the tribe of Benî Kilâb. There was a
bloody combat, whereupon hadrat Abű Bekr killed many unbelievers and captured
many others. After the Holy War of Tabuk, intelligence arrived that heathen
troops were concentrating in the valley of Reml for a sudden raid into Medîna.
The Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ gave the banner to hadrat
Abű Bekr, appointing him as the Emîr over the army. Hadrat Abű Bekr took on the
task and routed the enemy utterly. They received intelligence reporting
insurrection among the tribe of Benî Amr. So Rasűlullah
honoured the place with his blessed presence in the afternoon. He stated to
Bilâl (Habashî),
“Should
I be late for the namâz, tell Abű Bekr to conduct the namâz (in jama’at) for My Sahâba.” In the ninth year he sent his Sahâba for Hajj,
appointing hadrat Abű Bekr as their Emîr. There is no one unaware of the fact
that towards his (Rasűlullah’s) death he appointed hadrat Abű Bekr as the imâm
for his Sahâba and the latter carried on this task from Thursday evening till
Monday morning.
When the Prophet did not
appoint hadrat Abű Bekr as Emîr, he would at least make him his vizier and
field marshal. He would not manage religious affairs without his counsel.
Hâkim, a scholar of Hadîth, reports from hadrat Huzayfat-ebni-Yemân: One day Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ said, “As
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ sent his Hawârîs far and wide, so I want to send my As-hâb
to distant countries so that they teach Islam and its injunctions.” When we suggested, “O the Messenger of Allah! You
have Sahâbîs who are capable of doing this task, such as Abű Bekr and ’Umar,”
he stated, “I cannot do without them. They are like my
sight
and hearing.” He stated in
another hadîth-i-sherîf, “Allâhu ta’âlâ has bestowed four viziers
on me. Two of them, Abű Bekr and ’Umar, are on the earth. The other two,
Jebrâîl and Mikâîl, are in heaven.” If having not been appointed as Emîr frequently had been
indicative of inaptitude for being an Imâm, hadrat Hasan and Huseyn would not
have qualified as Imâms. Hadrat Alî never sent them away on any expeditions or
wars during his caliphate. On the other hand, he would frequently appoint their
paternal brother Muhammad bin Hanafiyya as Emîr. When Muhammad was asked the
reason for this he said, “They are like my father’s eyes. I am like his hands
and feet.”
Muhammad bin Uqayl bin Ebî Tâlib relates: One day my
(paternal) uncle hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ said as he was making a (speech
called) khutba, “O Muslims! Who is the bravest one among the Sahâba?” “O Emîr
al-mu’minîn! It is you,” was my answer. “No,” he said. “Abű Bekr as-Siddîq is
the bravest one among us. During the Holy War of Bedr we made a brushwood
shelter for Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’. We were asking one
another which one of us was to stand guard in front of the shelter to protect
it against the unbelievers’ attacks, when Abű Bekr sprang up in such alacrity
as to leave hardly any time for anyone else to volunteer, drew his sword, and
began to beat around the shelter. The enemy concentrated its attacks on the
shelter. Yet Abű Bekr would not let any unbeliever approach the shelter,
killing or wounding anyone who would try to do so.”
On the other hand, with the expression, “struggling to bring
others into subjection,” he casts an allusion to hadrat ’Umar. However, hadrat
’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was influential in hadrat Abű Bekr’s becoming Khalîfa
not by fighting but owing to his effective speech. Thus he protected Muslims
against great catastrophic events. Later, upon hadrat Abű Bekr’s will and with
the people’s unanimous vote, he became Khalîfa despite his disinclination.
3-“One of them was hearing hadrat Alî, hadrat Hasan, hadrat Huseyn
and Salmân Fârisî as witnesses for the case of (the date orchard called) Fedek,
and then seizing the orchard from hadrat Fâtimat-uz-Zehrâ, discrediting the
testimonies given by the Ahl-i-Bayt,” he says.
These remarks are intended to attack hadrat Abű Bekr
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’. Would it be possible to cover the sun with
mud? See below how elegantly the book Tuhfa confutes this slanderous fabrication and reproaches
Hurűfîs:
When a Prophet passes
away, the property he leaves behind is not inherited by anybody. This fact is
written in Shiite books as well. It would have been irrational to make a will
on uninheritable property. Consequently, it would be wrong to say that Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ bequeathed the orchard called
Fedek to hadrat Fâtima. For Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ would not have done
something which would have been wrong. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, “What we leave behind is to become alms.” The so-called allegation of will could not be true in
spite of this hadîth-i-sherîf. If there had been such a will and hadrat Abű Bekr
had not heard about it, he would have been held excusable unless it had been
proven by testimony. If there had been such a will and hadrat Alî had known
about it, it would have been necessary and permissible for him to fulfil it
during his caliphate. However, he followed hadrat Abű Bekr’s example and dealt
the property out to poor, destitute and stranded people. If it should be
maintained that he dealt out his share, then why did he deprive hadrat Hasan
and Huseyn ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ of the property they were to inherit from
their blessed mother? Shiites answer this question in four different ways:
1) “Members of the Ahl-i-Bayt will not resume
property usurped from them. As a matter of fact, when Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ conquered Mekka, he did not take
his home back from the Meccans who had usurped it from him,” they say.
This answer of theirs is not sound. ’Umar bin Abd-ul-’azîz,
during his caliphate, gave the orchard called Fedek to Imâm Muhammad Bâqir, who
accepted it, so that it was possessed by the Imâms until it was seized by
Abbasid Khalîfas. Then, in the two hundred and third year of the Hegira,
Khalîfa Me’műn wrote to his official Qusam bin Ja’fer and thus the orchard was
given again to one of the Imâms, namely to Imâm Alî Ridâ, and upon his death
the same year, it was given to Yahyâ, a grandson of Zeyd, who was hadrat
Huseyn’s grandson. This person should not be mistaken for his namesake, Zeyd,
who was hadrat Sayyidat Nefîsa’s grandfather and at the same time hadrat
Hasan’s son. The orchard was usurped again by Khalîfa Mutawakkil, who was
Me’műn’s grandson. Later on Mu’tadid gave it back again. If members of the
Ahl-i-Bayt would not take back their usurped property, why did these Imâms,
(who were members of the Ahl-i-Bayt), take the orchard back? By the same token,
it is asserted that hadrat Abű Bekr usurped the office of caliphate which
belonged to hadrat Alî by rights ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’. Why did
hadrat Alî accept this usurped right later? Furthermore, why did hadrat Huseyn
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ try to win his usurped right of caliphate back from
Yezîd so earnestly that he attained martyrdom in the end?
2) “Hadrat Alî imitated hadrat Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhumâ’ and did not accept any share from Fedek,” they say.
This answer of theirs is even more unsound. Then why
did the Imâms who accepted Fedek (afterwards) not imitate hadrat Fâtima? If it
was a farz to imitate her, why did they ignore this farz? If it was
supererogatory and not farz, then why did hadrat Alî do this supererogatory act
at the cost of omitting an act that was farz? For it is farz to give everyone
his or her due. Moreover, it might be reasonable to imitate someone’s optional
behaviour. If this behaviour is a result of coersion it should not be imitated.
If hadrat Fâtima’s ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ anhâ’ not utilizing Fedek was
due to someone else’s oppression, then she had to waive her right because she
had no other way. In this case it would have been senseless to imitate her.
3) “Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ’ had
witnessed Fedek’s being bequeathed to hadrat Fâtima. In order to show that this
witnessing was done for Allah’s sake and not for worldly advantages, he did not
accept any advantage from Fedek,” they say.
This answer of theirs is weak, too. Those who knew about hadrat
Alî’s witnessing and those who rejected it were dead by the time he became
Khalîfa. Furthermore, some Imâms’ accepting the orchard named Fedek made the
group called Khârijî consider that hadrat Alî might have done this witnessing
in order to obtain advantages for his children. In fact, in matters concerning
real estates, such as fields, houses, vineyards and orchards, one thinks of
one’s children’s advantages rather than one’s own. Perhaps, hadrat Alî might
have advised his children not to utilize Fedek lest his witnessing be
tarnished. And his children might have refused Fedek both to imitate hadrat
Fâtima and to fulfil this secret advice. Such is scholars’ commentation on the
matter.
4) “Hadrat Alî’s not accepting the orchard called
Fedek was intended for Taqiyya. Taqiyya is necessary for Shiites,” they say. Taqiyya means to
get on well with people one does not like.
This statement of theirs is untenable, too. For,
according to Shiites, “when an Imâm takes the battlefield and begins to fight
it
is harâm for him to do Taqiyya. It was for this
reason that hadrat Huseyn did not do Taqiyya.” To say that hadrat Alî did
Taqiyya during his caliphate would mean to say that he committed harâm.
Ibni Mutahhir Hullî, a Shiite scholar, states in his
book Menhej-ul-kerâmâ, “When Fâtima said to Abű Bekr that Fedek had been bequeathed to
her, Abű Bekr wrote an answer asking for witnesses. When no witnesses were
produced he dismissed the case.” If this report is correct, the case of Fedek,
like any other case pertaining to inheritance, gifting or bequeathing, lapses
from hadrat Abű Bekr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. So there is no reason for blaming
hadrat Abű Bekr. At this point two questions occur:
A- The cases of inheritance, gift and will pleaded by
hadrat Fâtima were found wrong by hadrat Abű Bekr, but why did he not prefer to
please her by giving her the orchard she demanded? Thus the problem would have
been settled by mutual concession, she would not have been offended, and there
would not have been so many rumours.
This matter cost hadrat Abű Bekr very much hard thought and heavy
excruciation, and he really did want to solve it in the manner suggested above.
If he had chosen to appease hadrat Fâtima’s blessed heart by this way, two
grave wounds would have gaped in Islam: people would have gossipped about him,
saying, for instance, that “The Khalîfa shows favouritism in religious affairs.
He prefers pleasing his acquaintances to doing justice. He fulfils his friends’
wishes in a case that has been lost. When it comes to workers and peasants, he
makes all sorts of difficulty with respect to documents and witnesses before
they win a case.” Such gossips, when widespread, would have caused tumults that
would last till the end of the world. Moreover, judges and qâdîs would have
followed the Khalîfa’s example, showing indulgence and partiality in their
decisions. As for the second wound; if he had donated the orchard of Fedek to
hadrat Fâtima, he would have made her repossess something of which the
Messenger of Allah had dispossessed his inheritors of by saying that property
left from Prophets is alms. He did not do so because he knew about the hadîth-i-sherîf that warned, “A
person who takes the alms (he has given before)
back is like a dog eating its tale.” He would not commit such a dreadful act deliberately. Aside from
these two wounds which the Islamic religion would have suffered, a number of
worldly problems would have emerged, too. Hadrat Abbâs and Rasűlullah’s blessed wives would have sued for their
rights, too, each demanding a similar orchard or farm. All these
problems would have produced other problems which in turn would
have been too difficult for hadrat Abű Bekr to cope with. He therefore risked the
grief of having been unable to please hadrat Fâtima than venture upon these
various catastrophic adventures. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf,
“When a Believer confronts a dilemma, let him choose the
alternative which seems less unwelcome.” Hadrat
Abű Bekr did so. For this alternative was remediable. And it was remedied, too.
The other alternative, on the other hand, would have caused incurable wounds.
Religious matters would have become complicated.
B- As for the second question: It is stated in both
Sunnite and Shiite books that this disagreement between hadrat Abű Bekr and
hadrat Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’ was settled. Yet why did Fâtima-t-uz-zehrâ
wish that hadrat Abű Bekr not attend her funeral? And why did she request in
her last will that hadrat Alî bury her at night (after her death)?
This we would answer as follows: hadrat Fâtîma’s wish to be buried at night was a result of her excessive feeling of shame. As a matter of fact, she stated towards her death, “I feel very much shame whenever I remember that when I die they will take me among men without any cover.” In those days it was customary to wrap a dead woman’s corpse in a shroud only, so that the corpse in the shroud would be taken out of the coffin without any cover. Esmâ binti Umeyr relates: “One day I told her that I had seen people interlace date branches like weaving tents in Abyssinia. Hadrat Fâtima said, ‘Let me see you do it.’ When I did it to show her, she liked it very much and smiled. She had never been seen smiling since Rasűlullah’s passing away. She made this will to me: ‘When I am dead, you wash me. Let Alî be present too. Do not let anyone else in.’ ” It was for this reason that hadrat Alî did not invite anyone to her funeral. According to a narration, after performing the namâz of janâza for her, (hadrat Alî), hadrat Abbâs and a few other members of the Ahl-i-Bayt buried her at night. According to other narratives, the folowing day Abű Bekr Siddîq, ’Umar Fârűq and many other Sahâbîs came to hadrat Alî’s house to pay a visit of well-wishing. When they knew that hadrat Fâtima had passed away and had already been buried, they expressed their sorrow, saying, “Why didn’t you send for us so that we could perform the (janâza) namâz for her and help the funeral services?” Hadrat Alî apologized and said that he had done so to carry out her will to be buried at night lest other men should see her. It is stated in the book Fasl-ul-hitâb: Abű Bekr as-
Siddîq and ’Uthmân Zinnűreyn and Abd-ur-Rahmân bin Awf and Zubeyr
bin Awwâm were in the mosque for night prayer, when (they heard that) hadrat
Fâtima had passed away some time between evening and night prayers. It was the
second day of the blessed month of Ramadân and the following day was Tuesday.
She was twenty-four years old and the Messenger of Allah (her blessed, beloved
father) had passed away only six months before. Upon hadrat Alî’s request,
hadrat Abű Bekr became the imâm and conducted the namâz (of janâza) for her with
four tekbîrs:
Hadrat Abű Bekr’s not being present at the burial was for the
reasons explained above. If there had been disagreement between them, hadrat
Abű Bekr would not have conducted the namâz of janâza for her. According to a
report, which is written in Shiite books as well as in Sunnite ones, hadrat
Huseyn beckoned to hadrat Sa’îd bin Âs, who was hadrat Mu’âwiya’s governor in
the blessed city of Medîna, to conduct the namâz of janâza for (his elder
brother) Imâm Hasan, and said, “Were it not the sunna of my grandfather (Rasűlullah) that the Emîr should conduct the namâz of
janâza, I would not let you conduct it.” Hence, hadrat Fâtima did not state in
her last will that hadrat Abű Bekr should not conduct the namâz for her. If she
had made such a will, hadrat Huseyn would not have done something contrary to
this will of hadrat Fâtima’s. It is obvious that Sa’îd bin Âs was thousands of
times lower than hadrat Abű Bekr in being an imâm. Only six months earlier
hadrat Fâtima’s superior father, Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ had appointed hadrat Abű Bekr as the imâm (to
conduct the namâz in jamâ’at) in front of all the Muhâjirs and Ansârs. Hadrat
Fâtima could not have forgotten this in such a short time as six months.
4-“One of them broke the ribs and the arm of this beloved child of
the Messenger of Allah. Not only that. Attacking our mother hadrat Fâtima
because she refused to see his black face and tried to shut the door to him, he
said, “I will burn and destroy your house if you do not pay homage.” Pressing
that defenceless mother between the door and the wall, he caused the (expected)
innocent and pure baby, which had already been named Muhsîn, to be lost,” he says.
Hasan Qusűrî attributes these lies to two books titled Najm-ul-qulűb and Qumru and alleged to have been written by a person named Dýţlýklý Hasan Efendi.
Through these slanders he strives to give a shock to
those hearts that are full with love and respect for the noble Emîr of
Muslims, i.e. for our master hadrat ’Umar-ul-Fârűq
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, who is very much loved by Muslims, who is praised and
lauded in âyat-i-kerîmas, who was given the good news through hadîth-i-sherîfs that he would go to Paradise, and whose justice, honour and fame
occupy vast spaces in the world’s histories. Since the person he puts forward
is not among scholars, neither Sunnite nor Shiite, and the two books he names
appear to exist only in his repertory, we shall not smear our pen with them.
Let us harken to what the book Tuhfa says in answer to these sordid lies:
These lies of Hurűfîs meet with outright objection, not only by
the Ahl as-sunna, but also on the part of Shiites, who acknowledge that they
have been spread by a few lowly, ignoble, shameless heretics. Shiites, however,
have insisted in their aberrant credo by saying, “He wished to burn the house,
but he did not attempt to do it.” On the other hand, wishing is a feeling,
which in turn is the heart’s business. No one except
Allâhu ta’âlâ can know this. If these aberrant people mean to say that
“He said he would burn the house in order to threaten them,” yes, hadrat ’Umar
threatened a few people by saying so. These people had crowded around hadrat
Fâtima’s house. “No one can harm us as long as we are here,” they were saying.
Their purpose was to disarray the caliphate election by arising fitna and
tumult. Their noise annoyed hadrat Fâtima very much. Yet her excessive feeling
of shame would not let her hold out her head and tell them to leave the place. At
that moment ’Umar-ul-Fârűq, who was passing by, saw them and knew at once what
was going on. In order to frighten them away, he said, “I’ll pull the house
down on you.” This type of threat was customary in Arabia. As a matter of fact,
Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’
stated, “If they do not rid themselves of thisremissness I shall
pull their houses on them,” in
order to warn those who would not attend public prayers of namâz. Hadrat Abű
Bekr had been appointed by our master the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ as the imâm to conduct the public prayers of namâz. Some
people, who considered that they might as well not follow him, did not join the
jamâ’at. So Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ threatened them. Therefore, this statement of hadrat ’Umar’s possesses
expressive subtlety. Moreover, on the day when Mekka was conquered, an
unbeliever named Ibn Hatal was reported to have been reciting poems of
vituperation against our master the Prophet.
Lest he should be punished, the heathen took asylum in Ka’ba-i-muazzama and hid
himself under its cover. “Do not
hesitate.
Kill him there, right away!”was the
blessed Prophet’s order. When people who were
against the religion of Allâhu ta’âlâ could not
take asylum in the home of Allah, how could they take shelter behind hadrat
Fâtima’s wall? How could it be possible for hadrat Fâtima not to feel worried
about their sheltering there? For that pure daughter of the Messenger of Allah
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhâ’ had equipped herself with the beautiful moral values
exemplified by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Also, authentic
reports show that hadrat Fâtima, too, ordered them to leave the place.
When hadrat Alî became Khalîfa upon hadrat ’Uthmân’s
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ martyrdom, a few people from Mekka went to Medîna in order
to cause tumult. Taking refuge in the home of hadrat Âisha the mother of
Believers, they demanded retaliation against hadrat ’Uthmân’s murderers and
stated that they were ready for combat. There was not a single member of the
As-hâb-i-kirâm among them. As soon as hadrat Alî was reported to about this, he
had these men killed there. He did not consider that doing so would be an act
of irreverence towards the blessed wife of the Messenger of Allah. The
statement which hadrat ’Umar made as a mere threat would be quite insignificant
when compared with this behaviour against the sacred wife of the Messenger of
Allah were it considered as a sacrilege. Yes, hadrat Alî’s action was quite
appropriate. He could not be expected to observe such insignificant subtleties
while supressing a fitna and instigation which would otherwise have infected
all Muslims. If he had observed these trivialities at the cost of not nipping
the fitna in the bud, all the religious and worldly states of affairs would have
been jumbled into a mess. Respect was due not only to hadrat Fâtima’s house but
also to the blessed wife of the Messenger of Allah. All hadrat ’Umar did was to
make a few dissuasive remarks. He did not take action. Hadrat Alî, on the other
hand, took the gravest action. Since hadrat ’Umar’s remarks were far less
momentous than hadrat Alî’s action, censuring him on account of his remarks
could be nothing but sheer bigotry and obduracy. Scholars of Ahl as-sunna say
that hadrat Alî was the Khalîfa and therefore did not observe the respect due
to hadrat Âisha because the people’s future was at stake. They do not justify
criticizing him. According to Hurűfîs’ lies, on the other hand, because hadrat
Abű Bekr’s caliphate was not rightful it was a very grave sin to defend him at
the sacrifice of the respect due towards hadrat Fâtima’s house. This opinion of
theirs is the expression of an extremely ignorant and idiotic thought. For both
caliphates were rightful according to the Ahl as-Sunna.
Furthermore, hadrat ’Umar knew that hadrat Abű Bekr’s caliphate was rightful
and no one was against his caliphate. It was the earliest days of Islam yet and
the young tree of religion and faith was sprouting. Those who attempted to
impair this rightful caliphatic order and thus to raise fitna and confusion
deserved to be killed. And yet hadrat ’Umar only tried to dissuade them by
verbal threat. Why should he be blamed for it? Another appalling paradox is
some Shiite scholars’ stating that Zubeyr bin Awwâm, the son of Rasűlullah’s paternal aunt, was among those youngsters
who were threatened by hadrat ’Umar. Do not these people ever think? How could
it be possible that Zubeyr bin Awwâm, who was some time later killed on account
of the harsh talks he made concerning the retaliation he and his friends
demanded upon the martyrdom of hadrat ’Uthmân, not be blamed for being among
the mutineers? While his arousing fitna and attempting instigation in hadrat
Fâtima’s house is tolerated, why is it considered a grave felony for him to complain
about hadrat ’Uthmân’s murderers in the presence of hadrat Âisha and to demand
retaliation against them ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’? These
inconsistencies are all results of wrong beliefs.
Performing the namâz in jamâ’at is for one’s personal
benefit. A person’s not joining the jamâ’at will not harm any other Muslim.
However, Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ threatened those who
would not join the jamâ’at with pulling their houses down on them. Then, why
should it not be permissible for hadrat ’Umar to threaten with burning their
houses those instigators whose mutiny would have otherwise infected all Muslims
and damaged Islam thoroughly? Our master the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ did not honour hadrat Fâtima’s house with his blessed
presence till after the curtains with pictures of living creatures on them had
been removed. In fact, he would not enter Ka’ba-i-mu’azzama unless the statues
which were said to be of hadrat Ibrâhîm and hadrat Ismâ’îl were taken out. Why
should hadrat ’Umar be blamed for threatening the instigators with “pulling the
house down on them” in order to dissuade them from arousing a strife near
hadrat Fâtima’s blessed and sacred thouse? If it should be said that he should
have observed the rules of manner and should not have done this threat; no one
can observe the rules of manner at times of very important problems and serious
dangers. For instance, hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ did not observe the rules
of manner due to hadrat Âisha-i-Siddîqa. As it is
seen, even the Shiite sect does not justify vituperating or criticizing hadrat
’Umar on account of behaviour agreeable with that of the innocent imâm (hadrat
Alî).
5-“The
oppressors carried on their cruelty. Another one conferred governorship on his
step brother, the ignoble and frothy-mouthed person named Uqba bin Walîd, who
had spat at the face of the Messenger of Allah. On the other hand, he promoted
people who had been banished by the Messenger of Allah to positions secondary
to caliphate. He revenged for all these by throwing, and having others throw,
arrows at the coffin of hadrat Hasan-i-Mujtabâ,”
he says.
This time he attacks ’Uthmân Zinnűreyn ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’.
Fortunately, the loop he tries to put round the neck of the Ahl as-sunna
catches him by the feet and destroys him. He reveals his ignorance by attacking
the third Khalîfa through the false accusation that he appointed his step
brother Uqba bin Walîd as a governor although that person had spat at Rasűlullah’s face. For one thing, the person who threw
his filthy saliva at the blessed face of the Messenger of Allah was Utayba, Abű
Leheb’s son. Abű Leheb, who was hadrat Alî’s paternal uncle, was an implacable
enemy of the Messenger of Allah. When the Tabbet yadâ sűra was revealed to inform that this person and his wife
Umm-i-Jemîl, who had heaped thorns in front of the door of Rasűlullah’s house, would go to Hell, he went all the
more berserk. He sent for his sons Utba and Utayba and ordered them to divorce Rasűlullah’s daughters. These two villains were
polytheists and missed the very high honour of becoming sons-in-law to the
Messenger of Allah. Utayba not only divorced Umm-i-Ghulthum ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhâ’, but also entered the blessed presence of the Messenger of Allah and said,
“I do not believe you. I do not like you. And you do not like me, either. So I
divorce your daughter.” He attacked the Messenger of Allah, pulled his blessed
collar and tore his shirt. Pouring down his repulsive saliva, he went away. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ supplicated
to Allâhu ta’âlâ, “Yâ
Rabbî! Send one of Thine wild beasts onto this man!” Jenâb-i-Haqq accepted the prayer of His Prophet.
This abominable person was travelling to Damascus, when his caravan stopped
to spend the night at a place called Zerqa.
As everyone was asleep, a lion smelled him
out and tore him to pieces, and only him in the group. It was before their
wedding when these ignoble people divorced the two
blessed beauties. Their purpose was to put the Messenger of Allah
into financial straits. Yet hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ seized the
opportunity, marrying hadrat Ruqayya divorced by Utba virginal as she was and
attaining the honour of becoming Rasűlullah’s
son-in-law. Hadrat ’Uthmân was very good looking. He was blonde haired and
white complexioned. And he was much richer than Abű Leheb’s bastards. Another
person who tormented Rasűlullah very much was
Uqba bin Ebî Muayt. The Messenger of Allah was performing namâz in the Mesjîd-i-harâm,
when this villain came and put animal stomachs on his blessed head. At another
time he attacked him and squeezed his blessed throat with his blessed shirt.
Hadrat Abű Bekr, who was passing by, saw this and helped the Messenger of
Allah, reproaching the unbeliever, “Are you killing a person who says: Allah is
my Rabb?” Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ named the unbelievers being there and supplicated to Allâhu ta’âlâ, “Yâ Rabbî! Put these people
into a hole of torment inthe ground!” Abdullah
Ibni Mes’űd relates, “In the Holy War of Bedr I saw all these people being
killed and thrown into a hole in the ground. Only Uqba bin Ebî Muayt was killed
on his way back from the Holy War.” As is seen, the unbelievers named Utayba
and Uqba, who persecuted Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ very much, did not live long enough to see the times of
Khalîfas. They went to Hell before. The allegation that the Khalîfa promoted
them to caliphate is an acknowledgement of ignorance.
Yes, hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ appointed his
brother Utba’s son as the governor of Medîna. Yet his name was Walîd bin Utba.
After Walîd became governor in the year 57, he respected hadrat Huseyn and many
other Sahâbîs very highly. In fact, when Yezîd became Khalîfa, he dismissed
Walîd from office for failing to execute his order that the people of Medîna be
made to obey him and setting hadrat Huseyn free.
It is obvious that this writing in the autumn
magazine is an aspersion cast on hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. For hadrat
’Uthmân appointed his step brother, that is, his brother from the same mother,
as Emîr of Kűfa. Yet, contrary to this author’s allegation, he was not Uqba bin
Walîd. He was Walîd bin Uqba. That is, he was the son of the unbeliever named
Uqba. He writes the name the other way round. This Walîd became a Believer at
the conquest of Mekka. He was not the person who committed the despicable deed.
In the ninth year (of the Hegira) the Messenger of Allah gave him the duty of
collecting zakât from
(the tribe of) Benî Mustalaq. Supposing that the
author confuses names, we shall answer this, too.
Sa’d Ibni Ebî Waqqas ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ borrowed some property
from Abdullah Ibni Mes’űd ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, who was in charge of the
Bayt-ul-mâl (Treasury Department of the Islamic government). He failed to pay
it back. This matter became a public rumour that spread throughout the city of
Kűfa. Upon hearing about this, ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, who was the Khalîfa
at that time, dismissed hadrat Sa’d from office as the Emîr. He appointed
Walîd, whom he trusted, for his place. Welîd was a person gifted with
administrative talents. He put an end to the gossips. He managed to become
popular among the people. The people of Azerbaijan rose in rebellion. Walîd recruited
soldiers and appointed competent commanders for the dispatch of troops. Hadrat
Huzayfa-i-Yemânî, the Emîr of Medayn, joined the army, too. Walîd himself
commanded the army and quelled the insurrection. Performing ghazâ against
disbelievers, he obtained many booties. Intelligence came that a great
Byzantine army was approaching towards Sivas and Malatya. Walîd sent forth
Iraqi forces to help the Damascene forces. Many places were conquered in
Anatolia. In the thirtieth year of the Hegira, those who envied Walîd brought a
complaint against him to hadrat Abdullah Ibni Mes’űd, saying that he was
addicted to alcohol. When Abdullah Ibni Mes’űd rejected the complaint he said
that he “would not take action against a person who did not sin in public,” they
made another complaint, this time to the Khalîfa. Hadrat ’Uthmân called Walîd
to Medîna. An investigation was conducted and it was found out that Walîd was a
wine drinker. He was chastised with what was termed Hadd in the Islamic penal code, and Sa’îd bin Âs was appointed for his
place. Earlier, Walîd had been assigned a duty in Jazîra by hadrat ’Umar. Later
on we shall give detailed information about the governors appointed by hadrat
’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’. As for the slander that they threw arrows at
hadrat Hasan’s coffin; it is one of the blatant lies fabricated by Hurűfîs,
enemies of the Ahl as-Sunna. The truth is as follows, as it is communicated in
the book Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ:
In the
forty-ninth year of the Hegira Hadrat Huseyn ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was preparing
to bury (the corpse of) his elder brother hadrat Hasan in the Hujra-i-sa’âdat,
when Merwan, who had been dismissed from some office and was dwelling in
Medîna, said that they would not let anyone to be buried there. He
gathered around
himself all the Umayyads living in Medîna. Upon this the Hashimites took up
arms to fight them. So hadrat Huseyn, advised by Abű Hureyra ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhumâ’, took his brother to the cemetery of Bâkî’,
thus preventing a tumult. Sa’îd bin Âs, the
governor of Medîna, who was an Umayyad, attended the funeral. As it was
customary, he conducted the namâz of janâza.
Another writer who criticizes hadrat ’Uthmân
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ is an Egyptian named Sayyed Qutb, whose style of criticism
betrays the fact that he was misled by the Hurűfî publications. This man, who
is being represented as an Islamic scholar, a mujtahid, and whose books are
being translated into Turkish (and English) and proposed to the younger
generation by a certain group of people, calumniates this blessed Khalîfa, who
is loved very much by Muslims, through a very sordid and profane language in
the hundred and eighty-sixth and later pages of his book Al-adâlat-ul-Ijtimâ’iy-yat-u-fi-l-islâm,
printed in 1377 (A.D. 1958). Our
Islamic education would not let us quote all his slanders. We shall therefore
translate only a few lines from a few pages:
“’Uthmân’s taking the office of caliphate at such an old age was
an unfortunate event. He was incapable of administering Muslims’ matters. He
was vulnerable to Merwân’s tricks and to the stratagems of Umayyads. He spent
Muslims’ property in a haphazard way. This conduct of his was often a subject
of common gossip. He appointed his relatives to positions to preside over the
people. Among them was Hakem, who had been dismissed by Rasűlullah. When he married his son to the daughter of this man’s
son Hâris, he gave them two hundred dirhams as a gift from the Bayt-ul-mâl. The
following morning the treasurer of Bayt-ul-mâl Zeyd bin Erqam came to him,
weeping, and asked to be dismissed from office. Realizing that Zeyd decided to
resign because he (hadrat ’Uthmân) was transferring property from the
Bayt-ul-mâl to his relatives, he asked him, ‘Are you weeping because I am doing
favours to my relatives?’ ‘No,’ was Zeyd’s answer. ‘I am weeping because I
think you are taking these things in return for the property you donated for
the sake of Allah when Rasűlullah was alive.’
Angered by this answer, ’Uthmân said, ‘Leave the keys belonging to the
Bayt-ul-mâl and go! I shall find someone else.’ There are many other events
exemplifying ’Uthmân’s extravagance. He gave six hundred thousand dirhams to
Zubeyr, two hundred thousand to Talha, and one - fifth of the
taxes collected from Africa to Merwân. He was reproached for this
behaviour by the Sahâba, particularly by Alî bin Ebî Tâlib.
“He enlarged Mu’âwiya’s personal property
and gave Palestine to him. He appointed Hakem and his foster brother Abdullah
bin Sa’d and his other relatives as governors. Seeing that he was gradually
getting away from Islam’s essence, the Sahâba assembled in Medîna. The Khalîfa
was very old and weary and things were in Merwân’s control. The people sent Alî
bin Ebî Tâlib to advise ’Uthmân. There was a long talk between them. ’Uthmân
asked, ‘Wasn’t Mughîra, who is a governor now, a governor in ’Umar’s time,
too?’ ‘Yes, he was,’ was Alî’s answer. ’Uthmân asked again, ‘Didn’t ’Umar
appoint Mu’âwiya as a governor throughout his caliphate?’ Alî answered, ‘Yes, he
did. But Mu’âwiya feared ’Umar very much. Now he is carrying on intrigues
without you knowing. He is doing all these by saying that they are your orders.
You hear about all these but do not say anything to Mu’âwiya.’ In the time of
’Uthmân right and wrong, good and bad were mixed with each other. If ’Uthmân
had become Khalîfa earlier he would have been young enough. If he had held the
office later, that is, if Alî had become Khalîfa instead of him, it would have
been better because in that case the Umayyads would not have interfered,” he says. Then he vituperates the Islamic Khalîfas,
particularly hadrat Mu’âwiya, asserts that they squandered the Bayt-ul-mâl for
their personal pleasures and dissipations, and adds that all these things were
caused by hadrat ’Uthmân.
It is proven with documents in the book Tuhfa that these allegations of Sayyed Outb’s are false and
wrong. Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was elected Khalîfa through the
unanimous vote of the As-hâb-i-kirâm. And hadrat Alî was among those who voted
for him. By censuring hadrat ’Uthmân, Sayyed Qutb opposes the unanimity of the
As-hâb-i-kirâm and even the hadîth-i-sherîf which states, “My Ummat (Muslims) will not agree on something
wrong.”
It is stated as follows in the book Mir’ât-i-kâinat:
“Hadrat ’Uthmân bin Affân bin Ebil’âs bin
Umayya bin ’Abd-i-Shems bin ’Abd-i-Menâf bin Quzay, who was the third Khalîfa,
was the fourth man to have îmân in the Messenger of Allah. When hadrat
’Uthmân’s paternal uncle Hakem bin Ebil’âs tied him and told him that he was
not going to untie him unless he returned to his grandparents’ religion, he
said he would rather die than go back (to the former false religion). Upon this
his uncle gave up hope
and untied him. He was Rasűlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ clerk of Wahy, (that is, it was his duty to
write down the âyats revealed to the Prophet).
The Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ married his daughter Ruqayya to him with the
command of Allâhu ta’âlâ. When Ruqayya passed
away in Medîna during the Holy War of Bedr, the Prophet
gave him his second daughter Umm-i-Ghulthum. When she, too, passed away, in the
ninth year of the Hegira, the Messenger stated, ‘If I
had other daughters I would give them, too, to ’Uthmân!’ When he gave his second daughter Umm-i-Ghulthum, he said to her, ‘O my
daughter! Your husband ’Uthmân resembles your ancestor Prophet
Ibrâhîm and your father Muhammad ‘alaihim-as-salâm’
more than anyone else does.’ No
one except hadrat ’Uthmân has had the lot of marrying a Prophet’s two daughters. When hadrat ’Uthman came near the
Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ the Prophet covered
his blessed feetwith his skirts. When hadrat Âisha asked him why he did so he
stated, ‘Angels feel shame before him. Should I not?’ He stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, ‘’Uthmân
is my brother in Paradise and will always be with me.’ In the Holy War of Tabuk the number of Muslim soldiers was too
high for the food and equipment available. Trouble was ahead. Hadrat ’Uthmân
brought three thousand camels, seventy horses and ten thousand golds out of his
own commercial property. After distributing these to the soldiers, Rasűlullah stated, ‘From today on, no sins
will be recorded for ’Uthmân.’ It is
stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, which exists in the
book Jâmi’us-saghîr by hadrat
Imâm-i-Suyűtî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’: ‘With ’Uthmân’s
intercession, seventy thousand Muslims who are to go to Hell will enter
Paradise without any questioning.’ Hadrat
’Uthmân possessed very much religious lore. He and hadrat ’Umar would have such
ardent discussions on religious knowledge that people who heard them would
think they were quarrelling.”
It is stated in the book Tuhfa: During his caliphate hadrat ’Uthmân would employ everyone at a
place suitable for his personality. He would assign everyone a duty within his
capability. The Khalîfa is not supposed to know the unknown. Hadrat ’Uthmân
appointed people he trusted, people he knew as good businessmen, people he
considered to be trustworthy and just, and people he thought would obey his commands
to administrative positions. No one has the right to censure him on account of
this. People who are against him are trying to misrepresent his rightful
behaviour as unrighteous. Hadrat
’Uthmân’s governors and commanders were the choicest people in
their attachments to him, in doing his commandments, in military skills, in
conquering countries, and in their studious habits. In his time they widened
the Islamic countries to Spain in the west and to Kâbel and Belh in the east.
They carried the Islamic armies from one victory to another at sea and on land.
Iraq and Khorasan had become hubs of fitna and instigation during the reign of
the second Khalîfa. They purged these places so efficiently that it was
impossible for the mischief makers to recover. If some of these governors
displayed behaviour contradictory with hadrat ’Uthmân’s expectations, why
should the blame be put on him? He would never be silent when he saw such
behaviour. Or he would make an investigation to find out whether it was only a
matter of slander spread by the enviers. For statesmen naturally have many
enemies and those who envy them. Replacing officials upon a mere complaint will
throw a country’s administrative system into disorder. Therefore, he would
first investigate and, if the complaints proved true, immediately dismiss the
official concerned. Indeed, he dismissed Walîd. Hadrat Mu’âwiya did not revolt
against him. He was very popular in Damascus. No one under his authority
suffered the smallest harm. He was governing Muslims with justice and
performing Jihâd against disbelievers. Who would dismiss such a hero? Why
should he have dismissed Abdullah bin Sa’d, the governor of Egypt? After hadrat
’Uthmân, this person resigned and stood away from commotions. The complaints
against him which Medîna received from Egypt were all fabrications of the Jew
named Abdullah bin Saba’. In short, hadrat ’Uthmân did his duty perfectly.
However, destiny’s disposition acted against his proposition and he failed to
extinguish the fire made by Jews.
The case with hadrat ’Uthmân is similar in many respects to that
of hadrat Alî. Various precautions taken by hadrat Alî, for instance, came to
naught. Only, hadrat ’Uthmân’s governors were always attached and obedient to
him. They regularly sent the booties to the Khalîfa. All Muslims had sufficient
property and lived in peace and comfort. In fact, these well-to-do conditions
contributed to the arising of fitna. Hadrat Alî’s governors, on the other hand,
revolted against him. They did not do their duties. State administration was
impaired. Hadrat Alî’s own relatives, e.g. his paternal first cousins, joined
this remiss. If those people who attempt to vilify hadrat ’Uthmân will not
believe Sunnite scholars, let them read Shiite books. Then they will realize the
facts. The
book Nahj-ul-belâgha, which is valued very highly by Shiites, quotes a letter which
hadrat Alî wrote to his paternal first cousin. In this letter he expresses the
trust he put on that munafiq. Then the book Nahj-ul-belâgha goes on and gives a
detailed account of that man’s acts of treason. Munzir bin Jârut, another
governor appointed by hadrat Alî, turned out to be a traitor. The letter of
threat which the Khalîfa wrote to him exists in most Shiite books. Hadrat Alî
could not be vilified on account of these governors of his. Even Prophets fell
for the soft words of munâfiqs. However, Wahy would be sent to Prophets and
thus the inner malices of most munâfiqs would be revealed. Shiites maintain
that Imâms have to be aware of the unknown. And they blame hadrat ’Uthmân for
failing to do so. With this conviction of theirs, they denigrate hadrat Alî
‘kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’, too. According to their fallacy, hadrat Alî appointed
traitors to positions over Muslims although he knew that they would turn into
treason. The infamous villain named Ziyâd bin Ebîh was another governor
appointed by hadrat Alî.
Another event they use as a ground for casting aspersions on
hadrat ’Uthmân is his admitting Merwân’s father Hakem binÂs into Medîna. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ had deported
Hakem from Medîna because he had made friends with munâfiqs and aroused fitna
among Muslims. During the reigns of the first two Khalîfas disbelievers were
purged and there were no munâfiqs left. Therefore, it was not necessary for
Hakem to live in exile any longer. The former two Khalîfas would not allow him
to return home. For he was likely to resume his former mischievous acts. Hakem
belonged to the Benî Ummayya tribe. And the two Khalîfas belonged to the Temîm
and Adiy tribes. They could relapse into the tribal hostilities prevalent in
the era of nescience (before Islam). Hadrat ’Uthmân, however, was Hakem’s
brother’s son. There was therefore no longer any reason for such anxiety.
Hadrat ’Uthmân explained this decision as follows: “I had had Rasűlullah’s permission to bring him back to Medîna.
When I told Khalîfa Abű Bekr, he asked me to prove it by witnesses. I was
silent because I did not have any witnesses. Hoping that Khalîfa ’Umar would
accept my statement, I told him, too. Yet he, too, asked for witnesses. When I
became Khalîfa, I gave him permission (to return to Medîna) because I knew.” Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated
during his illness,
“I
wish someone pious came to me and I said something to him.” When they asked if they should send for Abű Bekr, the
Messenger said, “No.” They asked if he would like to see ’Umar, he said, “No” again. Their third suggestion was Alî and the Prophet’s
answer was again, “No.” Finally they suggested to send for ’Uthmân. This time the answer
was, “Yes.” When hadrat
’Uthmân came, Rasűlullah said something to him. In the meantime, perhaps he
interceded for Hakem and his intercession was accepted. It is a known fact that
Hakem gave up his habits of instigation and mischief and made tawba towards his
death. Besides, he was too old to do anything when he was back in Medîna.
On the other hand, the gifts he gave to his relatives were not
from the Bayt-ul-mâl as is alleged by Hurűfî books and by Sayyed Qutb. They were
from his personal property. Hadrat Abd-ul-ghanî Nablusî states as follows in
the seven hundred and nineteenth page of the second volume of his book Hadîqa:
“Three of the four Khalîfas received their salaries from the Bayt-ul-mâl, that
is, from the state treasury. Hadrat ’Uthmân would not accept a salary because
he was very rich. He did not need a salary.” The book Berîqa,
after giving the same information in its
fourteen hundred and thirty-first page, adds the following statement: “On the
day when ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was martyred, one hundred and fifty
thousand dinârs of gold, one million dirhams of silver and clothes that were
worth two hundred thousand golds were found among his servant’s personal
belongings.” He was a cloth-merchant. His gifts were not only to his relatives.
He was generous to everybody. He would do many charitable deeds for Allah’s
sake. He would emancipate a slave every Friday. He would give a feast to the
As-hâb-i-kirâm every day. No one would say that property given for Allah’s sake
is property squandered. And it is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf
that alms given to one’s relatives will earn one twice as much thawâb. Hadrat
’Uthmân convened the As-hâb-i-kirâm. Ammâr bin Yâser was among them. Hadrat
’Uthmân said, “I call you to witness that the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ granted precedence to the Qoureish and Benî Hâshimî (tribes)
among people who deserve kindness. If they gave me the keys to Paradise I would
put them all into Paradise. I would not leave any one of them outside.” The
As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ said nothing in response to
these statements of hadrat ’Uthmân’s. It would be sheer bigotry and pertinacity
to suppose that he gave all his gifts from the Bayt-ul-mâl. It is a symptom of
enmity against him. When he was asked, his answer
was, “Do not burden me with something incompatible with justice
and taqwâ.” When hadrat ’Uthmân married his son to Merwân’s brother Hâris’
daughter, he sent one thousand dirhams of silver out of his own property. As he
married his daughter Rumân to Merwân he gave them one thousand dirhams, too.
Neither of these gifts were from the Bayt-ul-mâl.
The allegation, “He donated one-fifth of the booties coming from
Afrikiyya to Merwân,” which Sayyed Qutb adopts from Hurűfî books and Abbasid
histories, is another falsification. In the (hijrî) year 29 hadrat ’Uthmân sent
Abdullah bin Sa’d to Africa with one thousand strong army of cavalry and
infantry troops under his command. Upon this, bloody combats took place in the
Tunisian capital city Afrikiyya. Muslims won and obtained many booties.
Abdullah Merwân went to the Khalîfa with one-fifth of the booties. The number
of coins alone was more than five thousand golds. It was a distance of several
months’ travelling and therefore it would be difficult and dangerous to
transport all these booties to Medîna. Merwân sold one thousand dirhams of
these and brought the remainder to Medîna. He also reported the good news,
which in turn earned him earnest benedictions. In return for Merwân’s onerous
trek and the good news he gave, the Khalîfa forgave him for failing to deliver
all the money he had received for the property sold on the way. It was within
the Khalîfa’s authority to do so. Moreover, all this happened in the presence
of the Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’. If a person is sent one
thousand golds and he donates one or more golds as a tip to the person who
brings them, no one will call this extravagance. As a matter of fact, Allâhu ta’âlâ commands that the zakât-collector be
paid as much as he needs. Another slanderous allegation is that “he gave
Abdullah bin Khâlid on
’Uthmân-i-Zinnűreyn ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ would give the
uncultivated lands in Hidjâz and Iraq to people he trusted and to his relatives,
buy them agricultural implements and have them cultivate these lands, thus
providing arable land for the people. He improved agriculture and reared
vineyards and orchards. He had wells dug and canals opened. The arid lands of
Arabia became the most fertile places in his time. This consequently brought
safety and peace to the country. Thieves and wild beasts
were now historical topics. Guest-houses and inns were built in
the places formerly occupied by their dens. And all these gave birth to
consequent facilities in travelling and transportation. These were tremendously
wonderful events for Arabia. These feats cannot be accomplished with the
motorized tools of the twentieth century. It seemed as if the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Crack of doom will not
happen unless rivers flow in Arabia,” had
been uttered to point to the degree of civilization that would be attained in
the time of hadrat ’Uthmân. In another hadîth-i-sherîf
the Messenger of Allah had stated to Adî bin Hâtem Tâî: “If
your life is long enough, you will see how awoman travels from the city Hira to
Ka’ba easily andwithout fearing anyone except Allah.” There are many hadîth-i-sherîfs
foretelling that in the time of hadrat ‘Uthmân there will be an increase in
property and wealth and improvements in business life. When the As-hâb-i-kirâm
saw this prosperity and peace they admired hadrat ’Uthmân’s administration and
accomplishments. They began to work like the Khalîfa. Hadrat Alî tilled fields
and made vineyards at places called Yenbű’ and Fedek and Zuhra, Talha followed
his example at Ghâbed, and Zubeyr did so at Zihasheb. The land of Hidjâz became
prosperous. If hadrat ’Uthmân’s caliphate lasted a few years longer, the rose
gardens of Shîrâz and the woods of Hirat would have been surpassed. It is
permissible for any person to till dead lands as if they were his own property,
provided he be granted permission by the Khalîfa. Why should it not be
permissible for the Khalîfa himself, then? And why should the crops he thus
raises not be halâl for him? Hadrat ’Uthmân enlivened many lands with his own
property. He made vineyards and orchards. He had many wells dug. He had many
irrigation systems built. He set an example for others. He provided business
for people. He established a new precedent. As it is expressed in the saying, “Property
will breedproperty,” the people’s revenues
became many times more. In his time there was no one who did not cultivate the
land or rear vineyards. If Mawdűdî of India or Sayyed Qutb of Egypt had read
Islamic histories, or at least the book Tuhfa, which was written in India, they would feel shame to defame Rasűlullah’s Khalîfas ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum
ajma’în’. Realizing that they could not even praise and laud those great people
in due manner, they would mind their manners.
The allegation that “he donated one thousand dirhams
to Zeyd bin Thâbit ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ anh’ from the Bayt-ul-mâl” is
an expression of looking at the events from the evil side. One
day he (hadrat ‘Uthmân) ordered distribution of
property from the Bayt-ul-mâl to those who deserved payment. His order was
carried out. When it was seen that one thousand dirhams was in excess, he
ordered that this money be used in public services. Zeyd used this money in
repairing the Masjîd-i-Nabawî.
A hadîth-i-sherîf, which exists in
the book Meshîhât written
by Hâfiz Ahmad bin Muhammad Abű Tâhir Silafî, a Shâfi’î scholar who passed away
in 576, and which is reported also by Ibni Asâkir Alî bin Muhammad, states, “Loving
Abű Bekr and thanking him is wâjib for all my Ummat.” Imâm-i-Munâwî also quotes this hadîth-i-sherîf
from Daylamî. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf,
which exists in the book Wasîla by
Hâfiz ’Umar bin Muhammad Erbilî, “As Allâhu
ta’âlâ has made namâz, zakât and fasting farz for you, so He has
made it farz foryou to love Âbu Bekr, ’Umar, ’Uthmân and Alî.” Another hadîth-i-sherîf, which is
reported by Abdullah Ibni Adî and written in Munâwî, states, “Loving
Abű Bekr and ’Umar isfrom îmân. And enmity towards them is being munâfiq.”According to a report given by Imâm-i-Tirmuzî, a janâza (dead
person ready for interment) was brought to the Messenger of Allah. He would not
perform the namâz of janâza for him, and said, “This
man felt animosity towards ’Uthmân. Therefore, Allâhu
ta’âlâ bears animosity towards him.” The hundred and first âyat of Tawba sűra purports, “Allah
loves the early Believers among the Muhâjirs and Ansâr and those peoplewho
follow them. And they love Allah. Allah has prepared Gardens of Paradise for
them.” The first three Khalîfas are among
the early Believers. And hadrat Mu’âwiya and Amr IbniÂs are among those people
who followed them. Those who malign these great Islamic leaders are opposing
the âyat-i-kerîma and the hadîth-i-sherîfs by doing so. And a person who opposes
an âyat-i-kerîma or a hadîth-i-sherîf,
in his turn, will go out of Islam and become a disbeliever. His claiming to be
a Muslim will only betray the fact that he is a munâfiq or a zindiq.
6-“Another old woman fabricated a story of a lost bracelet, with an
attempt to cover the desert love affair she had had with Safwân. While doing
so, she imposed the cause of divorce on hadrat Alî. This gave birth to the
event of Camel,” he says.
At this point the magazine shamelessly assails hadrat
Âisha-i-Siddîqa ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhâ’, Believers’ mother and Rasűlullah’s beloved wife. See what hadrat Abd-ul-haqq Dahlawî, a scholar of
Hadîth, says in his book Medârij-un-nubuwwa:
The merits and virtues possessed by Âisha-i-Siddîqa ‘radiy-
Allâhu ta’âlâ anhâ’ are innumerable. She was one of the scholars of fiqh among
the As-hâb-i-kirâm. She would speak very clearly and eloquently. She would give
fatwâ to the As-hâb-i-kirâm. According to most scholars, one-fourth of the
knowledge of fiqh was communicated by hadrat Âisha. It was stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, “Learn one-third of your religion from
Humeyrâ!” Because Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ loved hadrat Âisha very much, he
called her Humeyrâ.Most people among the As-hâb-i-kirâm and the Tâbi’în reported the hadîth-i-sherîfs they had heard from hadrat Âisha. Hadrat Urwat-ubni Zubeyr
states: I have not seen anyone more learned in the meanings of Qur’ân al-kerîm, in halâls and harâms, in Arabic poetry, or in genealogy. The
following two couplets eulogizing the Messenger of Allah (translated into
English) belongs to her:
Had the Egyptians heard about the beauty
of his cheeks,
They would not have paid money
for buying Yűsuf ‘alaihis-salâm’.
(That is, they would have kept all their money for
being able to see his cheeks.)
Had the women who blamed Zelîha seen his
luminous forehead,
They would have cut their
hearts instead of their hands.
(And they would not have felt pain at all.)
Another honour hadrat Âisha had was that she was Rasűlullah’s darling. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ loved her very much.
When Rasűlullah was asked who he loved most, his answer was: “Âisha.”
When he was asked who was the
man he loved most, he said: “Âisha’s father.” That is, he stated that he loved hadrat Abű Bekr
most. When hadrat Âisha was asked who the Messenger of Allah loved most, she
said (he loved) Fâtima (most). When she was asked who was the man he loved
most, she said it was Fâtima’s husband. This comes to mean that among his
wives, hadrat Âisha was the one he loved most; among his children he loved
hadrat Fâtima most; among his Ahl-i-Bayt hadrat Alî was most beloved to him; and
among his Sahâba hadrat Abű Bekr was his most beloved companion ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’. Hadrat Âisha relates, “One day Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ was unfastening the thongs of his
blessed sandals and I was spinning yarn. I looked at his blessed face. Sweat
was dropping from his bright forehead. And each drop of sweat was spreading
light all around. They were dazzling
my eyes. I was bewildered. He turned to look at me. “What
is the matter with you? Whatmakes you so pensive,’ he asked. I said, ‘O the Messenger of Allah! Looking
at the brightness of the haloes on your blessed face and the lights spread by
the drops of sweat on your blessed forehead, I have lost myself.’ Rasűlullah stood up and came near me. He kissed between my eyes and said, ‘Yâ
Âisha (O Âisha)! May Allâhu
ta’âlâ bless you with goodnesses! I have not been able to please
you the way you have pleased me.’ That is, he said, ‘Your pleasing me has been more than my pleasing
you’.” His kissing between hadrat Âisha’s blessed eyes meant awarding and
honouring her for her loving the Messenger of Allah, seeing and recognizing his
beauty. A line:
I congratulate my eyes on seeing thine beauty!
And a couplet:
How
good those eyes are for looking at the beauty.
How fortunate that heart is for burning with His love!
Imâm-i-Mesrűq, one of the greatest members of the
Tâbi’în, whenever he was to give a report from hadrat Âisha, would begin as
follows: “Hadrat Siddîqa the beloved one of the Messenger of Allah and the
blessed daughter of Abű Bekr as-Siddîq, states that... .” Sometimes he would
say, “The darling of the beloved ones of Allâhu ta’âlâ and of
the inhabitants of heaven states that... .” Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ would say
that she was the highest one of the Azwâj-i-tâhirât (the Prophet’s pure
wives) and boast about the blessings Allâhu ta’âlâ had
bestowed on her. She would say, for instance, “Before the Messenger of Allah
(told my father that he) wanted to marry me, Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ showed
(him) a picture of me and said: This is your wife!” Drawing pictures of living
beings had not been made harâm yet. Besides, the picture was not drawn by a
human being. Why should it be a sinful act, then? In a hadîth-i-sherîf which exists in the books Bukhârî and Muslim, Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ said to our mother Âisha
‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’, “For three nights I saw you in my dreams. The
angel showed me your picture drawn on white silk. He said: This is your wife. I
do not forget the picturethe angel showed me in my dream. It is you, exactly.” Our mother Âisha states, “Rasűlullah was performing tahajjud (after midnight) namâz and I was lying by
his side. This honour was peculiar to me only. [She would boast with this
honour.] As he prostrated, his blessed hands would touch my feet and I would
pull my feet back.” One of the honours conferred on hadrat
Âisha was that they (Rasűlullah and she)
made ghusl together and used the same container. This shows the degree of lovethe
Messenger of Allah had for hadrat Âisha. Rasűlullah did not
receive Wahy in any
of his wives’ beds except hadrat Âisha’s. And this shows the degree of value Allâhu ta’âlâ has attachedto hadrat Âisha. Hadrat Umm-i-Salama said something
aboutÂisha to the Messenger of Allah. He stated, “Do
not hurt me through Âisha. I have received Wahy in her bed.” Upon this Umm-i-Salama, “I shall never hurt you
again. I make tawba, o the Messenger of Allah.” One day he asked hadrat Fâtima,
“Will you love someone whom I love?” When she said she would, the Messenger stated, “Then,
love Âisha!” ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’.
Hadrat Âisha would boast that “It was revealed by Allâhu ta’âlâ that the slander spread against me was
a lie.” Allâhu ta’âlâ sent down the seventeen
âyats in the Nűr sűra to declarethat those who calumniated hadrat Âisha would
go to Hell. These âyat-i-kerîmas are another
indication of the greatnessand very high honour of hadrat Âisha.
Calumniation of hadrat Âisha took place during the
Holy War of Mureysî’ in the fifth year of the Hegira. This Holy War is also called Benî
Mustaliq. Rasűlullah left for this Holy War with a thousand strong army.
He took hadrat Âisha and Umm-i-Salama along. A number of munâfiqs joined in
order to get booties. The Messenger appointed hadrat ’Umar as the commander of
the army. After a bloody combat, five thousand sheep and ten thousand camels
were taken in addition to more than seven hundred captives. Juwayriyya was
among them. Rasűlullah bought her and married her. Upon seeing this, the
As-hâb-i-kiram said, “How can we keep relatives of the Messenger of Allah as
our captives?” and emancipated the captives they had been keeping ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’. Juwayriyya must have been a very fortunate girl,
for she caused her tribe to be saved from captivity. It was in the same year
when the blessed Messenger bought Selmân-i-Fârisî from his Jewish owner and
emancipated him. Hadrat Selmân became a Muslim in the first year of the Hegira.
The following account is given in the book Altý-Parmak,
which is the Turkish translation of the
Persian book Me’ârij-un-nubuwwa: Before leaving for a Holy War Rasűlullah
would draw lots among his wives and would take along the winner. Hadrat Âisha
relates, “It was after the revelation of the âyat commanding
women to cover themselves. A tent was made for me and I rode my
camel in this tent. On our way back from the Holy War we made a halt at a place
close to Medîna. At dawn the noises we heard meant that we were to move again.
I left the encampment for a short while to relieve nature. When I was back I
found out that I had lost my bracelet. I went back, looked for it, and found
it. When I was back at the encampment I could not find the army. They were
gone. They must have put my tent on the camel, thinking that I was in the tent.
At that time I used to eat very little. I was weak. I was fourteen years old. I
was confused. Then, saying to myself that they would soon notice my absence and
come back to look for me, I began to sit and wait, falling asleep after a short
while. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’
ordered Safwân bin Mu’attil Sulemî to go back and look for me. When this person
found me sleeping he shouted. His shouting woke me. When I saw him I covered my
face. He made his camel kneel down, walked away, and said, “Mount the camel!” I
did. Safwân held the halter. It had already become hot when we caught up with
the troops. The first people we met were a group of munâfiqs. They had some
unpleasant conversation among themselves. They were provoked by Ibni Ebî Selűl.
Of the Muslims, Hassân bin Thâbit and Mistah joined them, too. When we were
back, I became ill. The rumour spread everywhere. Yet I did not know about it.
Only, Rasűlullah would not visit me as
frequently as he had done before, nor at least would he come to see how I was.
And I did not know why. One night I went out to the toilet, accompanied by
Mistah’s mother. Her skirts entangled her feet and she fell down. She cursed
her son [Mistah]. When I asked why she was swearing, she would not say why. I
asked the same question several times. She said, ‘O Âisha! Haven’t you heard
the rumours he is spreading?’ When I asked her what they were, she told me all
about the calumniation, whereupon my illness was aggravated at once. My fever
was augmented, so that I felt as if my head were emitting fire. I became
unconscious and fell down. When I recovered I went back home. I asked for Rasűlullah’s permission to go to my father’s home,
which he accepted. My purpose was to find out what was going on. I asked my
mother. She said, ‘My dear! Don’t worry! Things are easy for you. Every woman
who is pretty and who is loved by her husband may undergo such calumniations.’
I was astonished. I wondered if these rumours had reached Rasűlullah’s blessed ears, and what was going to
happen if my father had heard about them? These
thoughts made me so sad that I sobbed bitterly. My father was
reading Qur’ân al-kerîm in the room. He heard my
sobbing and asked my mother why. My mother told him how deeply distressed I had
felt upon hearing for the first time about the gossips being spread. Upon this
my father, too, began to weep. Then he came near me and said, ‘My dear child!
Be patient! Let us wait for the âyat which Allâhu ta’âlâ
will reveal.’ That night I did not sleep till morning. Nor did my tears
come to an end.”
Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ sent for hadrat Alî and Usâma ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhumâ’ and said, “How is this matter going to end?” Usâma said, “O the Messenger of Allah! We have only a good
opinion of your wife.” And hadrat Alî said, “There are many women on the earth. Allâhu ta’âlâ hasnot made the earth narrow for you.
Ask Âisha’s jâriya Buraydaabout Âisha!” When she was asked she said, “I swear
by Allah that I have never seen her do anything wrong. From time to time she
took some sleep. When the sheep came, she kneaded dough with some flour and ate
it. Most of the time I was with her. I did not see anything wrong with her. If
the rumours had been true Allâhu ta’âlâ would
have let you know.” One day the Messenger of Allah was sitting in his home. He
was very sad. Hadrat ’Umar-ul-Fârűq came. The Messenger of Allah asked him what
he thought. He said, “O the Messenger of Allah! I know very well that the munâfiqs
are lying. Allâhu ta’âlâ does not let a fly
alight on your body. He protects you lest it should alight on something filthy
and then smear the filth on you. Allâhu ta’âlâ, who
protects you against a small filth, will definitely protect you against the worst
filth.” These statements of hadrat ’Umar’s pleased Rasűlullah.
His blessed face smiled. Then he sent for hadrat ’Uthmân and asked him. He
said, “I do not doubt that this rumour is a lie spread by munâfiqs. It is a
slander completely. Allâhu ta’âlâ never lets
your shadow fall on the ground. He protects even your blessed shadow from
falling on a dirty place or being trodden on by an abominable person. Would He
let such a dirt enter your blessed home?” These statements also relieved his
blessed heart. Then he sent for hadrat Alî and asked him. Hadrat Alî said,
“These rumours are lies, slanders. They are munâfiqs’ fabrications. (One day)
you and we were performing namâz. You took off your blessed sandals during the
namâz. And we took off ours, too, to follow you. You said, ‘Why
did you take off your sandals?’ When we
answered that we had done so in order to follow you, you said, ‘Jebrâîl
‘alaihis-salâm’ came and informed me that there
was
some nejâsat[1] on
my sandals. So I took them off.’ Is it
possible for Allâhu ta’âlâ, who protects you
from dirts by sending you Wahy even during namâz, to allow your blessed wives
to smear themselves with such a dirt? Had such an atrocity been committed, He
would have let you know immediately. Let your blessed heart not feel sad. Allâhu ta’âlâ will definitely send the Wahy and inform you that
your blessed wife is pure.” These statements pleased Rasűlullah all the more. He immediately honoured hadrat Abű Bekr as-Siddîq’s
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ home with his presence.
Hadrat Âisha relates: That day I wept continuously. I had a woman
visitor from the Ansâr. She was weeping, too. My mother and father were sitting
with me. All of a sudden Rasűlullah came and
greeted us. He sat beside me. He had never come to see me since that event,
which had taken place a month before. Nor had any Wahy been revealed. Sitting
down, the Messenger of Allah paid hamd-u-thenâ (thanking, praising and lauding)
to Allâhu ta’âlâ. He said the Word Shahâdat.
Then he turned to me and said, “O Âisha! They toldme so about
you: If you are not as they say, Allâhu ta’âlâ will
inform soon that you are true. If a sin has taken place, then make tawba and
istighfâr! Allâhu ta’âlâ will
accept thetawba of those people who make tawba for their sins.” Upon hearing Rasűlullah’s blessed
voice, I stopped weeping. I turned to my father and told him to answer. My
father said, “Wallahi (I swear on the name of Allah that) I do not know how I
should answer the Messenger of Allah. We were idolaters in the era of nescience.
We used to worship human statues. We did not know how to worship properly. No
one could say such things about our women. Now our hearts have been brightened
with the halo of Islam. Our homes have been illuminated with the light of
Islam. And yet all people are spreading such rumours about us. What should I
say to Rasűlullah?” Then I turned to my mother
and told her to answer. She said, “I am astonished. I am at a loss as to what
to say. You explain it.” Then I began to talk. I said: I swear by Allâhu ta’âlâ that the rumours that have reached your
blessed ears are all lies. If you believe them, you will not believe me
whatever I say. Allâhu ta’âlâ knows that I am
quite innocent. If I say ‘Yes’ about something I have not done, I will have
---------------------------------
[1] Any sort of dirt which must be cleaned from one’s clothes before performing namâz. Please see the sixth chapter of the fourth fascicle of Endless Bliss.
slandered myself. Wallahi I have nothing else to say. Only, I
would like to quote Yűsuf’s (Joseph) ‘alaihis-salâm’ statements: “Patience
is good. I hope for help from Allâhu ta’âlâ against
what theysay.” I was so badly confused
that I said Yűsuf ‘alaihis-salâm’ instead of Ya’qűb (Jacob) ‘alaihis-salâm’.
Then I turned my face and leaned. I was always hoping for the sake of Allah
that my Rabb would rehabilitate my reputation. For I was certain about myself.
I was innocent. Yet I did not think Allâhu ta’âlâ would
send âyat-i-kerîmas for me. I could not imagine
that âyat-i-kerîmas would be read (and recited)
for me everywhere till the end of the world. Because I was conscious about the
greatness of Allâhu ta’âlâ versus my humility, I
never expected that He would reveal an âyat-i-kerîma
for me. I only hoped that He would inform His Prophet
in his dream or inspire into his blessed heart that I was sinless, that my
heart was clean. In the name of Allah I am telling the truth that Rasűlullah had not yet stood up from where he had been
seated, and no one had left the room, when signs of Wahy appeared on his
blessed face. All the people sitting in the room knew that Wahy had arrived. We
had a leather cushion. When my father saw what was happening, he put this
cushion under Rasűlullah’s blessed head. He
covered him with a muslin bed-sheet. When the revelation was over, he took the
cover off his blessed face. He wiped the drops of sweat, which were shining
like pearls, off his rose-red face with his blessed hands. Smiling, he said, “Good
news to you, o Âisha! Allâhu ta’âlâ has
proven you innocent. He has borne witness to the fact that you arepure.” Presently, my father said, “Stand up, o my daughter! Thank the
Messenger of Allah right away!” I said, “Wallahi I shall not stand up! Nor
shall I thank anyone except Allâhu ta’âlâ! For
my Rabb has revealed âyat-i-kerîmas for me.”
Then Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’
recited ten âyat-i-kerîmas, which are now the
ones beginning with the eleventh âyat-i-kerîma
of Nűr sűra. My father got up at once and kissed my head.
Before the revelation of ayat-i-kerîmas about Âisha
‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’, Abű Eyyűb Khalîd’s wife had asked hadrat Khâlid what he
thought about the rumours being spread about hadratÂisha. Hadrat Khâlid said,
“For Allah’s sake, these rumours are lies. Would you do a vice of this sort
against me?” When his wife, answered, “No, never, may Allah protect me against
it,”hadrat Khâlid said, “Then, could Âisha, whose faith is firmer than ours, do
a vice of this sort against the Messenger of Allah? We have not
said so. These rumours are slanders.” And Haqq ta’âlâ
sent down âyat-i-kerîmas exactly agreeable with these statements of hadrat
Khâlid’s. Presently, Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ convened his Sahâba in
the Mesjîd (or masjîd=mosque): He recited the âyat-i-kerîmas revealed
to him. With the barakat of these âyat-i-kerîmas, the
Believers were relieved from the doubts pestering their hearts. Mistah was a
relative of hadrat Abű Bekr’s. He was poor. Formerly hadrat Abű Bekr used to
help him with his subsistence. When Mistah joined the munâfiqs in this squalid
act, he (hadrat Abű Bekr) took an oath not to help him any longer. Upon this, Allâhu ta’âlâ sent down the twenty-second âyat-i-kerîma of Nűr
sűra. When Abű Bekr as-Siddîq heard this âyat-i-kerîma, he said,
“I would love Allâhu ta’âlâ to forgive me,” and helped Mistah as he haddone
before. When the âyat-i-kerîmas restoring hadrat Âisha’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhâ’ reputation came, Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ ordered that the slanderers be chastised with the punishment
called Hadd for the Qazf (accusing a woman with fornication). Four people were flogged with
eighty stripes each. One of them was a woman and Rasűlullah’s wife’s
sister. This is the end of the part we have borrowed from the book Me’ârij.
The book of Tafsîr called
Mawâkib explains the first of
theâyat-i-kerîmas about hadrat Âisha as follows:
“Slanderers of Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhâ’ are only a few among you. Do nottake this slander as a harm
inflicted on you! It will be auspicious for you. [You have attained much thawâb because of this slander. Their
falsification has been divulged and your honour has been promoted. The âyat-i-kerîma has declared your innocence]. The slanderers
deserve punishment equal to the sin they have acquired. Those who cast the
graveaspersion and say the very abhorrent thing shall be tormented bitterly in
this world and in the Hereafter.” After
these people were clogged in accordance with (the prescribed punishment called)
Hadd, Abdullah bin Ebî fell into utter disrepute. Hassân became blind and
remained so till his death. And Mistah became one-handed. The twelfth âyat-i-kerîma purported, “Upon
hearing about this slander, Muslim men and women should have an optimistic
opinion of their families. They should say that it is an obvious lie
andslander.” The nineteenth âyat-i-kerîma purported, “Those
who mean disrepute for Believers shall be tormented bitterly inthe world and in
the Hereafter.” And the twenty-sixth âyat-i-kerîma purported, “Uttering
foul words is worthy of foul men. Foul speech befits
foul
men.” Rasűlullah and hadrat Âisha and Safwân are far from the allegations of
those ignoble people. They deserve (Allah’s) forgiveness and compassion, and
blessings in Paradise. Safwân is praised in a hadîth-i-sherîf.
He was martyred at the conquest of Erzurum in (the hijrî year) 17.
Allâhu ta’âlâ states that He will subject the slanderers ofhadrat Âisha to very
painful torments. Since Allâhu ta’âlâ
answers these base people
exactly in a manner they deserve, we need not add anything. However, we shall
present a fatwâ, which exists in the two hundred and ninety-second page of the
book Mir’ât-i-kâinât:
It is stated in the book Hasâis
ul-habîb that hadrat Abdullah
Ibni Abbâs has given the fatwâ that “A person who commits ‘Qazf’ against one of
Rasűlullah’s blessed wives, (that is, who accuses one of them
with an act of impurity), becomes a disbeliever, and his tawba will not be
acceptable.” Accusing hadrat Âisha with impurity, on the other hand, means
contradicting Qur’ân al-kerîm, which, in its turn, is disbelief according to a
unanimous report. And imputing immodesty on the mother of one of the Sahâba,
[e.g. on Hind] deserves chastisement double the punishment for Qazf. May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect our Alawî and Shiite brothers and all Muslims fromfalling
into such a disastrous error! Âmîn.
7-“Utba’s daughter Hind, the notorious heroine of numerous men’s
love adventures, chewed hadrat Hamza’s lungs during the amorous hours she
shared with an Abyssinian slave. She had been divorced by her husband Ibni
Mughîra on account of her prostitution and admitted as a wife by Abű Sufyân.
Hind’s marriage with Abű Sufyân could not make her cease from other men. She continued
her notorious way of life. This marriage gave birth to Mu’âwiya the accursed,
who of all the probable fathers was finally ascribed to Abű Sufyân. This man
grew to be a cruel tyrant and oppressed the people ruthlessly,” he says.
One would feel
shame to use such dirty and squalid language even against Abű Jahl and Iblîs
(Satan), the two most implacable and accursed enemies of the Messenger of Allah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’. Yet it is stated in Qur’ân
al-kerîm that “Foul speech befits foul men.”
One’s speech is one’s mirror. We could not expect fragrance from sewerage!
The dirty, repulsive, slanderous writings quoted above cannot defame those
people whom Allâhu ta’âlâ has forgiven and
promised Paradise and blessings. They cannot be completely disignored, however,
inasmuch as they betray the abject characters of their utterers.
The hadîth-i-sherîf, “Îmân
cleans, extirpates (one’s) past
sins,” is an unshakable evidence proving
the fact that hadrat Mu’âwiya and his blessed father Abű Sufyân ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ anhumâ’, and the blessed woman Hind ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’, who proved her
chastity and nobility in the presence of the Messenger of Allah on the day when
Mekka was conquered, are extremely pure people.
There are innumerable books writing about the
greatnesses and superior virtues of these three Sahâbîs. At this point we shall
quote a few lines from Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ (A History of Prophets), since it is a book available
for anybody:
“Among the Arabs, family life was very important and spirit of
kinship was very strong. Every Arab would demonstrate wonderful zeal in
guarding the honour of his tribe and relatives.” “The Arabs would recite poems
and preach sermons at market places and meetings.” “Fakhr-i-’âlam ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ climbed mount Safâ and sat there. Hadrat ’Umar-ul-Fârűq sat
beside and below him. First men and then women came and became Muslims one by
one. Hadrat ’Alî’s sister Umm-i-Hânî and hadrat Mu’âwiya’s mother Hind was
among the women. When Rasűl-i-ekrem ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ said to the
women to ‘Promise not to steal,’ Hind
came forward and said, ‘If I were the person to steal, I would have stolen a
lot from Abű Sufyân’s property.’ Upon this, Fakhr-i-’âlam ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi
wa sallam’ recognized Hind and said, ‘Are you Hind?’ 'I am Hind. Forgive (for) the past (offences) so that Allah will
forgive you,’ she said. When Rasűl-i-ekrem ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ said
the injunction of not committing fornication, Hind said, ‘Does a free woman
commit fornication?’ And when the Messenger said that another injunction is not
to kill one’s children, Hind said, ‘They were small and we raised them. They
were grown up and you killed them at Bedr. It is between you and them now.’
Hadrat ’Umar was a stern and serious person. Yet he could not help laughing at
these words of Hind’s. When the Messenger enjoined not to slander, Hind said,
‘Wallahi, slandering is a wicked deed. You enjoin beautiful morality on us.’
And finally, when he enjoined not to revolt, Hind promised, ‘We have not
entered this exalted presence with the intention of revolting’ Thus Hind, who
was to be killed according to an earlier directive, attained forgiveness and
became a true
Believer. Presently, she went home and broke to pieces all the idols and icons, saying, ‘We have been idiotically believing you for such a long time.’ Rasűl-i-ekrem ‘sall-
Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ pronounced benedictions over the women
being there.” Hind’s attaining forgiveness and îmân provided encouragement for
all the other people who were considering to seek safety in flight. They came
back and asked for forgiveness. Their request was accepted. It was so lucky for
Hind that she caused many people to escape death and to become Believers. Another
line from Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ states, “Abű Sufyân and his sons became staunch
Muslims. Rasűl-i-ekrem ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ employed them as clerks.”
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum’
Hurűfîs, being at a loss as to how to traduce hadrat Mu’âwiya
despite the services he rendered to Islam and his being praised through the Prophet’s blessed utterances, rake his past and nag at
his family life, thus to revile him. No matter how successful they could be in
their efforts of vilification, they could not lower his father to the grade of
the unbeliever named Abű Lahab (or Leheb)! Utba, who was the son of this
unbeliever named Abű Lahab, (who was such an avoved enemy of the Messenger of
Allah that) an âyat wherein his name was mentioned was revealed, would formerly
persecute the Messenger of Allah very much. And not only that: He divorced his
blessed daughter in order to put him into financial straits. As is stated in Qisâs-i-enbiyâ,
“This very Utba became a Believer and begged
for forgiveness of the day of Conquest (of Mekka). Rasűlullah
forgave him and pronounced a benediction over him. Even at the hottest moments
of the Holy War of Huneyn, Utba would not leave his quarding position in front
of Rasűlullah.” Now these people do not even
criticize the disbeliever named Abű Lahab. Nor do they blame Utba for having
been a son of that foul being or for having tormented the Messenger of Allah so
much. For Utba was (one of those people who were) of the opinion that hadrat
’Alî should be the first Khalîfa. He would express this opinion of his in
poetry. This comes to mean that the criteria applied by the author (of the
calumniatory statements written in the so-called magazine) are not based on the
essential matters such as Islam, disbelief, serving Rasűlullah,
or persecuting him. They are based on the matter of voting for hadrat ’Alî.
What he is after, then, is a political cause and has nothing to do with Islam.
Or rather, all his endeavour stems from his obnoxious desire to misrepresent
the As-hâb-i-kirâm as nasty people hard to get on with.
The above-quoted statements which we have borrowed
from
various pages of the book Qisâs-i-enbiyâ,
show clearly that the slanders
in the autumn magazine are sheer falsifications. It is stated in the book Kâműs-ul-a’lâm
that “Hind bin Utba binti Rebî’a
bin Abd-i-Shems was one of the nobility of Qoureish. She was Abű Sufyân’s wife.
Before Abű Sufyân, she was Fâqih bin Mughîra’s wife. She persistently remained
a Muslim and always conducted herself as a good one. She was a prudent, far-sighted
administratrix. She and her husband Abű Sufyân joined the Holy War of Yermuk
and encouraged the Muslims to make Jihâd against the Byzantines.”
It is written in all books how firm an îmân Hind
‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ had and what a noble feeling of chastity she had. Marriage
and family life existed in Arabia before Islam, too. Please see the
thirty-sixth paragraph! The author of the autumn magazine confuses family life
with his own life of cohabitation termed Mut’a. He compares other people to
himself and supposes that they are fornicators, too. It is stated in the book Me’ârij-un-nubuwwa,
“After Hind ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’
became a Believer and broke all the statues in her house, she sent two lambs as
a gift to Rasűlullah. The Messenger of Allah accepted the presents and
pronounced a benediction over Hind, asking a blessing on her. Haqq ta’âlâ
blessed her sheep with such barakat that it was impossible to know their
number. Hind would always acknowledge that they were a blessing coming through
the Barakat of the Messenger of Allah.” Abd-ul-ghanî Nablusî states in the
hundred and twenty-sixth page of Hadîqa, “Everyone who has îmân in Rasűlullah realizes his greatness to some extent and bears a degree of love
for him. Yet the amount of this realization and love varies. Many a heart
overflows with this love. It has been reported unanimously that Abű Sufyân’s
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ wife Hind ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ said to Rasűlullah, ‘O the Messenger of Allah! I never used to like your blessed
face. But now, that beautiful face of yours is more beloved to me than anything
else’.”
The author alleges that hadrat Mu’âwiya oppressed the people. On
the contrary, hadrat Mu’âwiya’s caliphate brought peace, order and quietude to
the country and put an end to misunderstandings. Jihâd and conquests began. His
justice and kindnesses spread far and wide. History books give detailed
accounts of these facts.
8-“Seeds of a mentality which caused superstitions for the purpose
of reigning and thus turned the beautiful Islamic religion
into a mere system of fanaticism and ummat
(community) sprouted in the minds and hearts of some Ottoman emperors. All
these things were intended for Shiites. For Shiites suggested unity. They knew
that unity began with (Muhammad-Alî). Their aim was to love the Ahl-i-Bayt.
When the trend of ummat (community) became dominant, the intellectuals and
Shiites stood against it. Wasn’t hadrat Alî the first Khalîfa (rightfully)
elected?” he says.
Allâhu ta’âlâ calls Muslims ‘My Messenger’s Ummat (Community).” Our master, the Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ states that Muslims are his Ummat. For instance,
he says, “I shall intercede (shafâ’at) for the grave sinners of my Ummat,” and “The learned ones of my Ummat
are like theIsraelite Prophets,” and uses the expression ‘My Ummat’ in many other hadîth-i-sherîfs. This
author, on the other hand, censures Muslims’ Khalîfas by saying that the
Ottoman Sultans ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’ turned the Islamic
religion into a mere system of Ummat. He rejects the system of Ummat and
misrepresents it as if it were a system forged afterwards. These statements of
the author’s are diametrically opposed to Islam and advocate the Hurűfî
doctrines. All the stratagems of Hurűfîs are based on attacking Islam in disguise
of Muslims. Their suggesting unity, for instance, is like the butcher’s saying,
“I love you very much. I hate having to hurt you,” to the lamb he is going to
slaughter. The author is trying to cloak the fact that he is a Hurűfî, that is,
he is following in the footsteps of Abdullah bin Saba’, who is the first
instigator of all the so many events in which brothers killed one another.
History books give long written accounts of the thousands of Muslims massacred
by Hassan Sabbâh, a follower of Ibni Saba’. It only takes reading Hassan
Sabbâh’s murders and treacheries to realize that this Hurűfî is quite wrong in
his writings.
It is stated as follows in the eight hundred and eighty-seventh
page of Qisâs-i-enbiyâ: Hassan
Sabbâh was a heretic, a mulhid following Ibni Saba’. Calling harâms ‘halâl’, he
misled many people. The fortress called Elemut (or Alamut) and its neighborhood
were infested with his adherents, most of them highwaymen. They called the Ahl
as-Sunna ‘Yezîdîs’. With the conviction that killing one Yezîdî would deserve
more thawâb than killing ten unbelievers, they would slay hâdjis, judges,
scholars and soldiers by stabbing them. These people are called Batiniyya
or Ismâîliyya. They were godless, ferocious people. For
thirty-five years Hassan Sabbâh took many lives and misled many
others out of their faith. Eventually he went to Hell in 518 [A.D. 1124]. Of
his successors, his grandson Ahund Hassan, who became their chief in 557, was a
zindiq, more base than all the others. It is this villain who first called his
adherents Alawî in order to deceive
Muslims. In 559, on the seventeenth of Ramadân, which was when hadrat Alî had
been martyred, he mounted the minber and said, “I have been sent by Alî. I am
the imâm of all Muslims. Islam does not have a foundation. Eveything depends on
the heart. If a person’s heart is clean, sinning will not harm him. I have made
everything halâl. Live as you wish!” Then they drank wine, men and women
altogether. It was made their new year’s day. This heretic was slain by his
wife’s brother in 561. His grandson Jelâl-ad-dîn Hassan gave up this aberrant
way. He reported to the Khalîfa that he had entered the Madh-hab of Ahl
as-Sunna. He collected the heretical books written by Hassan Sabbâh and had
them burnt. He died in 618. He was succeeded by his son Ahund Alâaddîn
Muhammad, the seventh ruler of the state of Ismâîliyya. This person chose his
ancestors’ heretical way and made harâms halâl. His son Ahund Ruqn-ad-dîn had
this foul person killed in his bed in 652 and appointed the Shiite scholar
Nasîr-ad-dîn Tűsî, who had been imprisoned by his father, as his vizier.
However, he was executed by Hulâghu’s brother in Transoxiana in 654. Hulâghu
put the heretics of Ismâîlî to the sword and relieved Muslims from these zindiqs.
Thus the saying, “To an ungodly fellow, a faithless brute,” manifested itself
once more.
The (encyclopedic) book Kâműs-ul-a’lâm gives the following definition of the entry ‘Ismâîliyya’: “One of
the heretical groups who infiltrated among Shiites. They have been called so
because they recognized Ismâîl, Imâm Ja’fer Sâdîq’s eldest son, who died as the
noble Imâm was alive yet, as the last imâm. They follow Ibni Saba’. They
believe in reincarnation. They call harâms ‘halâl’. They commit all sorts of
immoral acts without feeling slightest shame. The heretical group called Qarâmitîs,
who shed much Muslim blood, and the villain
named Hassan Sabbâh, and the State of Fâtimîs, who strove to demolish Islam in Egypt, were all Ismâîlîs. The
extreme ones of heretical groups and Druzis and Hurűfîs are their
continuations.” It is written in the book Munjid that they call themselves Alawî (Alevî).
Hurűfîs claim to come together in the unity of
(Muhammad-Alî). Accordingly, the As-hâb-i-kirâm, who are praised and
lauded in Qur’ân al-kerîm and in
hadîth-i-sherîfs, must have been without this unity. The three
Khalîfas, who were blessed with the good news that they would enter Paradise,
and all those heroic fighters who spread Islam over three continents must have
belonged to other unities. However, the author betrays his own insincerity in
his using the term (Muhammad-Alî). For hadrat Alî loved very much the other
three Khalîfas and even all the Sahâbîs he fought against. He would acknowledge
in the speeches he made as well as during all his conversations that those
people were valuable Believers and praised and lauded them. A person honoured
with the name Alevî should be so, too. They say that they follow the
Ahl-i-Bayt. They use the blessed name Alevî, which is loved by both Sunnites
and Alevîs in our country, as a mask for themselves. All their writings and
attitudes show, however, that they are not Alevîs. The book Tuhfa,
which was written at that time,
gives the following information with a view to divulging their inner purposes:
1- Under the pretext of (Muhammad-Alî unity), Hurűfîs
hold the Messenger of Allah and hadrat Alî equal.
2- They say that “Everybody who loves hadrat Alî will
enter Paradise, be he a Jew or a Christian or a polytheist. On the other hand,
those who love the As-hâb-i-kirâm will go to Hell, however good worshippers
they may be and even if they love the Ahl-i-Bayt.”
3- “Sinning will not harm those who love Alî,” they
allege.
4- They call the Ahl as-sunna, who are the
Ummat-i-merhuma (people who have attained Allah’s compassion), the
Ummat-i-mel’űna (people accursed by Allah.).
5- Asserting that Qur’ân al-kerîm was
changed by hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’, they
deny many âyats.
6- Cursing hadrat ’Umar deserves, according to them,
more thawâb than dhikring or reading Qur’ân al-kerîm.
7- It is a worship, in their view, to curse the
As-hâb-i-kirâm and Zawjât-i-zawil ihtirâm (the blessed and honourable wives of
our Prophet). “It is farz to curse these people daily,” they
say.
8- “Cursing (hadrat) Abű Bekr or (hadrat) ‘Umar once
is equal to seventy worships,” they believe.
9- According to them, hadrat Ruqayya and
Umm-i-Ghulthum are not Rasűlullah’s daughters, because they married hadrat ’Uthmân.
10- They say that hadrat Abű Bekr and ’Umar and
’Uthmân
‘radiy-Allâhu anhum’ “were munâfiqs.” Thus they deny
the hadîth-i sherîfs praising these three Khalîfas. These hadîth-i-sherîfs are written together with their documents in the book Izâlat-ul-hafâ,
by Shâh Waliyyullah Dahlawî.
11- Because hadrat Abű Bekr belonged to the tribe
called Temîm and
hadrat ’Umar was from the tribe called Adî, they say that Abű Bekr and ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’ “worshipped idols secretly.” However, hadrat Alî gave his
daughter to hadrat Abű Bekr’s son Muhammad and appointed him as a governor. And
he gave his other daughter to hadrat ’Umar. While maintaining on the one hand
that “hadrat Alî is free from errors,” they vituperate on the other hand the
great religious leaders to whom hadrat Alî gave his daughters and Rasűlullah’s father-in-law and son-in-law, and say that these people were
munâfiqs.
12- They think that Sunnite Muslims are inimical
towards hadrat Alî and Ahl-i-Bayt. On the contrary, Sunnites love hadrat Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ and the Ahl-i-Bayt very much and say that
loving these people will cause one to die in îmân, (as a Believer, that is).
Sunnites believe that being a Walî (a person loved by Allâhu ta’âlâ) requires loving these people (hadrat Alî and the Ahl-i-Bayt) and
following them.
13- They allege that Sunnites look on Ibni Muljam,
hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ murderer, as a just person and that “Bukhârî
reports hadîths coming through him.” This allegation is untrue. The book
Bukhârî does not contain any hadîths narrated by Ibni Muljam.
14- Because they feel animosity towards the Ahl
as-sunna, they curse the word ‘Sunnat’, too.
15- They say that if a person says, “wa ta’âlâ
jad-duk,” when performing namâz, his namâz will be annulled.
16- They say that Sunnites ‘rahmatullâhu ta’âlâ
alaihim ajma’în’ “are worse and fouler than Jews and Christians.”
17- They claim that all their groups, inimical as
they are towards one another, will enter Paradise owing to their love for
hadrat Alî.
18- “It is not necessary to do the worships taught by
the Ahl as-sunna,” they maintain.
19- When they begin doing something, they curse the
three Khalîfas instead of saying the word Basmala. They argue that “a sick
person who bears on himself a piece of paper containing a
written curse against the first two Khalîfas, or
drinks the water in which this paper has been dipped, will recover.”
20- According to them, cursing hadrat Âisha and
hadrat Hafsa ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ five times daily “is farz.”
21- They say that the Messenger of Allah “gave proxy
todivorce his wives. So Alî divorced Âisha (from Rasűlullah) by
proxyy.” On the contrary, âyat-i-kerîmas did not even give the right to end a marriage to
anyone, be it the Messenger of Allah.
22- They say that “Prophets would not have been
created had it not been for Alî.” They cannot think that a person who says that
“a non-Prophet is higher than a Prophet” becomes a
disbeliever.
23- They say that “on the rising day everything will
depend on Muhammad and Alî’s decision.”
24- According to them, when ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ was slain, “angels did not record sins for anybody for three
days.”
25- They say that the stones thrown on Minâ during
every hajj are actually thrown towards Abű Bekr and ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu
anhumâ’.
26- “The âyat about Dâbbat-ul-ard was intended to
inform that hadrat Alî will come back to earth,” they maintain.
27- According to them, and it is at the same time the
twenty-second article in their false credo, it is a very thawâb-deserving act
for the host to offer his wife and daughters to another Hurűfî who visits him.
In Iran the Hurűfî fathers pay visits as they wish, and the families they visit
offer them women to choose as they wish. Thus, they believe, the children conceived
on Friday nights (nights between Thursdays and Fridays) are (called) Persian
Sayyeds. Therefore the so called Sayyeds are abundant in Iran.
28- The eighteenth of Zilhijja (month) is their
greatest day of celebration. It is the day when hadrat ’Uthmân was martyred.
29- Another day they celebrate is the ninth of
Rebî’ul-awwal, the day when hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ was
martyred.
30- Another day they hold sacred is the Nevrűz Day,
which is actually a day celebrated by Magians.
31- According to them, prayers of namâz except those
which are farz can be performed in any direction. For instance, when they visit
Imâm-i-Alî Ridâ’s tomb in Mashhad they perform namâz towards the grave on
whichever corner of the grave they
are. It is stated as follows in the three hundredth
page of the summary of Tuhfa: “They perform namâz with their faces towards the
graves of imâms, without even considering that they may be turning their backs
to the qibla (Ka’ba) by doing so.”
32- They say that namâz can always be performed naked
as you are. It is written in a frank language in their book Minhâj-us-sâlihîn
that according to them no part
of one’s body, with the exception of the saw’atayn (the two private parts, the
urinatory and the excretory organs), is awrat (parts of the body one has to
cover). Fifteenth edition of the book was published in Nejef (or Najaf) in 1386
[A.D. 1966].
33- They maintain that eating and drinking (during
namâz) will not abrogate the namâz.
34- It is written in the two hundred and eighteenth
page (of the book cited above, i.e. Tuhfa) that they do not perform Friday
prayer and that they perform early and late afternoon, evening and night
prayers all at the same time.
35- Their seventeenth credal tenet is that things
touched by the innocent imâm are thousands of times as valuable as Ka’ba.
36- “Immersing oneself in water will nullify one’s
fasting,” they say.
37- On the tenth of Muharram they fast until
afternoon.
38- “Jihâd is not a worship, nor is it permissible,”
they say.
39- They call it Mut’a Nikâh to cohabit with a woman for a certain period of time in return
for money. According to them, this kind of nikâh (marriage) causes much thawâb.
It is written in the two hundred and twenty-seventh page that life in brothels,
which they call ‘Mut’a-i-dawriyya (devriyye)’, is permissible.
40- “It is sahîh (acceptable canonically) to hand
over a jâriya to other men,” they say.
41- It is stated as follows in the three hundred and
twenty-fifth page of the Arabic book Muhtasar-i-Tuhfa-i-Isnâ-ashariyya,
which was prepared by Sayyed
Mahműd Shukru Alűsî in (the hijrî year) 1302 and printed in Cairo in 1373:
According to these people, “Meat or any similar kind of food cooked in water
that has been used for cleaning after stool is edible and permissible to eat.”
It is written in their book Minhâj that water used in istinjâ (cleaning oneself canonically) is
clean. Likewise, they say that “Water that has been used by a number of people
for cleaning themselves or into which a dog has urinated is clean; it is
permissible to drink it or to cook something in it. So is the case
with water half of which is blood or urine.”
42-“It is permissible for a hungry person to kill
another person who has bread enough but will not give him any,” they say.
43- Their seventy-fifth stratagem, which is written
in the second chapter of the book, (Tuhfa) is their saying that “Prostration in
namâz must be done on earthen sun-dried bricks. Sunnites are like devils
because they do not do their prostrations on earth.”
44- It is stated as follows in the two hundred and
ninety-ninth page of the abridged version of Tuhfa: “As Christians forge
pictures of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ and hadrat Maryam (Mary) and prostrate
themselves in front of these pictures in churches, so Hurűfîs draw or paint
imaginary pictures of imâms and venerate, and even prostrate themselves in
front of, these pictures.” It is still observed in Iran and Iraq today that
they hang forged pictures of bearded people wearing turbans on walls in
mosques, in their homes and shops and worship them, saying that they are
pictures of hadrat Alî.
45-It is stated in the fourteenth page of the abridged version of
Tuhfa that the most excessive groups of Hurűfîs say that hadrat Alî is a god.
These excessive groups have been broken into twenty-four sub-groups. The
twentieth group says that “God has entered Alî and his children. Alî is a god.”
People belonging to this group are mostly in Damascus, Aleppo, and Lazkiyya.
Votaries of this group do not exist in Turkey.
The book Tuhfa-i-Isnâ-ashariyya gives a detailed account of the Hurűfî beliefs
explained shortly in the forty-five paragraphs above, names of the books in
which most of these beliefs are recorded, and proves through corroboratory
documents that each and every one of these beliefs is wrong and aberrant.
Alevîs, who are aware of hadrat Alî’s honour and value and the services he
rendered to Islam, are Muslims who love that lion of Allah in a manner advised
by our master, the Prophet. On the other hand, we Sunnite Muslims are Alevîs,
too, because we love hadrat Alî in this manner. We love other Alevîs who share
this same love. We know them as our brothers. It should be our debt of
conscience to cooperate and love one another on these lands, which offer us
freedom of worship and peace.
It has been explained in the lines above that one of
the groups of religion reformers who endeavour to demolish Islam from within,
and perhaps the most dangerous one, is the group called Hurűfîs. These people
are not Shiites. Being a Shiite means
disliking the three Khalîfas; it does not mean
feeling hostility against them. Shi’ah means jamâ’at, community, group, party. People
belonging to this party are called Shi'îs. Qisâs-i-enbiyâ gives the following information:
The first inventor of the fitna of bearing hostility against the
Ahl as-Sunna is a Jew of Yemen named Abdullah bin Saba’. This Jew pretended to be a Muslim. First he went to Basra, where
he began to spew his venomous malices, which can beoutlined as “Îsâ (Jesus)
‘alaihis-salâm’ will return to earth. Why should it not be possible for
Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ to do so, too. He also will come back. He and Alî will
rescue the world from disbelief. Caliphate belonged to Alî by rights. The three
Khalîfas used force to deprive him of his rights.” He was deported from Basra.
He went to Kűfa and began to mislead the people. Then, being deported from
Kűfa, too, he went to Damascus. The Sahâbîs in Damascus would not tolerate him.
So he fled to Egypt, where he managed to gather a number of ignoble and
eccentric bandits around himself, such as Khâlid bin Muljim, Sűdan bin Hamrân,
Ghâfikî bin Harb and Kinâna bin Bishr. He presented himself as a lover of the
Ahl-i-Bayt. The first step he took to deceive people around him was to advise them
to “Love hadrat Alî and bear animosity towards people who are opposed to him.”
When people began to believe him, he would go a step further and say that
“Hadrat Alî is the highest man after Prophets. He is the Prophet’s protector, brother, and son-in-law.” He
would convince these people by giving wrong meanings to âyat-i-kerîmas and fabricating hadîth-i-sherîfs.
People who do so are called Zindiq. And
the final step he took with people who went on believing him would be to
convince them that “The Prophet commanded that
hadrat Alî should be Khalîfa after him. The Sahâba disobeyed the Prophet. They deprived Alî of his right. They traded
their faith for worldly advantages.” While doing all these, he was cautious
enough to warn his adherents not to reveal these secrets to strangers for his
purpose was “not to make fame, but to guide people to the right way.” Thus he
caused hadrat ’Uthmân’s martyrdom. Then he tried to spread feelings of
animosity against the three Khalîfas among hadrat Alî’s army. He was successful
in this, too. People who believed him were called Saba’iyya,
[and later, they began to be called
Hurűfîs]. Upon hearing about the rumours, hadrat Alî mounted the menber and
castigated the slanderers of the three Khalîfas in a heavy language. He threatened
some of them with flogging. Seeing his own success,
Ibni Saba’ managed to exploit this situation, too. He secretly
intimated hadrat Alî’s miracles to people he chose, interpreting “these
extraordinary accomplishments (of hadrat Alî’s)” as symtoms of “the fact that
he is a god” and putting forward the words which hadrat Alî uttered when he was
in an ecstacy called Sekr-i-tarîqât as evidences. Hadrat Alî was wise to this, too. He declared that
he would burn Ibni Saba’ and his believers. He exiled them to the city of
Medâyn. Ibni Saba’ would not give up there, either. Sending his men forth to
Iraq and Azerbaijân, he promulgated enmity against the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Hadrat
Alî was too busy fighting Damascene rebels to struggle against these people or
to carry out his administrative duties as the Khalîfa.
9- Question: If
hadrat Alî had made an agreement with the Sahâbîs who were against him in the
events of Camel and Siffîn, if he had not made war against them, if he had
united and cooperated with those beloved Muslim brothers of his and together
they had fought the disbeliever named Ibni Saba’ and the munâfiqs who had
gathered around him, he would have added another one to the services he had
rendered to Islam. Thus the Saba’iyya group, who have shed Islamic blood
throughout history, would have been annihilated. How would this question be
answered?
Answer:
His ijtihâd was not so. The
destiny foreordained by Allâhu ta’âlâ
was inspired into his blessed
heart. So he submitted himself to the qader-i-ilâhî. Scholars of Ahl as-sunna
explain that hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd was correct. The same was experienced by
Abd-ul-hamîd Khân II ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’. As an army of pillagers prepared
with Masonic plans were on their way towards the palace to dethrone the Sultân,
the generals in Istanbul suggested to resist. The barracks in Istanbul were
full of trained soldiers. Yet Abd-ul-hamîd Khân imitated hadrat Alî’s
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ ijtihâd. He submitted himself to qader-i-ilâhî (Allah’s
divine foreordination). He did not resist the rebels. Thus he thwarted the
Party of Union’s plans to avenge on him and thousands of Muslims.
Day after day the number of separatists increased and
consequently hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ army was broken into four groups:
1- The first group was the Shî’ah, who followed
hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’. They did not criticize any of the
As-hâb-i-kirâm. On the contrary, they spoke about them with love and respect.
They were free from the doubts inspired by the devil.
They knew the group they were fighting against as
their brothers. (After a very short time) they stopped fighting them. Hadrat
Alî accepted their judgements. The name Shî’ah was attached to this group
first, and people who followed this group were called Ahl
as-Sunna wa’l-jamâ’at.
2- The group who held hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’
higher than all the other Sahâbîs were called Tafdîliyya. Hadrat Alî tried to dissuade them by threatening them
with flogging. The word Shî’ah represents this group today.
3- The group who said that all the Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ were sinners and disbelievers. These people were
called Saba’iyya or Hurűfî.
4-The group called Ghulât, who were the most unreasonable, were the most
heretical of the four groups. They asserted that Allah had entered hadrat Alî.
When hadrat Huseyn’s son Imâm Zeynel’âbidîn Alî
passed away when he was forty-eight years old in the ninety-fourth year of the
Hegira, his son Zeyd bin Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ revolted against Khalîfa Hishâm and
marched to Kűfa with an army. Yet, when hadrat Zeyd heard that his soldiers
were swearing at the As-hâb-i-kirâm, he advised them to stop doing so. This
made most of his soldiers abandon him. Having to defend himself with the very few
soldiers who remained faithful to him, he was finally martyred in 122. Those
who left him called themselves Imâmiyya. And the faithful ones who stayed with Zeyd were
called Zeydiyya.
According to the Ahl as-sunna, who were Alî’s Shî’ah,
hadrat Alî was the highest of his time. Caliphate was his right. Those who
disagreed with him were wrong and became bâghîs (rebelsagainst the Khalîfa).
Hadrat Âisha, Talha, Zubeyr, Mu’âwiya,Amr Ibni Âs and the other Sahâbîs ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ who fought hadrat Alî did not do so for the office
of caliphate. They protested him because hadrat ’Uthmân’s murderers had not
been found and retaliated against. They were about to come to an agreement,
when Abdullah bin Saba’ and his men started the fight, and everything happened after that.
All the Sahâbîs fighting hadrat Alî were saying that caliphate was his right
and that he was higher than themselves. They were praising him. And hadrat Alî
loved and praised those Sahâbîs who fought him.
10- Hurűfîs say that “The Ahl-i-Bayt castigated the
As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ and lamented over the
persecutions inflicted by them.” They add that “Most
of the Sahâba, especially (hadrat) Mu’âwiya and his father and (hadrat) Amr bin
Âs, were apostates, and that those who love and praise those apostates will go
to Hell together with them.” It is true that after the As-hâb-i-kirâm there
were governors who perpetrated cruelty and persecution. The torments inflicted
in the time of Abbasids were very much worse than those done in the time of
Umayyads. Some imâms of the Ahl-i-Bayt criticized those governors. Yet these
people (Hurűfîs) distorted these criticizations of the imâms of the Ahl-i-Bayt
and represented them as if they had been intended for the As-hâb-i-kirâm. This
act of theirs is treacherous both against the Ahl-i-Bayt and against the
As-hâb-i-kirâm.
They misled ignorant people by misrepresenting books censuring
the Ashâb-i-kirâm as literature belonging to the scholars of Ahl as-sunna. For
example, the author of the book of interpretation entitled Keshshaf is a
supporter of the groups called Tafdîliyya (see the second group explained
above) and Mu’tazila. Ahtab Hârezmî, on the other hand, is an unbridled Zeydî. Ibni
Qutayba, the author of the book Maârif, and Ibni
Ebilhadîd, who wrote an explanation
of the book Nahj-ul-belâgha, are in Mu’tazila sect. Hisham
Kelebî, a writer of Tafsîr, is a bid’at
holder. Mes’űdî, the
author of Murawwij-uz-zeheb, Abulferej Isfehânî, author of the book Eghânî, and Ahmad Taberî, author of Riyâd-un-madara, are a few of the fanatical adversaries
of Ahl as-sunna. These people are being presented as scholars of Ahl as-sunna
and thus younger generations are being deceived. In order to practise their deceit
easily, they withhold the fact that they are holders of bid’at. Most of them
masquerade completely. They pretend to be Sunnites. They praise scholars of Ahl
as-sunna and yet vituperate the greater ones of the As-hâb-i-kirâm. And, in the
name of documents, they refer to such books as the ones we have named above.
Then, Muslims will have to be extremely vigilant. They should not read books
and magazines quoting or translating from these corruptive books. No matter how
earnestly they may seem to be praising Islam and the scholars of Ahl as-sunna,
any religious book containing the names of the so-called books should be known
as a venom, a snare prepared behind the scenes by zindiqs, whose sole purpose
is to destroy Islam from within.
There are two men of religion named Suddî.
One of them is Ismâîl Kűfî. He
is Sunnite. The other man, who is better known
with his nickname Saghîr, is a vulgarly bigoted
holder of bid’at. Also, there are two Ibni Qutaybas. Ibrâhîm
ibni Qutayba is a bid’at
holder. Abdullah bin Muslim bin Qutayba, on the other hand, is Sunnî. Each of
these people has a book entitled Me’ârif. Another name shared by two people is Muhammad
ibni Jerîr Taberî. One of these
two people is Sunnî and wrote a great history book. The other is a bid’at
holder. The history book named Taberî was abridged by a bid’at holder named Alî
Shimshâtî.
The book Tuhfa quotes the twenty-seventh
falsification of Hurűfîs:
11-“A black maiden, a jâriya, praised the Shi’ah and censured the Ahl
as-sunna in Hârűn-ur-reshîd’s palace. There were scholars of Ahl as-sunna,
particularly Qâdî Abű Yűsuf. None of them could answer her,” they say. The maiden’s name, as they forge, was
Husniya. Now a book named after her, Husniya, is being sold throughout Anatolia. This story, contrary
to their expectations, is depreciatory to those scholars of their own aberrant
way. For it naturally leads one to the conclusion that “for many centuries none
of these people had been able to do what the jâriya did. In no debate had they
managed to refute the scholars of Ahl as-sunna ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim
ajmâ’în’ as did the jâriya. They had always been beaten. Had they learned the
jâriya’s methods earlier, they would have saved themselves from embarrassment.”
It has been clear that the stories in the book Husniya were written by a person
named Murtadâ. And that this Murtadâ was a Jewish convert is written in the book Esmâ-ul-muallifîn.
12- After hadrat Alî’s martyrdom, followers of the
Jew named Ibni Saba’ infiltrated among the Muslims supporting hadrat Hasan.
Forty thousand people elected him Khalîfa among themselves and provoked thim to
fight hadrat Mu’âwiya. Their aim was to do the same thing with him as they had
done with hadrat Alî and to martyr him. They were showing disrespect to him. In
fact, in one of such occasions Mukhtâr Seqafî pulled his prayer rug from under
his blessed feet. At some other time another accursed villain hit him on the
foot with a pickaxe. When the two armies met, they saw that hadrat Mu’âwiya was
going to win and deserted hadrat Hasan’s army. One of their own men, a zindiq
named Murtadâ, writes about these treacheries of theirs shamelessly in his book
Tenzîh-ul-enbiyâ. In fact, it is stated in their book Kitâb-ul-fusűl
that followers of Ibni Saba’,
who were on hadrat Hasan’s side in the beginning, wrote a letter to hadrat
Mu’âwiya, saying, “Attack now! We shall leave Hasan to you.”
Being wise to these villains’ intentions, Hasan
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ offered peace. So hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’, who had been anxious that hadrat Hasan’s blessed body
should not be hurt, answered that he was ready to make peace on any terms
hadrat Hasan would propose.
13- These people would not give up their mischievous activities
after Mu’âwiya’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ time, either. For it was the right
time for them to deal Islam the destructive blow from within. They sent a
message to hadrat Huseyn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’, promising their support for
his caliphate. They invited him to Kűfa from Mekka. Let us see what the book Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ
has to say in this connection:
Abdullah bin ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ tried to dissuade him imploringly from going to Kűfa. Yet
hadrat Huseyn would not listen to him. So Abdullah bid farewell to him in
tears. Then Abdullah bin Abbâs took his turn and said, “O my (paternal) uncle’s
son! I fear that the people of Kűfa may hurt you. They are malicious people.
Don’t go there! Go to Yemen if you must go somewhere!” Hadrat Huseyn answered
him, “You are right. But I have decided to go there.” Abdullah craved, “At
least, do not take your household! I am afraid you will be martyred before the
eyes of your children like hadrat ’Uthmân.” Hadrat Huseyn would not listen to
this advice either. These statements cited from Qisâs-i-enbiyâ show that the
Sahâbîs in Mekka knew that people who invited hadrat Huseyn to the city of Kűfa
were malevolent and that their purpose was to dupe him into their snare.
14- Scholars of Ahl as-sunna state that after hadrat Alî’s
martyrdom caliphate belonged to hadrat Hasan by rights. On his own volition he
demitted his right to hadrat Mu’âwiya. For at that time he was the person
suitable for caliphate. Hadrat Hasan abdicated the office of caliphate not out of
fear or because he was left alone, but to protect Muslims from a grave
bloodbath, and out of his magnanimous compassion for Believers. It is not
permissible to make peace with disbelievers or renegades in order to prevent
fitna. It is the worst fitna to give up fighting them at the cost of offering
the victory to them. Yet it is permissible to make peace with rebels (in such
circumstances). Until that time hadrat Mu’âwiya’s position was that of a rebel.
That year he became Khalîfa rightfully. A bâghî (rebel) cannot be cursed.
Instead, benedictions must be pronounced over him and one must supplicate to Allâhu ta’âlâ to “forgive this person.” An âyat-i-kerîma in Muhammad sűra purports, “Make
istighfâr for
Believers’
wrongdoings!” Commanding istighfâr
(invoking Allâhu
ta’âlâ for forgiveness) means prohibiting cursing. This âyat-i-kerîma commands to make istighfâr for those who
commit grave sins. It may be permissible to curse wrongdoing, yet this does not
mean that wrongdoers can be cursed, too. The tenth âyat of Hashr sűra purports,
“Do not feel hostility towards earlier Believers. Pronounce
benedictions over them.” It is a fact
written even in Shiite books that hadrat Alî prohibited to curse Damascenes.
This indicates that they were Muslims. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf addressed to hadrat Alî, “Fighting
you is fighting against me.” Yet
this hadîth-i-sherîf is intended to alarm
against the risk of fighting against those great people. This hadîth-i-sherîf is explained in detail in the
forty-first paragraph. In reality, the position occupied by hadrat Mu’âwiya
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ and his successors was that of a Ruler, a Sultân.
They were doing only one of the three different duties of a Khalîfa.
Hurűfî books state that hadrat Mu’âwiya’s governor’s oppressed
the people. One of them was Ziyâd, the governor of Shîrâz. He was Abű Sufyân’s
illegitimate son, whom he had from a concubine named Sumayya belonging to a
doctor named Hâris in the time of Nescience (before Islam). As he grew up, he
became legendary for his noble conduct, eloquence and intelligence. Amr ibni
Âs, who was one of Arabia’s geniuses, said about him, “If this child were a
Qoureishî, he would become a great man.” Hadrat Alî was there, too. Abű Sufyân
said, “He is my son.” When hadrat Alî became Khalîfa, he appointed Ziyâd
governor of Iran. He managed perfectly and conquered a number of lands. Hadrat
Mu’âwiya heard about these accomplishments of his brother’s and invited him.
Yet Ziyâd did not leave office till hadrat Alî’s martyrdom. After hadrat
Mu’âwiya became Khalîfa lawfully, he declared, in the forty-fourth year (of the
Hegira), that Ziyâd was Abű Sufyân’s son and appointed him governor of Basra.
Thus he protected hadrat ’Uthmân and hadrat Alî from being criticized for
having appointed someone without a father as a governor. Ziyâd was intending to
take revenge on Qâdî Shureyh’s son Sa’îd for (what he had done against) hadrat
Alî. To this end he seized his house and property. Sa’îd went to Medîna and
complained to hadrat Huseyn about him. Hadrat Huseyn ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ wrote a
letter to Ziyâd, advising him to return the property he had seized from Sa’îd.
In his reply to hadrat Huseyn, Ziyâd wrote rather insolently and said, for
instance, “O the son of Fâtima! You wrote your name above mine. Yet you are
the petitioner and I am the Sultân.” Hadrat Huseyn sent this
letter to the Khalîfa in Damascus, adding a file of complaint against the
governor. Upon reading the letters, Mu’âwiya became very sad. He sent a harsh
order to Ziyâd: “O Ziyâd! Know that you are a son of both Abű Sufyân and
Sumayya! Abű Sufyân’s son will be mild and discreet, and so will Sumayya’s son
be. You slander Huseyn’s father in your letter. I swear that you have all the
attributes you impute to him. And he is pure from all such stains. Your name’s
being below that of Huseyn is more of an honour than of a disgrace for you. As
soon as you receive my order give Sa’îd’s property back to him! Build him a
house better than the one he had before. I am reporting this order of mine to
Huseyn, too, apologizing to him and requesting him to inform Sa’îd, too. He may
stay in Medîna if he likes. Or he may go to Kűfa if he chooses to do so. Never
molest them, neither with your hands nor with your tongue! You wrote to Huseyn ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ addressing him with his mother’s name. Shame on you! Do not forget that
his father is Alî bin Ebî Tâlib. And his mother is Rasűlullah’s
daughter Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhâ.’ Can anyone else have the same
honour he has? Why do you not think?”
Everybody knows about the harms Ziyâd and his son
Ubaydullah caused to Muslims. Yet it would never be correct to blame hadrat
Mu’âwiya for appointing him as a governor. He had been appointed as a governor
earlier, both by hadrat ‘Uthmân and by hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’. Please read the thirty-sixth paragraph!
16-Question: Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “He
who torments Alî will have tormented me (by doing so).” Some people exploit this hadîth-i-sherîf in their
reasoning that “Since it is disbelief to hurt the Messenger of Allah, all those
people who fought hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ are
disbelievers.”
Answer:
Munâfiqs who came together in Kűfa and Egypt
marched to Medîna and martyred hadrat ‘Uthmân. Hadrat Alî, who became Khalîfa
upon this event, thought it would be wiser not to hurry in trying to find the
murderers for retaliation. This delay spoiled the raiders and caused them to go
on with their eccentricities. They began to curse hadrat ‘Uthmân and propagate
the statements expressing their rightfulness everywhere. This state of affairs
was a source of deep grief for the greater ones of the Sahâba, such as Talha,
Zubeyr, Nu’mân bin Beshîr, Qa’b bin
bin Ajra, and others. They expressed their sorrow by saying, “If
we had known that the results would be so bad, we would have protected hadrat
’Uthmân against these bandits.” Upon hearing about this, the murderers decided
to martyr these Sahâbîs, too. So the Sahâbîs went to the blessed city of Mekka,
where hadrat Âisha, who had come to Mekka earlier for the purpose of making
hajj, gave them asylum. They told her what was going on in Medîna and said,
“The Khalîfa has to tolerate the bandits till he has suppressed the mutiny completely.
This spoils them and causes them to aggravate their inimical and oppressive
conduct. Bloodshed will not be prevented unless a retaliation is realized and
the oppressorsare punished.” Hadrat Âisha advised them, “It will not be wise
for you to go back to Medîna as long as these bandits remain in Medîna and
around the Emîr-ul-mu’minîn. Go to a safer place for the time being. Wait for a
favourable opportunity and in the meantime search ways of rescuing Alî from the
hands of these bandits. Exploit the first situation offering you the
opportunity to cooperate with the Khalîfa and march against the bandits. Then
it will be easy for you to arrest the murderers for retaliation. Thus you will
teach the cruel a lesson whose effects will remain till the end of the world!
It will not be easy now. Do not hurry.”The Sahâbîs approved these words of
hadrat Âisha’s. They decided to go to places such as Iraq and Basra, where were
the assembly areas for Muslim troops. They begged hadrat Âisha, “Please protect
us until this fitna has been eliminated, the tumults have been suppressed and
we have joined the Khalîfa. You are the mother of Muslims and the venerable
wife of the Messenger of Allah. You are closer and more beloved to him than
anyone else is. Since everybody respects you, the bandits cannot march against
you. Stay with us and support us!” For the sake of convenience for Muslims and
to protect Rasűlullah’sSahâba, hadrat Âisha
joined them and together they left for Basra. On the other hand, the murderers,
who had been surrounding the Khalîfa and meddling with many administrative
matters, gave hadrat Alî quite a different and false report of this movement.
They persuaded the Khalîfa to go to Basra. Some Sahâbîs such as Imâm-i-Hasan,
Imâm-i-Huseyn, Abdullah bin Ja’fer Tayyâr and Abdullah bin Abbâs advised the
Khalîfa not to hurry and not to believe the munâfiqs’ reports. Yet the munâfiqs
overpowered and managed to take hadrat Emîr to Basra. First he sent someone
named Qa’qa’ to ask the people with hadratÂisha what they thought. They
answered that their purpose was peace
and to prevent fitna and that the murderers should be arrested
first. The Khalîfa accepted their wishes. Upon this, Muslims from both sides
rejoiced and agreed to come together three days later. As the time of their
meeting became closer, the murderers heard about this agreement. At a loss as
to what to do, they assembled around their leader, the Jew named Abdullah bin
Saba’, and asked him what they should do to prevent this meeting. “Our last
resort is to attack the Khalîfa’s army tonight and then go to the Khalîfa and
tell him that peoplewith Âisha did not keep their promise and raided us,” was
the Jew’s plan. The plan was executed successfully and then, as it was planned,
another troop of horsemen raided the other party. Upon this the spies who had
infiltrated among them beforehand clamoured as if they were their friends: “The
Khalîfa did not keep his promise. We have been raided.” So the war began. This
was how the event called Camel war broke out. Qurtubî and other Sunnite
historians write so, and it is true. Enemies of the As-hâb-i-kirâm, on the
other hand, falsify the facts in order to defend the murderers. Their lies
should not be believed.
Another person who was of the opinion that the
murderers should be arrested and retaliated against, was Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’, the governor of Damascus. Because the tumult had not been suppressed yet
and the Khalîfa was too busy with the event of Camel to do anything else, he
had to refuse his suggestion. And Mu’âwiya, in his turn, refused to recognize
him as the Khalîfa. As it is written also in the Shiite book Nahj-ul-belâgha,
the Khalîfa stated, “We shall
(have to) fight our brothers in Islam. They have deviated from the right way.”
As is seen, those who fought the battles of Camel and Siffîn never thought of
hurting hadrat Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’. The only feeling fostered by both
parties was obeying the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ and
preventing the fitna. Yet talons of Zionism managed bloodbaths on both sides.
In the hundred and twenty-third page of the book Tezkire-i
Kurtubî Muhtasarý, a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Muslim is quoted. It reads
as follows: “If Muslims fight one another, theones who are
killed as well as their killers will go to Hell.” According to scholars, this hadîth-i-sherîf
means those who fight for worldly advantages. It does not mean fighting for an
Islamic cause, for eliminating vices or for subduing rebels. As a matter of fact,
another hadîth-i-sherîf states, “If
you fight for worldly advantages, both the killer and the one killed will be in
Hell.”
This is not the case with the war between hadrat Alî and hadrat
Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’. It was not fought for worldly
advantages. It was done for the purpose of executing Allah’s command. It is
stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, which exists in
Muslim, “Fitnas will arise among my As-hâb.Allâhu ta’âlâ will
forgive them for the sake of the Sohbathey have had with me. However, people
who come laterwill criticize my Sahâbîs involved in these fitnas and will goto
Hell (because of their criticisms).” This hadîth-i-sherîf indicates
that all the As-hâb who fought one another will be pardoned.
17- Hurűfîs, who are bitter enemies of the
As-hâb-i-kirâm, say that all the Ahl as-sunna ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim
ajma’în’ are accursed. The hundred and tenth âyat of ’Imrân sűra purports, “You
are the best of Ummats.” And
these people (Hurűfîs) call this Ummat (Muslims) ‘accursed’. They consider it a
great worship to curse the greater ones of the As-hâb-i-kirâm after every
prayer of namâz. It does not even occur to them to curse such people as Abű
Jahl, Abű Leheb, Pharaoah and Nimrod, who are enemies of Allâhu ta’âlâ and Prophets. They say that âyat-i-kerîmas praising
the three Khalîfas and the As-hâb-i-kirâm are (among those âyats called)
Muteshâbihât and therefore they cannot be understood.
18- They look on the Ahl as-sunna as enemies of the Ahl-i-Bayt. On the contrary, books written by scholars of Ahl as-sunna teem with writings advising to love the Ahl-i-Bayt andcommending the great virtues they have. Bahâ-ud-dîn Âmilî, a Sunnite scholar, states in his book Keshkul that a person who denies the Ahl-i-Bayt is not a Believer. All the tarîqats of Ahl as-sunna receive fayz (or faidh) from the Ahl-i-Bayt. Imâms of the four Madh-habs of Ahl as-sunna are the disciples of the Ahl-i-Bayt. Ibni Mutahhir Hulli, a Shiite scholar, acknowledges in his books Nahj-ul-haqq and Minhaj-ul-kerâma that Abű Hanîfa and Mâlik bin Enes were taught by Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq. Imâm-i-Shâfi’î was a disciple to Imâm-i-Mâlik as well as to Imâm-i-Muhammad Sheybânî. Imâm-i-a’zam Abű Hanîfa attended the Sohbas of Imâm-i-Muhammad Bâqir, too, and acquired religious lore from him. Ibni Mutahhir acknowledges this fact plainly. Consequently, Imâm-i-a’zam must be a mujtahid capable of ijtihâd according to the Shiite credo. It is according to them, again, that a person who denies his testimony must be a disbeliever. As Imâm-i-Műsâ Kâzim was a prisoner in a dungeon belonging to the Abbasids, Imâm-i-Abű Yűsuf and Imâm-i-
Muhammad Sheybânî would come to his dungeon and he would teach
them. This fact is written in Shiite books, too.
It is farz for every Muslim not to like disbelievers.
There are many âyat-i-kerîmas commanding this. Believers, on the other hand, have
to love one another even if they are sinful. Every Believer should love Allâhu ta’âlâ more than anything else. Love and hatred have degrees. After Allâhu ta’âlâ, a Believer has to love His Messenger most. And who he loves third
best must be those Believers who are close to the Messenger. Three classes of
people are closest to him:
1- His children and relatives ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’.
2- His blessed wives ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’. Jenâb-i-Haqq mentions relation through genealogy
and relation through nikâh (marriage) together in Qur’ân al-kerîm.
3- His As-hâb ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum
ajma’în’. These people would run for his help even at the sacrifice of their
lives. This type of closeness is superior to all other types.
Next comes loving all the other Believers
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’. If any one of these people loses his
îmân hewill no longer deserve this love. Îmân and kufr (disbelief) are
determined at one’s final breath, (that is, whether a person is a Believer or a
disbeliever) becomes certain at the time of death. A Believer’s sinning is not
something liked. But he himself is loved.
It has been reported unanimously that after Rasűlullah’s passing away none of his blessed wives and none of his As-hâb
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ became a disbeliever.
Nasîr-ad-dîn-i-Tűsî, a Shiite scholar, asserts that “Those who opposed
Imâm-i-Alî became sinners. And people who fought him became disbelievers.”
According to the unanimous report mentioned above, however, those who revolted
against the Emîr and disobeyed him must be loved, too.
19- The combats of Camel and Siffîn were not the fruits of an
intention to fight against hadrat Alî. Their motive was the (Islamic) thought
that the murderers of hadrat ‘Uthmân should be retaliated against. These wars
would have been fought even if hadrat Alî had not been among them. None of the
people who took part in these battles felt any feeling of animosity whatsoever
towards hadrat Alî. A person who commits a forbidden act will be remunerated in
accordance with his intention. For instance, supposing a person said, “If
someone breaks this glass I shall
punish him,” and someone walking by tripped over something and
broke the glass. Now the first person should not punish him. So is the case
with those who fought hadrat Alî. Hadrat Âisha’s opposing hadrat Alî is like
hadrat Műsâ’s (Moses) rebuking hadrat Hârűn (Aaron). Qur’ân
al-kerîm declares that hadrat Âisha is Believers’ mother. A mother
cannot be blamed for chastising her son even if it is a mistake. The Sahâbîs
who fought hadrat Alî are praised through âyats and hadîths. There is the hope
of shafâ’at (intercession) and salvation for each and every one of the
As-hâb-i-kirâm, and even for all Believers. If a person feels enmity towards
hadrat Alî, curses and swears at him, he becomes a disbeliever. However, none
of the Sahâbîs (who fought him) is reported to have done so. A person who calls
hadrat Alî a disbeliever or asserts that he will not enter Paradise or alleges
that he cannot be a Khalîfa on account of his shortcomings in knowledge,
justice, wara’ and taqwâ, becomes a disbeliever himself. Khârijîs and Yezîdîs
(Yazîdîs) hold such a belief about him, yet this belief of theirs originate
from their erroneous interpretation of dubious evidences. If a person fights
him out of sensuous desires such as property and position or as a result of
erroneous ijtihâd, he will not become a disbeliever. In the former case, the
person concerned will become a sinner, and in the second case he will become a
bid’at holder. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf,
“Cursing a Believer is like slaying him.” To curse someone means to wish that he be far from Allah’s
compassion. Feeling of hatred felt against a person will continue after his
death, too. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, “Do
not swear at the dead.”
20- As it is
seen, there is a Jewish finger in the wars of Camel and Siffîn. They are
disasters manipulated by Zionism. They are consequences of atrocious plans
conceived to set brothers against one another and to demolish Islam from within
by arousing a civil war. As it was Jews who arranged hadrat ‘Uthmân’s
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ martyrdom, so it was these same people again who
organized and dispatched the army which dethroned Sultân Abd-ul-hamîd Khân II
‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’.
Muslims still do not wake up. They cannot see these
facts. Books written by the enemies of Islam, who martyred hadrat ’Uthmân,
(and) who caused the As-hâb-i-kirâm to destroy one another, and who caused the
freemasons called the Union Party to become a nuisance to Muslims and thus
dragged thousands of religious men to gallows or into dungeons, are selling in
great
numbers and being sent even to villages. Religion
reformers supported by freemasons and communists are endeavouring assiduously.
Muslims, on the other hand, are quite oblivious and sound asleep. They are
translating and advertising books written insidiously for the purpose of
demolishing Islam from within.
21- We saw an advertisement being run for a religious
book in a daily newspaper. We were told that the newspaper had been praising
the book for several days. A Muslim brought us a copy of the book. It is richly
embellished with praisals of the Ahl as-sunna, very probably intended to
camouflage the lies and slanders placed here and there. We would like to
announce these to our brothers in Islam. Thus we will have rendered a great
service to our faith and to our people if we can save our younger generations
from falling into bottomless chasms.
22-“It is stated in books that even Âisha-i-Siddîqa remained penitent
till the end of her life for having erred in her ijtihâd,” he says.
On the contrary, books do not contain any writings
stating that such and such a scholar repented of his ijtihâd. For it is not
sinful to perform ijtihâd on religious teachings which require ijtihâd. There
is at least one thawâb (reward) for ijtihâd. Those great people ‘rahmatullâhi
ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’ were sorry not because they had erred in their ijtihâd
but because Muslim blood had been shed.
23- He writes such things as “After
a long and insistent period of fitna, mischief, warfare and devastation, it was
finally realized that the As-hâb had been erroneous in their ijtihâd.” As we have stated earlier, the ijtihâd reached by the
As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ indicated that the murderers
of hadrat ’Uthmân should be retaliated against, that the bandits in Medîna
should be deported, and that peace and order should be restored as soon as
possible. Their ijtihâd had nothing to do with warfare. The so-called combats
were caused by munâfiqs. Later, the same munâfiqs said that the combats had
been consequences of differences in ijtihâd. Thus they managed to break Muslims
into two groups.
24- He quotes a hadîth-i-sherîf which
quotes, “Some people from my
As-hâb will come near me (as I rest) by my Pond (in Paradise). I will see them
and recognize them. Then they will separate them from me. I will say, “Yâ
Rabbî! These people are my As-hâb.’ Upon this, I shall be replied, ‘These
people did this and that after you.’ ” Then he names various books in order to
prove that it is a true hadîth-i-sherîf.
A longer form of this hadîth-i-sherîf
exists in Sunnite books called Sahîh, [that is, books of hadîth whose authenticity have been ratified
unanimously by scholars of Hadîth]. All the sahîh hadîth-i-sherîfs
of this sort point to the munâfiqs among the As-hâb-i-kirâm. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf that a few people among the
As-hâb-i-kirâm turned renegades in the time of the Messenger of Allah. They are
not included in the honour of being Sahâbîs. These people were dispatched as
envoys by tribes such as Benî Hanîf and Benî Saqîf, said that they had become
Muslims, and left. Afterwards, they lapsed back into apostasy. Another person
in the category is Harqus bin Zubeyr, who was with hadrat Alî in the combats of
Camel and Siffîn and joined the group Khârijîs afterwards. Scholars of Ahl
as-sunna unanimously agree that all the Sahâbîs who performed pious deeds and
made Jihâd against disbelievers passed away as Believers. The Sahâbîs who took
part in the wars of Camel and Siffîn on both sides are included in these
fortunate people. None of them called another a disbeliever. The hadîth-i-sherîf that states, “Ammâr
bin Yâser will be slain by rebels,” and
hadrat Alî’s statement, “Our brothers have revolted against us,” prove that
hadrat Mu’âwiya and all the As-hâb-i-kirâm who were with him were Muslims. In
our (Turkish) book Eshâb-ý-Kirâm, we quote the statements which hadrat Mu’âwiya and hadratAmr Ibni
Âs made towards their deaths, and give detailed examples of the excessive love
and the deep respect they had for the Messenger of Allah. Those who read the
book will realize that both of them had very firm îmân and will never speak ill
of them. Scholars of Ahl as-sunna do not defend renegades. On the contrary,
they state the superior merits possessed by those people who fought against
renegades in the time of Abű Bekr. They explain how honourable those heroic
people were who routed renegades, fought Iranian and Byzantine armies for
Allah’s sake and beat them to the ground. These heroes caused thousands of
people to become Believers. They taught them the Qur’ân, the namâz, and Islam. Qur’ân al-kerîm gives them the good news that they
shall all go to Paradise and promises them infinite blessings. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that He is pleased with them
all. This good news and promise testify that all the As-hâb-i-kirâm
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ passed away as Believers and none of them
became a renegade.
Shâh Waliyy-ullâh-i-Dahlawî ‘rahima-hullah’ quotes
this hadîth-i-sherîf and explains it at the end of his book Qurrat-ul-
aynayn.
We have summarized and
translated this book from Persian into Turkish and titled it Eshâb-ý
Kirâm.
25-“In the interpretation of the âyat, ‘You are a beneficent Ummat
produced for (the good of) humanity,’ Imâm Ibni Jerîr-i-Taberî quotes (through
authentic narration) ’Umar-ul-Fârűq as having said, ‘This noble attribute
includes the earlier ones among us, not the later generations.’ According to
Ahmad bin Hanbel and Ibni Shîrîn, the earlier ones are those who performed
namâz towards two qiblas. According to Sha’bî, on the other hand, they are
people who paid and promised homage (to the Prophet)
under the tree of Ridwân,” he
says.
Thus he tries to pave the way to a position whence to attack hadrat
Mu’âwiya. Yet the fulcrum whereon he bases his theory is quite untenable. By
writing that the people called Sâbiqűn and praised in the âyat-i-kerîma are the early Believers, he triesto hint
that hadrat Mu’âwiya and hadrat Amr Ibni Âs, being among later Believers, are
not included in the group praised. He quotes only the former part, which reads
as “Sâbiqűn-al-awwalűn”, of the
hundred and first âyat of Tawba sűra, and withholds the latter part. After
beginning as “Sâbiqűn al-awwalűn,” the âyat-i-kerîma
purports, “Allâhu ta’âlâ is pleased with those who follow these
people in îmân and ihsân. Andthey are pleased with Allâhu
ta’âlâ, too. Allâhu ta’âlâ has
prepared Gardens for them.” All
books of Tafsîr unanimously state that all the As-hâb-i-kirâm and people who
will follow them till the end of the world are included among them. The Tafsîr
named Tibyân, after stating this fact, quotes Muhammad bin Qa’b as having said,
“All the As-hâb-i-kirâm, including the ones who committed sins, are in
Paradise,” and adds that he quoted the aforenamed âyat-i-kerîma
after making this statement. A Hurűfî father was asked why he did not perform
namâz at all. His answer was that he obeyed the âyat, “Do not be close to the
namâz!” By withholding the final part of the âyat-i-kerîma,
which terminates as, “... when you are drunk,” he changed the commandment of Allâhu ta’âlâ quite the other way round and thus
became a disbeliever. Likewise, the author of the aforenamed book writes only
the beginning part of the âyat-i-kerîma and
conceals the fact that hadrat Mu’âwiya and hadrat Amr Ibni Âs are among those
people who are to go to Paradise.
26- Then he launches his first offensive by saying, “The leaders of disbelief are Abű Sufyân,
who was Hind’s husband and Mu’âwiya’s father, and his coterie.” He seems to forget that in those days Abbâs, Rasűlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’
paternal uncle, was among the unbelievers, too. He
was one of the commanders of the troops marching towards Bedr to fight the
Messenger of Allah. When he was taken as a captive, he boasted to hadrat Alî
that they were “repairing the Mesjîd-i-harâm, providing covers for the Ka’ba,
and supplying water for the Hadjis.” Upon this, Allâhu ta’âlâ revealed
an âyat-i-kerîma, which purports, “Polytheists’ repairing
mosques is not sahîh(valid,
acceptable). We shall annihilate the deeds they boast about
and put them into Hell.” Thus
Abbâs received the answer he deserved. Later, however, Allâhu ta’âlâ continued His revelation, which purports, “There
are high grades forthose who believed, migrated from Mekka to Medîna,
andperformed Jihâd for Allah’s sake. I offer the good news ofMy Rahmat (Compassion and forgiveness), My
Ridwân (Being pleased and
loving), and My Gardens of Paradise. They shall attain eternal
blessings in Paradise.” Abbâs
and Abű Sufyân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’ joined the Believers. They migrated from
Mekka to Medîna in the year of the Fat-h (conquest). Abű Sufyân lost his eye in
the Holy War of Tâif. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ gave him the good
news that he will go to Paradise. In the Holy War of Yermuk, which was fought
during Abű Bekr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ caliphate, he lost his second eye and
attained martyrdom a short time later in the same battle.
27- “In the
combat of Siffîn, seventy thousand people died from each army. Twenty-five
thousand of these people were supporting Aliyy-ul-murtadâ. Who is the cause of
this horrendous fight,” he asks.
Translating a chapter from the book Tuhfa,
we explained in detail in the
sixteenth chapter above that this war was a result of the provocations
perpetrated by a Jew named Abdullah bin Saba’ and a group of zindiqs led by him and named after him
as Saba’iyya. Nevertheless,
followers of the Saba’iyya group are endeavouring to impute this Jewish
turpitude to hadrat Mu’âwiya, thus to break Muslims into groups.
28-“Talha and Zubeyr, two members of the Ashara-i-mubashshara, who
were on the side of Âisha-i-Siddîqa in the war of Camel, retracted their
earlier erroneous ijtihâd and left the battle area,” he says.
These two Sahâbîs, who had been given the good news
that
they would go to Paradise, did not perform ijtihâd
for fighting hadrat Alî. With this allegation, these people are trying to
blemish these two noble persons, whom the Messenger of Allah loved very much
and gave the good news of Paradise. When hadrat Alî met them and said that he
did not want to fight Muslims, they realized that they had been duped by Jews.
So they gave up fighting.
29-“As Talha was dying, he recognized a follower of Aliy-ul-murtadâ
passing by and said to him, “Hold out your hand! I shall pay homage (to you) in
the name of Alî,” he says.
Hadrat Âisha and those who were with her said that they were in
Basra not to fight hadrat Alî but to make an agreement with him, to pay homage
to him, and to put an end to fitna and mischief. It is stated as follows in the
four hundred and eighteenth page of Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ: “After Rasűlullah’s passing away, it was being discussed who
would take office as the Khalîfa, when Zubeyr bin Awwâm drew his sword and said
he was not going to put his sword back into its sheath unless Alî is paid
homage to.” It was this same Zubeyr, one of the ten fortunate people given the
good news of Paradise, who wasamong those who accompanied Âisha-i-Siddîqa
against hadrat Alî”. This writing quoted from Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ proves that all
those Sahâbîs whose ijtihâd disagreed with that of hadrat Alî knew hadrat Alî
as higher and more suitable for caliphate than they were and wished to make an
agreement with him. We explained in the sixteenth paragraph how the event of
Camel started as a result of Jewish intrigue. The writing quoted from the book
shows that this translation of ours is true. It is not a sin for mujtahids to
perform ijtihâd. Then why should it be a virtuous act for them to change their
ijtihâd?
30-“It is advised in the âyat-i-kerîma
to ‘Stay in your homes. Do not go out. Do not engage in warfare.’ She realized
her mistake from this âyat-i-kerîma,” he says.
If this âyat-i-kerîma commanded
never to go out, the Messenger of Allah would not have taken along his wives
when he went on Hajj, ’Umra or Holy War after the revelation of this âyat-i-kerîma. Nor would he have permitted them to visit their parents, sick
people or bereaved families. It is obvious that the fact is quite to the
contrary. Then, the âyat-i-kerîma commands them (women) not to go out without covering
themselves. It does not prohibit them to go out for religious reasons, provided
that they will cover themselves. Hadrat Âisha was one of the greatest ones of
the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’.
Upon the requests of the As-hâb, she went out to
demand retaliation for the rightful Khalîfa (hadrat ’Uthmân). According to
Shiite books, during hadrat Abű Bekr’s caliphate, hadrat Alî made hadrat Fâtima
mount an animal and took her out for a tour in Medîna. In the time of the
second Khalîfa Sahâbîs would take the Zawjât-i-tâhirât (the Messenger’s pure
wives) on hajj.
31- “Rasűl-i-ekrem ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stroked Ammâr bin
Yâser’s face and said, ‘You will be slain by a group of rebels.’ This report
shows that Mu’âwiya and his coterie were rebels. When Ammâr was martyred, those
who knew about this report deserted Mu’âwiya and sided with Aliyy-ul-Murtadâ.
Bâghî means rebel, insurgent,” he
says, and adds that he borrowed this information from Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ.
We have looked up the matter in the book Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ.
We have not seen any writing
stating that those who heard about hadrat Ammâr’s death transferred to hadrat
Alî’s side. The book writes that the combat became even more heated and some
differences began in hadrat Alî’s army. The hadîth-i-sherîf about
hadrat Ammâr, which is quoted by this author, too, proves that hadrat Mu’âwiya
and other Sahâbîs like hadrat AmrIbni Âs were not disbelievers. All these
people had joined the Messenger of Allah in his Jihâd against unbelievers.
It is stated in Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ: The same year when Mekka was conquered, Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ wrote a letter to Ja’fer, the ruler of Ammân,
and sent it through hadratAmr Ibni Âs ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’.
When the people of Tâif became Muslims, Rasűl-i-ekrem
sent Abű Sufyân bin Harb to Tâif and had him break the idol called Lat. Abű Sufyân and his sons Yezîd and Mu’âwiya were Rasűlullah’s secretaries. Khâlid ibni Zeyd Abâ Ayyűb al-ansârî and Amr Ibni
Âs, too, were two of the honourable people who served as secretaries (to the
Messenger of Allah). Amr Ibni Âs was appointed as the army commander by the
Messenger of Allah. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ also appointed Abű
Sufyân as governor of Najrân and his son Yezîd as a judge in Teyma ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’.
Hadrat Amr Ibni Âs was in Ammân when Rasűlullah passed away. Upon his arriving in Medîna, the Sahâba crowded
around him and asked him to tell them what he had seen on his way. He said, “I
saw that Arabs living in places from Ammân to Medîna had already become
renegades and ready to fight us.” Hadrat Abű Bekr sent forth different
groups of Sahâbîs against different groups of
renegades. He sent a troop under Amr IbniÂs’ command ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ against the renegades of Hudâ’a.
In the period of Sa’âdat, hadrat Amr Ibni Âs was formerly
assigned the duty of collecting zakât from the tribes of Sa’d and Huzayfa and
Uzra. Later he was appointed as a judge in Ammân and was promised that on his
return he would be given his former position again. When he was back from
Ammân, hadrat Khalîfa sent him out to collect zakât as he had been doing
before, thus fulfilling the promise made by the Messenger of Allah. When the
number of renegades increased, the Khalîfa wanted to give him command over a
community. He wrote to him, saying, “I gave you your former duty so that the
promise made by the Messenger of Allah be fulfilled. Now I plan to assign you a
duty which will be more useful for you both in theworld and in the Hereafter.”
Amr Ibni Âs’ answer was: “I am one of Islam’s arrows. After Allah, you are the
person who will throw and recollect these arrows. Throw the one which is more
powerful and more effective.” So hadrat Khalîfa appointed him commander over a
community. He sent him to Palestine via Eyla. And Abű Sufyân’s son Yezîd was
given command over another community and sent to a region in the vicinity of
Damascus by way of Belqa. Abű Sufyân’s second son Mu’âwiya was made Emîr over
another community under his brother’s command. Emperor Heraclius sent his
brother with a hundredthousand strong army against hadrat Amr Ibni Âs and
another powerful army commanded by a general named Yorgi against Yezîd. He
remained in Hums. The Islamic troops, upon the orders they received from the
Khalîfa, assembled in Yermuk. The
Byzantine troops also assembled against the Muslim troops. The Muslims
preferred defense and in the meantime sent messengers to the Khalîfa, asking
for help. Upon the orders sent by the Khalîfa, hadrat Khâlid, who was (called)
The Sword of Allah, left Iraq with a ten thousand strong army toreinforce Amr
Ibni Âs’ army under his command. After a bloody battle fought in Ejnâdin, the
Byzantine army suffered a humiliating defeat. Then in Yermuk another difficult
battle took place between a two hundred and forty thousand strong Byzantine
army and a forty-six thousand strong Islamic army, among whom were a thousand
Sahâbîs. And one hundred of these noble people were heroes who had been in the
Holy War of Bedr. Hadrat Khâlid was unanimously voted as the
Commander-in-chief. Amr Ibni Âs and Sherhabil commanded the right wing and
Yezîd bin Ebî Sufyân and Qa’qa’ commanded the left wing. Abű Sufyân
bin Harb encouraged the soldiers with his heroic accomplishments.
The battle cost much blood. One hundred thousand Byzantines, including the
Emporer’s brother, were put to the sword. An arrow pierced through Abű Sufyân’s
blessed eye and made him blind. The Byzantines launched another offensive with
an eighty thousand strong army in Jordan. Khâlid took his place in the center,
while Amr Ibni Âs and Abű Ubayda shared the two wings ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
anhum ajma’în’. The Byzantines were routed. Very few of them survived.
During the caliphate of hadrat ’Umar ul-Fârűq, Muslims besieged
Damascus. One gate was held by Khâlid bin Walîd,another by Amr Ibni Âs, and a
third one by Yezîd bin Ebî Sufyân. Yezîd appointed his brother commander of the
forward column. So he conquered the cities of Saydâ (Sidon) andBeirut, while
Amr Ibni Âs conquered Palestine. Hadrat Amr IbniÂs was the commander of the
army in Palestine. Hadrat Emîrul-mu’minîn frequently sent help to Amr Ibni Âs.
Amr Ibni Âs was a well-known genius and a clever administrator. He sent a troop
to Jerusalem, and one to Ramla. On the other had, Mu’âwiya besieged the city of
Qaysâriya. There were many soldiers in the city. They went out to attack the
siege forces. Yet hadrat Mu’âwiya broke all their offensives. In the meantime,
Amr Ibni Âs fought the Byzantine commander-in-chief and gave him an utter rout.
He conquered the cities of Ghazza and Nablűs. Hadrat ’Umar left for Jerusalem, bidding
hadrat Alî to take his place in his absence. He was met by Khâlid, Amr Ibni Âs
and Sherhâbil, all of whom hugged him cordially. The Byzantines surrendered
Jerusalem to hadrat ’Umar. The booties taken in Iran were transported to Medîna
by Ziyâd bin Ebîh. He gave the Khalîfa a very clear and eloquent report about
the combats in Iran. Yezîd was appointed governor of Damascus. Mu’âwiya
conquered the city of Qaysâriya. Yezîd, the governor of Damascus, died of
plague. His brother Mu’âwiya was appointed to take his place as the governor of
Damascus. Also, Abű Ubayda, the commander of Syria, and Mu’âz bin Jabal, who
took his place, died of plague. When hadrat Amr Ibni Âs became
commander-in-chief, he made all the people to go to the mountains, thus putting
an end to theepidemic. Hadrat Amr Ibni Âs was appointed commander for the
military expedition to Egypt. The Byzantine army was routed after a war of one
month. The Muslims entered Egypt. Hadrat Amr Ibni Âs used mangonels in this
war. Heraclius had prepared
a great army in Istanbul and was marching against Amr Ibni Âs,
when he died on the way. Amr Ibni Âs conquered Alexandria after a war which
lasted for three months. Then he moved towards Trablus (Tripoli), which he
conquered after one month’s war. When hadrat ’Umar was martyred, his son
Ubeydullah killed Hurmuzân, a former Persian Shâh, thinking that he was the
murderer (of his father). Hadrat Alî said that a retaliation should be
inflicted on Ubeydullah. The governor ofEgypt Amr Ibni Âs, who was on leave at
that time, disagreed with him, saying, “How could it be justifiable to kill a
son only a short time after the murdering of his father?” ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’, who was the Khalîfa, approved this statement and extenuated the
punishment from retaliation to indemnification, paying the indemnity from his
personal property. This was a disagreement of ijtihâd. Hadrat Mu’âwiya launched
a series of Holy Wars in Asia Minor and marched up to the city of Aműriyya.
The Khalîfa dismissed Amr Ibni Âs from the
governorship of Egypt. The Khalîfa’s plan was to conquer Istanbul by way of
Andalusia (Spain). He landed troops in Andalusia. Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
anh’, who was the commander of the army in Damascus, sent ships transporting
troops to Cyprus. These troops, reinforced by the forces sent as an aid from
Egypt, conquered the island after incessant battles.
Constantine III, the kaiser of Istanbul, became the
Byzantine Emperor in 47 [A.D. 668] and died in 66 [A.D. 685]. Organizing a
great fleet, he hoisted the sails into the Mediterranean. On the other hand,
hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ and Abdullah the governor of Egypt formed a
fleet each and set sails. An illustrious sea war ended in the Muslims’ victory.
In the thirty-third year of the Hegira, hadrat Mu’âwiya, who was the governor
of Damascus at that time, fought his way through Byzantine territories till he
came to the Bosphorus. This Mu’âwiya bin Ebî Suyân ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ was an
honourable Sahâbî who had served as a secretary to the Messenger of Allah.
Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ risked his life and
fought like a lion against enemies for the establishment and implantation of
Islam. Many an unbeliever succumbed to his sword. Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ was another hero who did not hesitate to put his life in jeopardy for the
promulgation of Islam and fought the Byzantine armies so that Islam spread its
luminous lights in the west as well as in the east. Many a country yielded to
his conquests.
A Jewish convert named Abdullah bin Saba’ misled many people in
Egypt. He provoked the people into insurrection by instilling into them the
idea that the office of caliphate belonged to hadrat Alî by rights. If Amr Ibni
Âs had been the governor of Egypt in those days he would not have let this
fitna arise. A few people in Kűfa, taking offense with their governor for some
reason, began to backbite hadrat ’Uthmân. The Khalîfa banished them to
Damascus, and wrote to Mu’âwiya the governor of Damascus to “Admonish these
people!” Mu’âwiya praised the Qoureishîs to these people and said,
“Rasűl-i-ekrem employed me in his service. Then his three Khalîfas appointed me
as a governor and were pleased with me.” He advised them very earnestly. They
would not listen to him. So he sent them to the city of Hums. Abd-ur-rahmân bin
Walîd, the governor of Hums, treated them harshly and threatened them to make
tawba. The Khalîfa summoned Mu’âwiya, Amr Ibni Âs and the other three governors
to Medîna and asked them their opinions. Mu’âwiya was of the opinion that the
Khalîfa should “Give the governors initiative.” However, Amr Ibni Âs
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’ said, “O Khalîfa! You and Benî Umayya (Umayyads)
have placed your trust in the people. You have been rather (too) compassionate
to them. Either oppress or withdraw or wield more authority!”
Meanwhile, Ibni Saba’, who was in Egypt, was
conducting timely correspondence between himself and his men in other
provinces. They were fabricating lies, such as “Governor so and so is
oppressing the people”, multiplying these slanders by thousands, and
promulgating them far and near. The Khalîfa heard about the (fabricated)
complaints (most of them about the governors). He convened the governors and
asked them the reasons for the complaints. Mu’âwiya said, “You appointed me
governor. And I appointed many people as officials. You will receive goodness
from them. Everybody knows and governs his country better.” Sa’îd said, “The
rumours are all slanderous. They are being spread secretly. And people believe
them. Those who fabricate them ought to be found and killed.” Amr Ibni Âs said,
“You have behaved too softly. You have to be harsh when necessary.” The Khalîfa
went to Medîna together with the governors. He sent for Alî and Talha and
Zubeyr. (When they met), Mu’âwiya began to talk, “You are the highest members
of the As-hâb. You have elected the Khalîfa. He is old now. Do not rush
forward.” Grieved over these statements, hadrat Alî said,
“Be quiet.” They dispersed. Mu’âwiya invited the
Khalîfa to Damascus. The Khalîfa refused. “Then, let me send a detachment to
protect you,” was Mu’âwiya’s next suggestion, which the Khalîfa replied, “I do
not want to oppress Rasűlullah’s neighbours.” When Mu’âwiya finally tried to warn,
saying, “I fear that they might contrive to kill you,” the Khalîfa said,
“Whatever Allah decrees will happen.” Upon this, Mu’âwiya put on his travelling
clothes, talked with Alî and Talha and Zubeyr and other Sahâbîs, entrusted the
Khalîfa to their care, bid farewell to them, and set out for Damascus. As he
left, he said, “Abű Bekr did not wish the world. Nor did the world attempt to
approach him. The world approached ’Umar. He refused the world. ’Uthmân
received a little of the world. As for us; we have dived into the world.”
Ibni Saba’s men assembled in Egypt and Kűfa and several thousand
of them left for Medîna under the pretext that they were going to make hajj.
After their arrival in Medîna, hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ was
martyred. The rescue forces sent from Damascus and Kűfa were too late.
The writings above, which we have borrowed from the
First World War edition of Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ, show clearly how faithfuland true
Muslims hadrat Mu’âwiya and hadrat Amr Ibni Âs were, how high their statuses
among the As-hâb-i-kirâm were, how greatly they served Islam and how zealously
they fought against unbelievers. Although the book Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ was written
under the influence of false stories in the histories written by prejudiced
Abbasid historians whose motive was to censure the Umayyads and ingratiate
themselves with their government, it provides the true information we have
given above. In its account of the events called Camel and Siffîn, it adds the
slanders that exist in Abbasid histories and which are quite incompatible with
the honours of these two Sahâbîs and hadrat Abű Sufyân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’. However, the selections we have written above should
suffice for people keen-sighted and understanding enough to recognize the
greatness of the As-hâb-i-kirâm and realize that allegations that exist in
Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ and which blemish them are forgeries and calumniations.
32-“Mu’âwiya bin Hadîdj, who was a Sahâbî and one of the commanders
whom Mu’âwiya had sent to Egypt in company of Amr Ibni Âs, slew Muhammad bin
Ebî Bekr, one of the messengers of Aliyy-ul-murtadâ, placed him in a donkey’s
carcass and burned him. One cannot decide what to say about this
monstrosity,” he says, and adds that he borrows this information from the book
Rawdat-ul-Ebrâr.
Now let us see what Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ has to say in this connection: “Muhammad bin Ebî Bekr, hadrat
Alî’s governor of Egypt, perpetrated so much oppression on the people that the
people finally took up arms. On the other hand, Mu’âwiya bin Hadîdj
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, one of the Sahâba, who was in Egypt in those days,
attempted to conduct feud for the blood of hadrat ’Uthmân and gathered many
people around himself. Hadrat Mu’âwiya sent hadrat Amr Ibni Âs to resume
control of Egypt. Yet Muhammad bin Ebî Bekr put up a military resistence.
Mu’âwiya bin Hadîdj arrived and joined his forces into the armyled by Amr Ibni
Âs. The Egyptians were routed and Muhammad bin Ebî Bekr hid himself. Mu’âwiya
bin Hadîdj found and killed him. He put his body into a donkey’s carcass and burned
it. For Muhammed bin Ebî Bekr had joined the bandits marching from Egypt to
Medîna and provoked the people aganist hadrat ’Uthmân. He was one of those who
had crowded around hadrat ’Uthmân’s house. Hadrat Hasan bin Alî, who was among
the people guarding hadrat ’Uthmân, was wounded by an arrow. Panicking at the
blood running from hadrat Hasan’s body, Muhammad bin Ebî Bekr said, ‘If the
sons of Hâshim see this, they will attack us and spoil everything. Let us try
and find a shorter way.’ He took two people with him and together they climbed
over the wall of an adjacent house and entered hadrat ’Uthmân’s room. Muhammad
bin Ebî Bekr was the first to enter. Saying, ‘Mu’âwiya cannot save you,’ he
held the Khalîfa by the beard. The Khalîfa, who was reading the Qur’ân, looked
at Muhammad on the face and said, ‘If your father saw you in this manner, how
sorry he would be.’ Being ashamed, Muhammad left the place. Then his friends
entered the room and martyred the Khalîfa.” As is seen, this retribution was
visited on him for having caused the Khalîfa’s martyrdom. The author of the
so-called book laments over the burning of this person and relates the event to
young people. However, if he wrote how most of the Umayyad Khalîfas had been
burnt by the Abbasids and how Hurűfîs had burnt scholars of Ahl as-sunna,
especially Shirwanshâh and the governor of Baghdâd Bekir Paţa, both of whom
were burnt alive, and how they had exhumed hadrat Beydâwî’s bones and burnt
them, it would be easier to decide which people were more savage. When hadrat
Mu’âwiya tookcontrol of Egypt, he appointed Amr Ibni Âs governor of the
province. Amr had
already served as the governor of Egypt, for four years during
hadrat ’Umar’s caliphate, and for another four years in the time of hadrat ’Uthmân.
When Amr passed away in the year forty-three, hadrat Mu’âwiya appointed Amr’s
son Abdullah as the governor for his place. Two years later he dismissed him
and appointed Mu’âwiya bin Hadîdj as the governor. In the year 50, he dismissed
Mu’âwiya bin Hadîdj and for his place appointed Maslama, one of his men and at
the same time a Sahâbî, as the governor of Egypt and Afrikiyya. Hadrat Mu’âwiya
bin Hadîdj passed away in the seventy-third year (of the Hegira).
33-“Mu’âwiya sent
a troop under Busr bin Ertâd’s command onto the Harameyn (the blessed cities of
Mekka and Medîna and their territories) and had women and innocent children put
to the sword. In this event, Abbâs’ grandsons, Abd-ur-Rahmân, who was five
years old, and Qusam, six years old, were martyred. These children were slain
before the eyes of their mother Âisha. Terrorized by this horrendous murder,
the helpless mother, Âisha, went mad and rambled around with naked head and
feet till the end of her life,” he
alleges, and says that he has acquired this information from the books Al-kâmil
and Al-Beyân wa-t-tabyîn.
The books he puts forward to corroborate his allegation betray
his own shame. Al-Beyân wa-t-tabyîn was written by a Mu’tazilî hostile to the
Ahl as-sunna. The abridged version of Tezkira-i-Qurtubî gives a true account of
this matter on its hundred and thirty-first page, as follows: “After hadrat
Mu’âwiya was elected Khalîfa by the unanimous vote of the arbitrators, he sent
Busr bin Ertâd Âmirî with a three thousand strong army to Hidjâz in order to
exact obedience from its people. His first stop was in Medîna. In those days
hadrat Khâlid Abâ Ayyűb al-Ansârî was the governor of Medîna appointed by
hadrat Alî. This governor secretly left for Kűfâ to take his place with hadrat
Alî. Busr mounted the minber and said, ‘What have you done to the Khalîfa,
[that is, hadrat ‘Uthmân], to whom I paid homage here at one time? I would put
all of you to the sword if Mu’âwiya had not forbidden me to.’ People of Medîna,
led by hadrat Jâbir, paid homage. Then Busr exacted obedience from Meccans,
too. Busr’s stating that he was commanded by hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘not to kill
anyone’ shows that he did not kill anybody in Mekka or Medîna. Then he went to
Yemen. Ubeydullah bin Abbâs, who was the governor of Yemen at that time, fled
to Kűfa, hadrat Alî’s dwelling place. According to scholars, upon Ubeydullah’s
flight, Busr slew his two sons. Hadrat Alî sent a two thousand strong
force under Hârisa-t-abni Qudâma’s command to Yemen against Busr.
[Busr was not a Sahâbî]. Hârisa came to Yemen and stayed here as governor until
hadrat Alî’s martyrdom. He killed many people. When he went to Medîna, hadrat
Abű Hureyra, who was the Emîr there, took flight. Hârisa said, ‘I would kill
that father of cats if I found him.’ ” As is seen, hadrat Alî’s commander meant
to kill a Sahâbî loved very much and praised by the Messenger of Allah and made
fun of his nickname (father of cats), which had been given by the Messenger of
Allah. It would be extremely unfair to attempt to blemish hadrat Alî and hadrat
Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’ on account of the cruel acts perpetrated
by governors appointed by those great people and to exaggerate the events
through fabricated stories.
34-“Mu’âwiya sent circulars to all his governors, wherein he
commanded them to curse Aliyy-ul-murtadâ and his children on menbers. ’Umar bin
Abd-ul-’azîz put an end to this business of cursing. Hajer bin Adî, one of the
Sahâba, and seven companions were martyred on account of their refusing to
curse Alî,” he says, and puts
forward as documents the book Eghânî, and Nahj-ul-belâgha and Aqd-ul-Ferîd, two
commentaries written by Abulhadîd.
This is a peerless degree of shamelessness and an
unprecedented sordidness in vilification. For one thing, the books he puts
forward as documents are, as we have stated earlier in our translation from
Tuhfa, among Hurűfîs’ publications. It is written in the book Esmâ
ul-muallifîn that the
author of the book Eghânî, namely Abul-faraj Alî bin Huseyn Isfahânî, is a
holder of bid’at. This man assails the greater ones of the As-hâb-i-kirâm and
vituperates them in an insolent language in his book Muqâtil-i-âl-i-Ebî
Tâlib. We have stated in the
tenth paragraph that Ibni Abdulhadîd is an eccentric Mu’tazilî. It is seen with
regret that these slanders have infiltrated into Sunnite books as well. Hadrat
Imâm-i-Muhammad Ma’thűm-i-Fârűqî ‘qaddas-Allâhu sirreh-ul-’azîz’, a great
Sunnite scholar and at the same time one of the leaders of Awliyâ-i-kirâm,
confutes these slanders very well through documents. Translating this valuable
answer of his, we have added it to the second part of our book. Please reread
it.
To say that hadrat Mu’âwiya cursed hadrat Alî would
mean to slander hadrat Mu’âwiya. It is not permissible to censure hadrat
Mu’âwiya. Yes, a few of the Umayyad Khalîfas had certain people cursed. Yet,
Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ cannot be blamed for this only on account of his
being one of the Umayyad Khalîfas.
Hurűfîs vituperate the three Khalîfas and hadrat
Mu’âwiya and those who followed him. They say that all the As-hâb-i-kirâm
became renegades afterwards. They censure all of them. According to the Ahl
as-sunna, however, no statements except praisals can be made of the
As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’.
Hadrat Emîr (Alî) said about hadrat Mu’âwiya and his
supporters, “Our brothers do not agree with us. But they are not disbelievers
or sinners. They act on their ijtihâd.” This statement of his clears them of
disbelief and sinfulness. Cursing is not among the worships prescribed by the
Islamic religion, and cursing the worst of unbelievers is no exception. Is it
possible for any of the As-hâb-i-kirâm to have engaged his tongue with cursing
instead of praying at the end of each of the five daily prayers of namâz? Who
on earth would believe such a monstrous lie?
If it were a pious act, a worship to curse a person,
it would be one of the Islamic requirements to curse the accursed devil, Abű
Jahl, Abű Leheb and the other implacable unbelievers of Qoureish, who hurt,
tormented and molested our master the Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ and did harms and treacheries to this true
religion. When it is not a commandment to curse the enemies, could it be thawâb
to curse the friends? There is more detailed information in this respect in the
thirty-seventh chapter of the second fascicle of Endless
Bliss.
35-“Mu’âwiya had hadrat Hasan martyred by giving his wife plenty of
jewellery and cajoling her into poisoning her husband,” he says. In the tenth paragraph we touched upon the
slanders in the history book named Taberî. The grand book titled The
History of Taberî (or Tabarî)
is very valuable. It was written by a scholar of Ahl as-sunna, namely Muhammad
bin Jerîr Taberî ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’, who passed away in 310 (H.). A Hurűfî
came forward under the same name, wrote an abridged version of the book, and
titled it Târîh-i-Taberî (the History of Taberî). The existing Turkish version of the
History of Taberî is a translation of the abridged version. The original
version of the book is much larger. As we have explained in the passage we
translated from the book Tuhfa and added in the tenth paragraph,
Murawwij-uz-zahab is a history book full of slanders. Is it worthy of a Muslim
to dirty a religious book with such abhorrent and wicked lies which are quite
counter to hadrat Mu’âwiya’s ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ honour and to add the two
(abovenamed) gutter publications in the name of documentation?
An âyat-i-kerîma in Fat-h sűra purports, “Thine
As-hâb are always very compassionate with one another. They arealways very
vehement towards unbelievers.” Islam’s enemies, on the other
hand, assert that the As-hâb-i-kirâm were inimical towards one another, that
they had one another poisoned. Certainly, Muslims will (prefer to) believe Allâhu ta’âlâ. We say that the As-hâb-i-kirâm loved
one another very much. The As-hâb-i-kirâm performed ijtihâd on the question
whether retaliation was necessary against the murderers of hadrat ’Uthmân. This
was a religious matter. They disagreed in their ijtihâd. Such disagreements of
ijtihâd took place in Rasűlullah’s time as well.
In fact, their ijtihâd would sometimes disagree with that of Rasűlullah. And this disagreement would not be
considered a sin. On the contrary, it was informed that all of them would be
given thawâb (for their ijtihâd). A couple of times the âyat-i-kerîmas revealed through Wahy informed that the ijtihâd
contrary to Rasűlullah’s ijtihâd was correct.
For Islam has granted men the freedom of thought and the freedom to express
their thoughts. Islam is the source of human rights and human freedoms. The
disagreement among the As-hâb-i-kirâm was based on their ijtihâd on the
question of retaliation. Disagreement of this sort is not considered a sin,
neither by Allâhu ta’âlâ, nor by His Messenger,
nor by a person with common sense. They consider it a right conferred on
humanity. Those who disagreed with one another in their ijtihâd did not think
of fighting, nor even of offending, one another. For it was not the first time
that such disagreements took place. Disagreements had taken place several times
before. And it had not even occurred to them that they should hurt one another.
Some of their children, misunderstanding the disagreements of ijtihâd among
their fathers, had had tiffs with one another from time to time. Yet their
fathers, who could not tolerate even such petty huffs among their children, had
stopped them, each father rebuking his own child. This fact is known very well
by Shiites as well. Yet zindiqs are trying to convince other people that the
As-hâb-i-kirâm felt enmity against one another and that they perpetrated sordid
and abominable deeds. Thus, they plan, they will manage to spread the
conviction that the As-hâb-i-kirâm were thoughtless, unlearned and bad-tempered
people, which consequently will give them the chance to demolish, extirpate
Islam. For Islam consists of the total of the narrations reported by the
As-hâb-i-kirâm. Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs were conveyed to us
by the As-hâb-i-kirâm. All the teachings of Islam were derived
from Qur’ân al-kerîm, from hadîth-i-sherîfs, and from the statements and
behaviours of any one of the As-hâb-i-kirâm. The sources and the documents of
Islamic lore are the words of the As-hâb-i-kirâm. Vilification of the As-hâb-i-kirâm
would naturally lead to rejection and degradation of what they conveyed to us,
i.e. Islam. All the As-hâb-i-kirâm are higher than all the past, present and
future people in all respects, with the exception of Prophets. For recognizing
the value of Islam and being a true Muslim one has to discern this subtlety
very well. A person who knows Rasűlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ superiority, value and honour and who is able to
comprehend what it means to be the Messenger of Allah, will easily realize the
fact that these distinguished people, whom that exalted Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ alaihi wa sallam’ educated and employed
in all his services, must have occupied very high grades.
Neither hadrat Alî nor hadrat Mu’âwiya, nor any of
the Sahâbîs who were with them thought of hurting one another. Both in the
event of Camel and in the event of Siffîn, their meeting was intended to make
an agreement and to secure peace and comfort among Muslims. Members of both
sides stated their purposes as such. Books of Kelâm and history written by
Sunnite scholars are in the open. Stories fabled by Hurűfîs and books and
magazines published by upstart men of religion are of no value. A close search
into history will show that the Sahâba never killed one another. They always
felt sorrow and wept over one another’s death.
It is written in the hundred and seventieth page of
Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ: That hadrat Hasan was poisoned by his wife Ja’da is a widely
known fact. Hadrat Hasan ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ had
made a habit of entering into marriages and divorcing his wife soon after each
marriage, so much so that his father (hadrat Alî) had to warn the people in (a
speech he made in) Kűfa, saying, “Do not give your daughters to Hasan! He will
divorce them.” The answer he received from the audience was, “We shall give
them the girl he likes. Let him live with her or divorce her.” Hadrat Hasan was
extremely good looking. He resembled Rasűlullah (his
grandfather). A girl he married would fall in love with him. For some reason
whatsoever, she decided to kill him.
It is stated in the book Mir’ât-i-kâinât: Hadrat Mu’âwiya decided to see to it that hadrat Hasan should
succeed him as Khalîfa. He announced his decision to the people. Yezîd, (hadrat
Mu’âwiya’s son), was expecting to succeed his father to
caliphate. He sent some poison to hadrat Hasan’s wife Ja’da, saying, “If you
poison Hasan with this, I shall marry you and overwhelm you with jewellery and
property from head to foot.” Falling for this false promise, the woman
administered poison several times. Yet hadrat Hasan recovered each time. He
would not say anything though he knew that it was his wife who was doing this.
He separated his bed and began to take good care of his food. One night Ja’da
secretly entered his room and put diamond powder in his drinking glass. When
hadrat Hasan drank the water at night, his stomach began to break into pieces.
In his dying bed, hadrat Huseyn, (his brother), tried in vain to make him name
the person who had given him the poison. Hadrat Hasan asked, “Would you
retaliate if you knew who it was?” “Certainly,” was the brother’s answer. “I
would kill him.” Upon this, hadrat Hasan said, “The punishment he has deserved
will suffice,” without hinting in the least that it was his wife’s perfidy. He
passed away forty days later. He was buried near his mother hadrat Fâtima
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhâ’ in Bakî’ cemetery. Imputing the murder committed by
Yezîd to his father is a felony no less wicked than the murder itself. For this
slander is identical with imputing the disbelief of Nűh’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ son
Ken’ân (Canaan) to his father, the exalted Prophet.
36- He says, “Mu’âwiya, as a stage for his extremely perfidious and cruel
future aims, took into his family an extremely cruel, treacherous and murderous
villain, namely Ziyâd bin Ebîh, his father Abű Sufyân’s illegitimate child. By
appointing this villain’s son, Ubeydullah, a master of banditry, as a governor
as he himself was still alive, he intentionally, purposely prepared him for the
planning and execution of the horrendous Kerbelâ slaughter. How can these
tricks and schemes be errors of ijtihâd?” He states that he is quoting these statements from Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ.
Unfortunately, Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ contains some
disrespectful and ill-mannered criticisms and comments made about Mu’âwiya. The
insolent words quoted above could not find their way through Cevdet Paţa’s
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’ faithful pen, nor was he the kind of person to let
them foul the pages of his book. Let us see how he expresses these events in
Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ:
The people of Fâris revolted against hadrat Alî. They
refused to pay (taxes called) Ushr and Kharâdj. In the thirty-ninth year of the
Hegira, hadrat Alî appointed Ziyâd bin Ebîh, who was an official of Bayt-ul-mâl
in Basra, as governor of the provinces of
Fâris and Kermân. Abdullah bin Abbâs, who was the
Emîr of Basra, sent Ziyâd to Fâris with some forces under his command. Ziyâd
was a very clever, talented, far-sighted administrator. Owing to his skillful
management, he handled the affairs without having to use the forces under his
command. In a short time he restored peace and order in the provinces of Fâris
and Kermân. He subdued the rebels. When hadrat Alî received some complaints
about the Emîr of Basra Abdullah bin Abbâs, he asked Abdullah to send him the
book of accounts for the property of Jizya. Offended, Abdullah Ibni Abbâs wrote
him an answer saying that he ‘might as well send someone else for his service.’
He left Basra. After hadrat Alî’s martyrdom, Ziyâd would not pay homage to
Mu’âwiya. Ziyâd was an extremely intelligent and most eloquent orator. Formerly
he was a secretary to Abű Műsa-l-Esh’arî, the governor of Basra. Hadrat ’Umar, during his
caliphate, assigned him some duties. After the event of Camel, hadrat Alî
appointed him head of the finance office in Basra and then Emîr of Fâris. Being
a good administrator, he established order in the province. Seeing his
accomplishments, hadrat Mu’âwiya declared him his real brother. Hadrat Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ wrote a letter to Ziyâd, warning him as
follows: “I have appointed you governor to this province. You are the expert of
this job! Yet you cannot attain Abű Sufyân’s genealogy or inheritance only on a
word he expresses. Mu’âwiya (is a person who) will cleverly approach a person
from the opposite direction, from his back, from his right and left. Guard
yourself against him.” In the pre-Islamic period there were various types of
marriage in Arabia. Islam prohibited them. Ziyâd was born from a marriage
established according to the customs valid in those days.
In the year 45 (H.), hadrat Mu’âwiya appointed Ziyâd governor to
Basra, Khorasan and Sijistan. That year debauchery was widespread in Basra.
Ziyâd mounted the minber. He made an extremely eloquent and clear speech. He
admonished the people against sinning, debauchery and vices. He threatened them
with heavy punishments. (Whenever it was time for night prayer), he would
conduct the namâz (in jamâ’at) very slowly and reciting long sűras and then
send them to their homes late, prohibiting them to go out after that time of
night. By means of this martial law he established order in Basra, thus
consolidating hadrat Mu’âwiya’s government. He established such strict
discipline that a person who dropped something in a street would find it there
if
he came back a long time later. No one would lock his doors. He
established a ten thousand strong police organization. He established order and
security in rural areas and on highways, too. All people enjoyed safety, as it
had been in the time of hadrat ’Umar. He appointed many notables of the Sahâba,
such as Enes bin Mâlik, to
important positions. Thus he utilized them. Meanwhile, the Khârijîs, i.e.
enemies of hadrat Alî, rose in rebellion. Having no mercy on them, Ziyâd
forestalled them and had most of them killed, including their chief. Their
names were forgotten. Hadrat Mu’âwiya sent an army to Istanbul in the (hijrî)
year 49. He ordered his son Yezîd to join the army. A spoilt child brought up
in riches, Yezîd was too late. Hadrat Mu’âwiya forced Yezîd to catch up with
the moving army. Abdullah Ibni Abbâs, Abdullah Ibni ‘Umar,
Abdullah Ibni Zubeyr and Abű Ayyub al-Ansârî Khalîd were in this army. In the year 53, Ziyâd passed away in Kűfa,
when he was fifty-three years old. Upon Ziyâd’s death, his son Ubeydullah came
to Damascus. Hadrat Mu’âwiya appointed him commander of the forces of Khorasan.
Ubeydullah was twenty-five years old at that time. He went to Khorasan.
Crossing the Oxus river (Amu Darya), he made numerous conquests in Bukhâra. He
brought many booties back with him. In the year 55, he became governor of
Basra. Basra was an assembly area of Khârijîs. The new governor of Basra, Ubeydullah
bin Ziyâd, marched against them and
routed them.
When Yezîd became Khalîfa in the year 60, Ubeydullah bin Ziyâd
was governor of Basra. People of Kűfa wrote to the Khalîfa, petitioning for an
authoritative governor. So Yezîd sent Ubeydullah bin Ziyâd to Kűfa. Upon
arriving in Kufa, Ibni Ziyâd found the city in utter disorder. He called the
people to obedience. In the meantime, upon an invitation he received from the
people of Kűfa, hadrat Huseyn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ had sent his paternal
first cousin Muslim to Kűfa. Nearly thirty thousand people convened in Kűfa and
elected hadrat Huseyn Khalîfa. They crowded around Ibni Ziyâd’s house. Ibni
Ziyâd dispersed them and had their chief Muslim executed. The same day hadrat Huseyn
‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ left Mekka for Kűfa.
’Umar, who was a son of Sa’d Ibni Ebî Waqqâs, one of
the Ashara-i-mubashshara, was appointed Emîr to the city of Rey. ’Umar was
about to set out with four thousand people, when it was heard that hadrat
Huseyn was on his way to Kűfa in order to become Khalîfa. Ibni Ziyâd told ’Umar
to march against Huseyn, which ’Umar refused. Upon this Ibni Ziyâd threatened
him with
revoking the order of his governoship of Rey. ’Umar
asked for a day’s permission to consider the matter and came back with an
affirmative answer. The two parties met at Kerbelâ (or Karbala). Hadrat Huseyn
said that he was ready to “go back.” Ibni Ziyâd’s answer was that he could go
back provided he should “pay homage to Yezîd” and that “otherwise he should not
be given any water.” Hadrat Huseyn refused to pay homage. So ’Umar drove
forward his forces. In the year 61, on the tenth of Muharrem, hadrat Huseyn and
seventy other people with him attained martyrdom. Two days later, ‘Umar bin
Sa’d took the women and Zeynel’âbidîn Alî to Kűfa. Ibni Ziyâd convened the
people in the mosque. Mounting the minber, he addressed, “Gratitude and praise
be to Allah for making the right prevalent and helping the Emîr al-mu’minîn
Yezîd.” When the women and the report of hadrat Huseyn’s martyrdom arrived in
Damascus, tears filled Yezîd’s eyes. “May Allah curse Ibni Sumayya,” he said.
Ubeydullah bin Ziyâd was called ‘Ibni Sumayya’ and ‘Ibni Merjâna’, too. He
pronounced a benediction over hadrat Huseyn, and added, “I would have forgiven
Huseyn if he came to me.” He did not give any presents to Zubeyr, who had
brought him the news. “May Allah damn him. Ibni Ziyâd hasted and killed him,”
he said. Then, inviting the people brought from Kűfa to his place, he had the
following conversation with them: “Do you know why Huseyn lost his life? Huseyn
said, ‘My father Alî is better than his (Yezîd’s) father Mu’âwiya. My mother
Fâtima is better than his mother and my grandfather Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ is better than his grandfather.
Therefore, I am better than he. Caliphate belongs to me by rights.’ His father
and my father left the solution to arbitrators. Everybody knows who was
elected. Let me say this for Allah’s sake: His mother Fâtima is better than my
mother. As for his grandfather; a person who has îmân in Allah and in rising
after death will not hold anyone equal with the Messenger of Allah. However,
Huseyn said (and acted) on his knowledge of fiqh and on his ijtihâd, forgetting
about the âyat that purports, ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ is the owner of
everything. He will bestow sovereignty on anyone He chooses.’ ” People in Yezîd’s palace mourned and wept very much for hadrat
Huseyn. The property taken away from him was paid back in multiples. In fact,
hadrat Huseyn’s daughter Sukayna acknowledged, “I have not seen a person more
beneficent than Mu’âwiya’s son Yezîd.” [This fact cannot be denied even by
people without a certain Madh-hab. Yet in their quotation of this statement
they substitute
the word ‘person’ with the word ‘disbeliever’]. Yezîd
would invite hadrat Zeynel-’âbidîn to eat with him every morning and every
evening, and they would have breakfast and dinner together. As they bid
farewell to each other, he said, “May Allâhu ta’âlâ curse
Ibni Merjâna! Wallahi, if I had been in his place, I would have accepted all
your father’s wishes. It was Allah’s foreordination, after all! Write to me if
you need something. I will send it immediately whatever it is.” Yezîd died in
the year 64, when he was thirty years old. And Ibni Ziyâd was slain by the
chief of bandits Mukhtâr during the bloody combats he fought in the month of
Muharrem of the year 67. Hadrat Abdullah bin Zubeyr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’, who occupied the seat of caliphate at that time, appointed
his brother Mus’ab governor of Basra. And Mus’ab sent one of his Emîrs, one
named Muhalleb, against Mukhtâr. At the end of a bloody battle, Mukhtâr was
killed in 67.
If these writings borrowed from Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ are
read with reason, it will be seen that hadrat Huseyn’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ martyrdom was not a result of a grudge against him or his
blessed father, but it was a consequence of worldly ambitions. Whatsoever the
reason, even Yezîd would not shoulder accountability for this ignominious
savagery. He cursed Ibni Ziyâd for this abominable deed. Grave as Yezîd’s
felony is, it would be injustice equally grave to attempt to blemish his
fatheron account of this guilt. It would be like blaming Âdem ‘alaihis-salâm’
for his son Cain’s slaying his brother Abel.
To allege that hadrat Mu’âwiya’s appointing Ubeydullah Ibni Ziyâd
a governor was intended to have hadrat Huseyn martyred, would mean to gainsay
the events. As it is stated in Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ, he appointed him governor
because he had fought against disbelievers successfully and suppressed the
Khârijîs, who were hostile to hadrat Alî. Seeing that he was serving Islam, he
appointed him to Basra. Hadrat Huseyn ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ was in Medîna then. If
hadrat Mu’âwiya had had malice towards hadrat Huseyn, he would have appointed
Ibni Ziyâd governor of Hidjâz. Why do not those people who blame hadrat
Mu’âwiya for (his son) Yezîd’s guilt, put the blame for ’Umar’s martyring
hadrat Huseyn, instead of setting him free, on his father? ’Umar’s father Sa’d
Ibni Ebî Waqqâs is one of those fortunate people who were given the good news
that Allâhu ta’âlâ promised Paradise to them
(Ashara-i-mubashshara). They know that if they criticized this person their
secret plans and lies would be noticed.
Abd-ul-wahhâb-i-Sha’rânî states as follows in the
hundred and
twenty-ninth page of the abridged version of Tezkîra-i-Qurtubî:
Yezîd sent hadrat Huseyn’s
blessed head and the captives from Damascus to Medîna. Upon the order of ’Umar
bin Sa’d, the governor of Medîna, his blessed head was shrouded and buried
beside the blessed grave of hadrat Fâtima-t-uz-zehrâ in the cemetery of Bâkî’.
Fâid, the thirteenth Fâtimî (Fatimid) ruler, was brought to the throne in 549
[A.D. 1154], when he was five years old, and died in
This event also has been distorted by Hurűfîs. They
say that forty days after the martyrdom his blessed head was brought to Kerbelâ
and buried beside his body.
Mawlânâ Hâfid Hakîm Abd-ush-shekűr Ilâhî Mirzâpűrî Hanafî, a
great scholar of Pâkistan, wrote a book titled Shehâdat-i-Huseyn
(Huseyn’s Martyrdom) ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’.
This book, which was originally in the Urdu language, was translated into
Persian by Mawlawî Ghulâm Haydar Fârűqî, a student in the Madrasa-i-Islâmiyya
in Karachi. This great madrasa, which is
located at Newtown
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ and that he is of the Messenger’s
sacred blood. The people of Iraq will call him to their country, promising that
they will help him. Yet they will not help him. They will leave him alone. If
you should be victorious over him, pay him due respect. Never hurt him in
retribution for his offences towards you! Do him the same favours I have done
to him!” Muhammad Taqî Khân, a Shiite historian, passed away in 1297 [A.D.
1879]. He says in his Persion book Nasikh-ut-tawârîh, “His advice was as follows: My son, do not follow your nafs! Do
not enter the presence of Allâhu ta’âlâ with
your hands smeared with Huseyn bin Alî’s blood! Otherwise, you will suffer
eternal torment! Do not forget the hadîth-i-sherîf,
‘Allâhu ta’âlâ will not give barakat to a person who violates the
veneration due to Huseyn.’ ” It is
written in the thirty-eighth page of the same Shiite history book,
“Sympathizers of Imâm-i-Alî, that is, Shiites, would come to Damascus and speak
ill of hadrat Mu’âwiya. Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ would do nothing to
punish his censurers. Instead, he would give them plenty of gifts from the Bayt-ul-mâl.” It is stated in the three hundred and twenty-third page of the
book Jilâ-ul-uyűn, “Imâm-i-Hasan bin
Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ said: Wallahî, hadrat Mu’âwiya is better than those
people who gather around me in the name of supporters. These people claim to be
Shiites on the one hand, and await an opportunity to kill me and lay their
hands on my property on the other hand.”
As for Yezîd; he did not forget his father’s advice. So he did
not call Imâm Huseyn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ to Kűfa. He did not command to
kill him. Nor did he rejoice at his death. On the contrary, he wept when he
heard about the sad news, and commanded mourning. He respected the Ahl-i-Bayt.
It is stated in the three hundred and twenty-second page of the Shiite book Jilâ-ul-uyűn,
“Yezîd appointed Walîd
bin Aqaba, who was well-known for
his love for the Ahl-i-Bayt, governor of Medîna. He dismissed Merwan, an enemy
of the Ahl-i-Bayt, from governorship. One night Walîd sent for Imâm-i-Huseyn
and said that Mu’âwiya had died and that Yezîd was to be obeyed. Imâm-i-Huseyn
said: You would not be contented with my paying homage to him secretly. You
would like me to pay homage in public.” This writing from the Shiite book shows
that Imâm-i-Huseyn did not call Yezîd a sinner, a debaucher or a disbeliever.
If he had considered him as such, he would not have accepted to pay homage to
him secretly. His avoiding homage in public was
because he did not want to incur Shiites’ animus. As a matter of
fact, they had deserted his father and become Khârijîs on account of his making
peace with Mu’âwiya. They had fought against his father. And they had become
hostile to his (elder) brother hadrat Hasan because he had relinquished
caliphate to Mu’âwiya.
It is stated in the same Persian book of history: “When Zejr bin
Qays brought the news of hadrat Huseyn’s death to Yezîd, he bowed his dead and
remained so for a while. Then he said, ‘Your having paid homage to him would be
better news for me than your having killed him. If I had been there I would
have forgiven him. When Mahdar bin Sa’laba began to censure Imâm-i-Huseyn,
Yezîd frowned and said, ‘I wish Mahdar’s mother had not delivered a child so
cruel and so mean. May Allah destroy Merjâna’s son [Ibni Ziyâd]!’ Shemmer
brought hadrat Huseyn’s blessed head to Yezîd and said, ‘I have killed the son
of the best of mankind. Therefore you must fill the saddle-bags of my horse
with gold and silver.’ Exasperated, Yezîd exclaimed, ‘May Allah fill your
saddle-bags with fire! For what reason have you killed the best of mankind? Get
out of here! Clear out! You won’t be given anything.’ ” It is written as
follows in the three hundred and ninety-third page of Hulâsat-ul-mesâib,
a Shiite book: “Yezîd wept bitterly, not
only in the presence of other people, but also when he was alone. His daughters
and sisters also wept with him. Putting Imâm-i Huseyn’s blessed head in a gold
bowl, he said, ‘O Huseyn’ May Allah have mercy on you! How sweet is your
smile!’ ” As it is seen clearly from this acknowledgement in the Shiite book,
some people’s allegation that “Yezîd hit Imâm-i Huseyn’s blessed teeth with a
stick,” is a whopping lie. It is stated in Jilâ-ul-uyűn, “Yezîd accomodated Imâm-i Huseyn’s household in his palace. He
showed them very kind hospitality. He would have his breakfast and dinner with
Imâm-i-Zeynel’âbidîn.” It is stated in Hulâsat-ul-mesâib, “Yezîd asked Imâm-i-Huseyn’s household, ‘Would you like to be my
guests and stay here in Damascus or go back to Medîna?’ Umm-i-Ghulthum said
that they wanted to mourn in seclusion. Yezîd gave them a large room in his
palace. They mourned one week in this room. The eighth day Yezîd sent for the
Ahl-i-Bayt and asked them what they wished. They said they wanted to go to
Medîna. He gave them much property, decked animals, and two hundred golds. He
said, ‘Let me know whatever you need. I will send them immediately.’ Giving
Nu’mân bin Beshîr and five hundred horsemen under their command he saw them off
in the direction of Medîna after a
respectful and grand farewell ceremony due to their honour.”
As is shown in the writings above, and many other
books written by reasonable and unbiassed Shiite scholars, hadrat Mu’âwiya was
never inimical towards Imâm-i-Huseyn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’.
Yezîd did not command that Imâm-i-Huseyn should be killed, nor did he wish such
a thing. Enemies of the Ahl-i-Bayt and people who martyred Imâm-i-Huseyn
slandered these two Khalîfas, thus to cover their own animosity.
Abd-ur-rahmân Ibni Muljem was a Shiite formerly.
Later he joined Khârijîs, and martyred Imâm-i-Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’.
There were no soldiers from Damascus among those
people who martyred Imâm-i-Huseyn in Kerbelâ. These people were from Kűfa. Qâdî
Nűrullah Shushterî, a Shiite scholar, writes this fact plainly. It is written
in Jilâ-ul-uyűn as well
that when Imâm-i-Zeynel’âbidîn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ was
brought to the city of Kűfa, he said that the murderers were Shiites.
In order to demolish Islam from the inside, enemies of Islam
drifted the Ahl-i-Bayt-i-nabawî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’ into
disasters and calamities. Imputing these murders of theirs to the Ahl as-sunna,
they assailed the As-hâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhum ajma’în’, the
strongholds of Islam, and via them their followers, i.e. scholars of Ahl
as-sunna. Muslims have to be extra careful lest they should fall victims to
their traps.
37-“Mu’âwiyâ’s governor to Egypt, Amr bin Âs, during his stay in
office, which lasted four years plus four months, embezzled three hundred and
fifteen thousand golds and appropriated the territory called Reht,” he asserts, adding that he has acquired this
information from the Shiite books titled Murawwij-uz-zahab and Al-îjâz.
The lines quoted above are naked examples of how
these people without a certain Madh-hab insert their lies into books in the
name of religious information like amusing a child. He triesto blemish hadrat
Amr Ibni Âs by saying that he was a governor of hadrat Mu’âwiya. The fact, on
the other hand, is that he served as governor of Egypt for four years in the
time of hadrat ’Umar and for four more years during the caliphate of hadrat
’Uthmân. Hadrat Mu’âwiya appointed Ziyâd, who had been one of hadrat Alî’s
governors, as a governor again. Likewise, he appointed hadrat Amr, chosen as a
governor of Egypt by these great people, as a governor again. Besides, Amr Ibni
Âs had been one of his
military colleagues in the Holy Wars he had made in
Syria. Unable to find a tangible fault or shortcoming to impute to hadrat
Mu’âwiya, they are trying to distort his entirely right deeds and
accomplishments into faults. Rasűlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ and his Khalîfas’
employing hadrat Mu’âwiya and hadrat Amr in choicest duties would suffice as an
indication for their high value. Imâm-i-Rabbânî ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’ states in
the hundred and twentieth letter of the first volume of his Mektűbât,
“Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s mistakes,
owing to the barakat of the sohba he had had with the Messenger of Allah, were
more useful than the right deeds accomplished by Weys al-Qarânî and ‘Umar bin
Abd-ul-’azîz, (who had not had the fortunate honour of seeing the Messenger of
Allah duringhis lifetime). By the same token, a mistake made by Amr Ibni Âs was
more virtuous than a discreet act managed by these two people.” The Turkish
version of the hundred and twentieth letter exists in the (Turkish) book Müjdeci
Mektűblar Tercemesi. The only
reason for such heavy criticisms levelled at these two Sahâbîs is their having
disagreed with hadrat Alî in their ijtihâd. So these people represent all their
deeds, and even their worships, as vices.
Hadrat Amr Ibni Âs ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ never
appropriated the people’s rights in Eypt. He left masterpieces for the Islamic
history in Egypt. Let us give an example of these services, each of which would
be a surprise for friends and slanderers alike. This great service is his
opening the Emîr ul-mu’minîn Canal, connecting the Nile and the Red Sea. In the
eighteenth year of the Hegira Arabia was stricken by a widespread famine. The
Khalîfa, ’Umar ul-Fârűq ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, sent orders to provinces, demanding
food provisions from them. Aid from Egypt and Damascus was considerably late
because these two provinces were rather distant. The Khalîfa summoned the
governor of Egypt, hadrat Amr Ibni Âs, and his assistants to Egypt. “If a canal
is opened between the Nile and the Red Sea, this will put an end to the dearth
in Arabia,” he said. Hadrat Amr Ibni Âs returned to Egypt. He began to have a
canal opened from the city of Fustat, twenty-four kilometres from Cairo, in the direction
of the Red Sea. The hundred-and-thirty-eight kilometres long canal was
completed in six months’ time. Ships sailing through this Emîr
ul-mu’minîn Canal arrived in
the Red Sea from the Nile, and docked alongside of the wharf named Jâr in Medîna. The first cargo they brought from Egypt to
Medîna was twenty big shiploads of cereals, which amounted to sixty
thousand Irdebs. One irdeb is equal to twenty-four Sâ's 
And sâ’
is a unit of volume equal to
It should not be presumed that these zindiqs’ incessant endeavours
to vilify hadrat Mu’âwiya and the Sahâbîs with him originate from their love
for the Ahl-i-Bayt! They say so; yet their purpose is to use this lie as a
means for reviling thousands of Sahâbîs whose ijtihâd did not agree with hadrat
Alî’s ijtihâd, to disgrace those superior religious leaders, and thus to shock
the trust in Islam’s foundations and essential sources and destroy them
piecemeal. At one time Jews demolished hadrat Îsâ’s religion with the same
insidious methods. They annihilated the Injîl (original form of the Bible).
They forged false Gospels. They turned the Isâwî religion, which had been sent by Allâhu
ta’âlâ, into today’s wrong, ridiculous Christianity. The genuine form of Injîl, called (the Gospel of) Barnabas,
which re-apperaed in 1393 [A.D. 1973],
divulges the fact that Christianity is a human fabrication. The (Turkish) book Herkese
Lâzým Olan Îmân, which was printed in
Istanbul and translated into English, French and German, contains detailed
information about Christianity. Their aim was to change Islam into a similar
system of absurdities by using the same methods. Fortunately, Muslims of the
right way were wise to these base Jewish plans. Writing hundreds of thousands
of books for fourteen centuries, they promulgated Rasűlullah’s
religion all over the world. They announced the Jewish turpitudes and lies, and
refuted them with documentary evidences. These enemies of Islam may call
themselves Alevî’s (or Shiites).
Our benevolent Alevî (or Shiite) brothers should be extra careful not to fall
into the traps of these enemies who may be using this sacred appellation as a
cloak for themselves.
Alevî (Alawî) means a true Muslim who loves hadrat Alî.
Hadrat
Alî is a foundation pillar of Islam. He is the leader
of those fighters and heroes who spread Islam. During the most difficult, the
most horrendous, the darkest moments of Rasűlullah’s Holy
Wars, he rushed forward like a lion, thus pleasing the Prophet of
Allah and rescuing Islam and Muslims from dangerous situations. Islam’s enemies
do not like hadrat Alî, who was a lion of Allah. True Muslims, who are called Ahl
as-sunna, love him. Every Sunnite
Muslim’s heart is full with love of hadrat Alî. Scholars of Ahl as-sunna inform
unanimously that love of Ahl-i-Bayt is a sign that one will die as a Believer.
Then, the appellation Alevî would befit the Ahl as-sunna. This blessed name belongs to the Ahl
as-sunna. It is property of Ahl as-sunna. Zindiqs, who are enemies of Islam,
are stealing this sacred name Alevî from the Ahl as-sunna. They are trying to
hide themselves under this valuable name.
O our brothers who are called Alevî! Be conscious of the value of
your name. A person who loves this name sincerely, who knows what this name
means, and who realizes the high honor contained in this name, will also love
the Ahl as-sunna, who are the real and true owners of this name! The only true
and sincere lovers of hadrat Alî and the truthful followers of that exalted
imâm are scholars of Ahl as-sunna. Then, a person who wishes to be Alevî has to
learn hadrat Alî’s way by reading books written by scholars of Ahl as-sunna. A
Muslim who learns hadrat Alî’s way well, will see easily that some books and
magazines being written under the designation Alevî are wrong and heretical.
38-“The fitna and mischief caused by Mu’âwiya himself, by his
children and grandchildren, by his kith and kin, by his officials and
supporters, had their evil effects not only in their time but throughout centuries.
Mu’âwiya, especially, appointed his son (Yezîd), who was an alcoholic, a
dissolute idiot, a next heir to the office of caliphate, (although he was aware
of his bad habits), thus causing a nuisance to Muslims,” he says.
Cevdet Paţa also is influenced by these statements
and says, “This was one of the greatest mistakes Mu’âwiya made.” On the other
hand, in Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ, he treats the matter quite impartially, as follows:
“Hadrat Mu’âwiya was considering to dismiss Mughîra from
governorship of Kűfa. Upon hearing about this, Mughîra went to Damascus, saw
Yezîd, and said to him, ‘The greater ones of the As-hâb and the Qoureish are
dead now. Their sons are alive. You are the most superior of them and you know
the Sunna and
politics best. Wouldn’t your father like you to become the
Emîr-ul-mu’minîn?’ Yezîd told his father about this. Hadrat Mu’âwiya sent for
Mughîra and asked him. Mughîra was one of the greatest of the Sahâba and one of
those who promised homage (to the Prophet) under
the tree. Mughîra said, ‘O Emîr al-mu’minîn! You have seen all the so many
tumults that have broken out and so much blood that has been shed after hadrat
’Uthmân. Make Yezîd Khalîfa! He will be an asylum for people. It will be an
auspicious deed. You will have prevented fitna.’ Mughîra chose ten people from Kűfa and sent them to
Damascus with his son. They persuaded the Khalîfa. When Ziyâd heard about this,
he gave advice to Yezîd. Yezîd corrected his manners, habits and attitudes.
Hadrat Mu’âwiya convened many of his governors in Damascus and consulted with
them. One of them, Dahhâk by name, asked for permission and said, ‘O Emîr
al-mu’minîn! After you, a person will be needed for the protection of Muslims.
Thus Muslims’ blood will not be shed. They will live in peace and comfort.
Yezîd is very clever. In knowledge and mildness he is superior to us all. Make
him Khalîfa!’ A few other outstanding Damascenes made similar talks. Damascenes
and Iraqis agreed in Yezîd’s caliphate. Upon hearing these statements, hadrat
Mu’âwiya thought it would be auspicious to do so. He came to Mekka, where he
had sweet conversations with hadrat Huseyn, Abdullah bin Zubeyr and Abdullah
bin ’Umar. After making hajj, he called them again and said to them, ‘You see
how much I love you. Yezîd is your brother. He is your paternal cousin. I want
you to accept his caliphate for the salvation of Muslims. Yet I shall put the
following stipulations: Appointment and dismissal of governors, collecting
zakât, ushr and other taxes, and delivering the arriving property to the right
places shall be under your control. Yezîd shall not interfere with any of these
procedures.’ [This meant to say that he was going to make a constitution]. They
were quiet. He asked them once more to answer him. They would not answer this
time, either. Then the Khalîfa mounted the menber and made a speech: ‘Eminent
ones of this Ummat have accepted Yezîd as Khalîfa. (I offer you to) accept him,
too.’ So they accepted him. Then hadrat Mu’âwiya came to Medîna and made the
same proposition to its people. They, too, agreed. Then he went back to
Damascus.”
As it is seen, hadrat Mu’âwiya did not think of
making Yezîd Khalîfa. It was first suggested to him by people he trusted, then
advised by the eminent ones, and eventually approved by the
people. Only after these stages did he make his final
decision. For he had experienced the tumults that had happened after hadrat
’Uthmân and seen the Muslim blood shed. And now the number of those who
supported the Jewish plans had increased, Khârij’îs, who were the enemies of
Ahl as-sunna, had gained strength and become a grave nuisance to Muslims. He
thought this out and obtained the people’s approval. If the constitution he
conceived had been supported, a perfect Islamic democracy would have arisen.
And consequently all Muslims would pronounce benedictions over him till the end
of the world on account of this service.
To assert that “The fitna and mischief caused by hadrat
Mu’âwiya’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ children and grandchildren lasted for
centuries,” would mean to deny history. For his grandson Mu’âwiya II was
renowned for his wisdom, piety, attachment to Islam, and justice.
Unfortunately, he passed away after only two months’ service in the office of
caliphate. Because he had no children left alive, he was succeeded by Merwân
bin Hakem, again by military force. Merwân was hadrat Mu’âwiya’s paternal
cousin, yet they were not close to each other. No other attitude could be so
senseless as blaming hadrat Mu’âwiya for the blunders committed by this person
or by some Umayyad rulers succeeding him. The oppressions and cruelties
inflicted on the Ahl-i-Bayt by the Abbasids were much heavier than those
perpetrated by the Umayyads. Readers of history are well aware of this fact. As
it would be a very base slander to blame and curse the Abbasids’ great
grandfather hadrat Abdullah and his father hadrat Abbâs on account of the
barbarous fellonies which Abbasids perpetrated against the Ahl-i-Bayt, so it
would obviously be an even more stupid and baser vilification to blame hadrat
Mu’âwiya for the less significant mismanagements executed by those Khalîfas who
were Merwân’s descendants. Another fact we would like to impart to those who
allege that hadrat Mu’âwiya’s sons and grandsons carried on their atrocities
for centuries, is that none of that great Sahâbî’s relatives occupied a
commanding position after his celebrated grandson, (Mu’âwiya II), who made a
fame for his justice and fear of Allah. Hadrat Mu’âwiya had another son, who
was named Khâlid. This person was not fond of sovereignty. He had been raised
as a scientist by his father. Jâbir, the celebrated chemist, was a disciple of
this Khâlid’s. He learned chemistry from his master Khâlid. Then these wicked
calumniators, thinking that there was no one to stop
them, insolently assailed this innonect Khalîfa and cast
aspersions incompatible with mind and knowledge on him.
Allâhu ta’âlâ created thousands of Sunnite scholars ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
alaihim ajma’în’ to defend that innocent Khalîfa and to disgrace his foes.
These great scholars wrote numerous books defending hadrat Mu’âwiya’s right and
announcing throughout the world the virtues and values possessed by this great
Sahâbî.
39-“It is not
something believable that Mu’âwiya did not plan or know or estimate or at least
imagine when he was alive the inconceivably horrendous and hideous turpitude
that would later be inflicted on hadrat Huseyn,” he
alleges.
It is impossible to imagine a Muslim not deeply grieved over the
disaster of Kerbelâ caused by Ziyâd’s son Ubeydullah. Each and every individual
Sunnite Muslim sheds bitter tears whenever he recollects those gloomy days.
(Some people) mourn over the catastrophe of Kerbelâ on the tenth of (the month
of) Muharram. So, while these people mourn only for one day in a whole year, we
mourn all the year round. While these people mourn for hadrat Huseyn only
because he is hadrat Alî’s son, we mourn because he is a grandson of Muhammad’s
‘alaihis-salâm’, the Messenger of Allah. We Sunnîs love hadrat Alî because he
was Rasűlullah’s son-in-law and because at the
Messenger’s command he fought disbelievers like an angry lion. And we love
hadrat Mu’âwiya because he was Rasűlullah’s
brother-in-law and because he made Jihâd against disbelievers for the sake of
Allah. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’
stated, “Love my As-hâb! He who loves them does so because he loves
me. Do not be hostile towards my As-hâb! He who is hostile towards them is
hostile towards me.” We love hadrat Alî and
hadrat Mu’âwiya very much because they are Sahâbîs. We have explained in the
previous matter that it would be a very loathsome calumniation to impute the
calamities that happened in the time of Yezîd to hadrat Mu’âwiya. It would be a
more loathsome and baser vilification to assert that hadrat Mu’âwiya arranged
these calamities before his death.
Mu’âwiya’s attitudes indicating his love and respect for hadrat Hasan
and hadrat Huseyn and his generous kindnesses towards them are recorded in books.
Those who have the habit of reading should know these facts well. If hadrat
Mu’âwiya had considered to hurt Rasűlullah’s
beloved sons, who had been blessed with the glad tidings of Paradise by their
hallowed grandfather, he could have done so quite easily during his caliphate,
when everything was
under his command. Or, at least, he would have said so. On the
contrary, he always did them good. He always respected them. He always praised
them for their value and honour whereever he was. For asserting that the bloody
events that occurred after hadrat Mu’âwiya’s passing away were the consequences
of hadrat Mu’âwiya’s clandestine prearrangements, one has to be either
hard-hearted or mortally inimical or stark raving mad. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu
anh’ appointed Qays bin Sa’d governor of Egypt and told him to fight those who
would not accept him (hadrat Alî) as Khalîfa. Among those Egyptians who were
opposed to hadrat Alî’s caliphate were Sahâbîs such as Yezîd bin Hâris and
Maslama, – the latter had joined the
Holy War of Bedr –, who were outstanding members of the tribe of Hazraj. Qays
wrote an answer to hadrat Alî, saying, “You order me to fight people who are
not harmful to you. It would be more appropriate not to annoy those who sit
silently.” The Khalîfa dismissed Qays from governorship of Egypt and appointed
Muhammad bin Ebî Bekr for his place. Muhammad told those who were impartial to
“Either obey or leave the country!” They said, “Do not disturb us! Let us wait
till the end.” When Muhammad refused their excuse, they took up arms, thus dragging
the country into a catastrophic nuisance, which ended in Muhammad’s being
killed and burned. At one time, this Muhammad had cooperated with Ibni Saba’s
men, revolted against the Khalîfa hadrat ’Uthmân, entered his house through a
window by climbing over the wall of the house next door, attacked the Khalîfa
with his sword drawn, and left, leaving the business of martyring the Khalîfa
to his friends, as we have related in the thirty-second paragraph. After
writing about hadrat Alî’s appointing this Muhammad as governor of Egypt for
Qays’ place, the book Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ adds, “Hadrat Alî was cajoled into making
this mistake by his brother Ja’fer’s son.” Now, let us be reasonable. Could
hadrat Alî, the exalted Imâm loved very much by the Messenger of Allah, be
censured for appointing as governor of Egypt a person who had had an abhorrent
role in the martyrdom of hadrat ’Uthmân? It could not devolve on us, who are
very much inferior to those exalted Sahâbîs in religious lore and by far the
more sinful, to call hadrat Alî to account by imitating those who attempt to
hold hadrat Mu’âwiya responsible for the unsightly events that took place after
his death. Our duty is not to judge those great people, but to love and respect
them. This is what becomes a Muslim. It is natural, however, that people who
have fallen into the snares set
by Islam’s enemies and become Islam’s enemies themselves, cannot
think as we do. They have taken the way of demolishing Islam by reviling the
As-hâb-i-kirâm.
40-“His governing
and enlarging the country successfully and establishing peace and order would
not alleviate or make excusable his innumerable murders. The atrocious, cruel
and base treatment which the Ahl-i-bayt-i-Nabawî and Muslims supporting them
were subjected to by Mu’âwiya’s officials, relatives and supporters continued
for centuries. These fitnas, mischiefs, treacheries, murders and turpitudes
went on in a deplorable, blood-curdling manner,”
he says.
As we have stated earlier, zindiqs stigmatize all the
deeds of hadrat Mu’âwiya as cruel and murderous. They do not feel shame to
impute even those incessant murders committed in the time of Abbasids to that
blessed person. It is clear that those who invent the writings quoted above are
sources of depravity who form suds like dry wine and who dirty whatever they
come into contact with. Books written by Islamic scholars give long and
detailed accounts of the events which testify to the fact that that exalted
Sahâbî, whom they stigmatize as a source of fitna, mischief, treason, murder
and perfidy, is as untainted as pure water. The following citation from the
book Mir’ât-i-kâinât is a good example:
Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ is a son of Abű
Sufyân, who is a son of Harb, who is a son of Umayya, who is a son of Abd-u-Shems,
who is a son of Abd-u-menâf. Abd-u-menâf is Rasűlullah’s fourth
grandfather. Hadrat Mu’âwiya was born when Rasűlullah was
thirty-four years old. He was nineteen years old when he and his father Abű
Sufyân became Believers on the day when Mekka was conquered. The belief they
had was firm. He was tall, white, good-looking, and majestic. He was Rasűlullah’s brother-in-law and one of the secretaries employed in the job
of writing copies of Qur’ân
al-kerîm. Several times he attained the
fortune of being blessed with Rasűlullah’s benedictions. Examples of these benedictions are, “Yâ
Rabbî (O my Allah)! Keep
him in the right way and make him a guide leading others to the right way!” and “Yâ Rabbî! Teach Mu’âwiya how
to write and calculate well! Protecthim from Thine torment! Yâ Rabbî! Make him
dominant over countries!” Furthermore,
by giving him the advice, “O Mu’âwiya! Do good to all people when
you become a ruler!” the
Messenger hinted the good news that he was going to be a ruler. The following
statement is his own observation: “After hearing this good news from he
Messenger of Allah, I was hoping
to become Khalîfa.” One day Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ was riding an animal with hadrat Mu’âwiya
sitting behind him, when the Messenger asked, “O Mu’âwiya! Which of
your limbs is closest to me.” When the latter answered that it was his stomach, the Prophet asked
a blessing on him, saying, “Yâ Rabbî! Fill this with knowledge and
make him a mild person!” Hadrat
Alî said about hadrat Mu’âwiya, “Do not criticize Mu’âwiya’s administration!
When he is gone, you will see that heads are gone.” Hadrat Mu’âwiya was a
person of wisdom, intelligence, forgiveness, kindness and circumspection. He
had the prowess and excellence of tackling matters of great importance and
difficulty. His mildness and patience made an epigramatic fame. His forgiveness
and kindness constituted episodes, so much so that two books were written about
these episodes. Four geniuses made fame in Arabia. They are hadrat Mu’âwiya,
Amr Ibni Âs, Mughîra-t-ebnî Shu’ba and Ziyâd bin Ebîh. Our superiors state that
Mu’âwiya was majestic, brave, skillful in managing, studious, generous, zealous
and persevering. It was as if he had been created for presidency. In fact,
whenever hadrat ’Umar looked at hadrat Mu’âwiya he would say, “What a beautiful
Arab Sultan this man is.” He was so generous that one day, when hadrat Hasan
said that he was badly in debt, he presented him eighty thousandgolds. He rewarded
Amr Ibni Âs with governorship of Egypt and six years’ revenue of Egypt for
having won the battle of Siffîn. He would ride pulchritudinous horses, wear
valuable garments, and enjoy sovereignty. Yet, owing to the barakat of having
attained the sohbat of the Messenger of Allah, he would never deviate from the
way prescribed by the Sharî’at. One day the Messenger of Allah sent for
Mu’âwiya. They said he was eating. So the Messenger waited for some time and
sent for him again. “He is eating,” was what he heard again. Upon this the Prophet said, “May Allâhu
ta’âlâ never make him full (with eating)!” And hadrat Mu’âwiya always ate enormously ever since. He served as
governor of Damascus for four years in the time of hadrat ’Umar, for twelve
years in the time of hadrat ’Uthmân, five years in the time of hadrat Alî, and
six months in the time of hadrat Hasan ‘radiy-Allâhu anhum ajma’în’ and, after
hadrat Hasan abdicated caliphate, he became the lawful Khalîfa of all Muslim
countries, occupying the caliphate and reigning for nineteen and a half years.
It is written as follows in Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ: After making the
(speech called) khutba in the sixtieth year of the Hegira, hadrat
Mu’âwiya terminated his speech as follows: “O men! I have
governed you long enough. I have made you tired of me. And I am tired of you,
too. I want to leave. And you want me to leave, too. Yet no one better than me
will come after me. As a matter of fact, those people who were prior to me were
better than me. If any person wishes to be with Allâhu
ta’âlâ, Allâhu ta’âlâ, too, will wish to be with him! Yâ Rabbî! I wish
to be with Thee. Bless me with the fortune of being with Thee! Make me blessed
and happy!” A few days later he became ill. He sent for his son Yezîd and said
to him, “My son! I did not tire you in wars or on roads. I softened the
enemies. I subdued the Arabs to obey you. I collected the amount of property
which very few people have managed to collect. Protect the people of Hidjâz
well! They are your origin. They are the most valuable of those who will come
to you. Take care of the people of Iraq, too! If they ask you to dismiss your
officials, do as they wish! Take care of the people of Damascus, too, for they
are your helpers. I do not fear anyone for you. Yet Huseyn bin Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ is an airy person. The people of Kűfa may provoke him
against you. When you beat him, forgive him. Treat him well! For he is close to
us, he has rights over us, and he is Rasűlullah’s
grandson.” As his illness became worse, he said, “Hadrat Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ made me wear
a shirt. I have preserved this shirt till today. One day I put the pieces of
finger nails he had cut into a bottle. I have kept the bottle ever since. When
I die, put the shirt on me. And put the nails on my eyes and in my mouth.
Perhaps Allâhu ta’âlâ will forgive me for the
sake of these valuable articles.” Then he added, “After my death there will not
be any generosity or kindness left. Incomes of many people will be cut off.
People in need will go back empty-handed.” His final statement was the
following, which expresses his regrets: “I wish I had been a Qoureishi living
in the village named Zî-tuwâ, rather than having busied myself with such things
as commandership or governorship.” He passed away in the month of Rajab. His
blessed grave is in Damascus ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’.
As is seen, hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’ was a blessed Sahâbî.
41-“It is the
safest and the firmest way for every Muslim to know these facts exactly as they
are, to take lessons, and to act upon the hadîth-i-sherîf,
‘Do not criticise my As-hâb’. It is obvious that the treacherous and murderous
events, the sources of which have been shown above, could not be interpreted in
terms
of genuine ijtihâd. There is no doubt as to the fact
that acts and behaviours of this sort would incur vehement divine retribution.
It cannot be thought that having attained the Prophet’s
sohbat would protect one from the divine reproach,” he says.
See how he babbles nonsense! On the one hand, he quotes the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Do not swear at my
As-hâb!” And on the other hand he imputes
inconceivably base motives to the greater ones of the As-hâb-i-kirâm and casts
aspersions which others would feel shame to express. Strict dieting on the one
hand, and pickled cabbage on the other! He knows that he could hardly blemish
an Islamic hero such as hadrat Mu’âwiya, who was one of those people closest
and most beloved to the Messenger of Allah and whose goodnesses and virtues, as
we have cited above, are undeniably well-known. He therefore attempts to impute
the son’s atrocities and murders to the father, i.e. to that exalted Sahâbî,
disignoring the hadîth-i-sherîf he himself
quotes. During the war of Siffîn hadrat Alî said, “Our brothers have revolted
against us.” It is written in Qisâs-i-Enbiyâ that during the hottest phase of
the combat hadrat Alî, with his sword in his hand, broke through the forces of
the other side like a lion, entered hadrat Mu’âwiya’s tent, and talked with
him. It is not something a Muslim would do to attack that noble Sahâbî by
putting forward the disagreement between his ijtihâd and that of hadrat Alî.
Some other malicious intentions must be underlying this attitude. To stir up
the feelings by relating in a sad language the murders committed by Yezîd, by
Ibni Ziyâd, and by Sa’d Ibni Ebî Waqqâs’ son ’Umar, and then to attack and
blemish that virtuous and innocent Sahâbî, who has nothing to do with those
unfortunate events and yet who is defenceless because he is dead; what could
all this be if it were not the executional step of a clandestine plan? And it
is such a plan as to blur a person’s mind and make him so blind that he fails
to follow Rasűlullah’s hadîth-i-sherîf.
We would like to stress one point lest we should be misunderstood: We do not
mean that hadrat Mu’âwiya is a faultless person as innocent as Prophets. On the
contrary, as every Sahâbî, including hadrat Alî, may have made mistakes, so
hadrat Mu’âwiya cannot be said to have had no mistakes. Yet Allâhu ta’âlâ purports that “Those
Sahâbîs who performed pious deeds and made Jihâd against disbelievers for the
sake of Allah have beenforgiven their past and future sins. Those selected and
loved people will not become disbelievers; they shall enter Paradise.” These demented people contradict âyat-i-kerîmas.
They say that the Prophet’s sohbat will
not save him. Some âyat-i-kerîmas
revealed by Allâhu ta’âlâ about people who have
attained the Prophet’s sohbat purport:
“Allâhu
ta’âlâ is pleased with them. And they are pleased with Allâhu
ta’âlâ, too.”
“I
have prepared Paradise for them. They shall stay inParadise eternally.”
“Those
who suffer troubles and who die or get killed intheir Jihâd against
disbelievers for My sake, shall be forgiven their sins.” The hadîth-i-sherîf quoted at the end of the sixteenth paragraph gives
the good news that the Prophet’s sohbat will save hadrat Mu’âwiya from the divine
reproach.
Because they cannot directly contradict these âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs, they assert that the good news purported in them
does not include hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anh’. They
say that he became a disbeliever because he tormented hadrat Alî. As a proof
for their allegation, they put forward the hadîth-i-sherîfs, “He
who torments Alî will have tormented me.” and “He who annoys you will have annoyed me.” The book Tuhfa confutes their thesis as follows:
The events termed Camel and Siffîn were never results of
animosity against hadrat Alî. They never considered to hurt him. The real causes
of these wars are written correctly in books of Kelâm and Islamic histories.
[We have explained them in a brief and concise manner in the sixteenth
paragraph]. Nasîr-ad-dîn Tűsî, a Shiite scholar, states in his book Tejrîd that
“It is sinful to disobey Alî. It is disbelief to fight him,” and adds that “A
person who denies his imâmat (religious leadership) will not become a
disbeliever.” For hadrat Alî’s grandsons also denied one another. One of his
sons, namely Muhammad bin Hanafîyya, denied the imâmat of Zeynal’âbidîn, hadrat
Huseyn’s son. He did not give him any of the booties sent by Mukhtâr.
Zeyd-i-shehîd, who declared himself as the Imâm, rejected the imâmat of hadrat
Muhammad Bâqir. After his martyrdom, his sons Yahyâ and Mutawakkil did not get on
well with Imâm-i-Ja’fer Sâdiq’s children. This Yahyâ, who was hadrat
Sayyed-at-Nefîsa’s paternal uncle, was martyred in the battle he fought against
Walîd’s forces in 125 (H.). Also, hadrat Imâm-i-Ja’fer’s children struggled
with one another over imâmat. Deplorable events took place between Abdullah
Eftâh and Is-haq bin Ja’fer. If we were to write about the struggles for imâmat
among hadrat Hasan’s sons, a separate book would come into being. Muhammad
Mehdî bin Abdullah bin Hasan Musennâ, better known by his nickname Nafs-i-
Zekiyya,
declared his imâmat in Medîna in 145,
denying other imâms. He was martyred as he was fighting Mensűr’s forces. If it
were disbelief to deny imâmat like denying prophethood, all these imâms would
necessarily be called disbelievers. They (the slanderers mentioned above) could
not say that “Hadrat Alî’s grandsons do not become disbelievers when they deny
one another’s imâmat. Yet others will become disbelievers if they deny these
people’s imâmat.” However, denial will cause fighting. In other words, (these)
wars are the results of (the) denials. For, when the lawful Imâm uses his
authority, the other party will not like this. Thus fighting will follow.
Unable to answer this, they had to say, “It is not disbelief to fight a person
who is denied (as the Imâm), either. Yet the case is not so with those who
fought hadrat Alî.” They put forward the hadîth-i-sherîf,
“To fight you is to fight me.” However,
this hadîth-i-sherîf means, “To
fight you is like fighting me.” Obviously,
fighting hadrat Emîr could not be fighting the Messenger of Allah. This hadîth-i-sherîf signifies that fighting hadrat Alî
‘kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’ is an offensive and wicked deed. Yet it does not mean
that it is disbelief. Two things compared to each other are not necessarily
identical in all respects. As a matter of fact, Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ said this hadîth-i-sherîf
about other Sahâbîs as well, and even about the tribes named Eslem (or Aslam)
and Ghifâr, too. And yet, according to a unanimous report, it is not disbelief
to fight them.
Accordingly, this hadîth-i-sherîf
means, “To fight you out of animosity without any good reason to do so, means
to fight me.” Fighting the murderers of hadrat ’Uthmân Alî would not mean to
fight the Messenger of Allah (only) because hadrat Alî also was involved in the
fight. Supposing a person said to another person, “Whoever is your enemy, is my
enemy.” A third person who had a row with a group over something in which the
second person also were involved, would not necessarily be an enemy of the
first person. None of the Sahâbîs who were against hadrat Alî in the events of
Camel and Siffîn had an intention of fighting hadrat Alî. They demanded
retaliation against the murderers of hadrat ’Uthmân. The war was made because
the murderers had gathered around hadrat Alî.
The hadîth-i-sherîf, “To fight you is to fight me,” means, “Animosity towards you is animosity towards
me.” It is quite evident that people who partook in the events of Camel and
Siffîn were not hostile towards hadrat Alî. They did not fight out of
animosity. All they wanted was to eliminate the
faction that had been aroused among Muslims and to enforce the duty of talion.
It ended in war. Voluntary actions are done of one’s intention and free will.
An action’s being good or bad depends on the intention’s being good or bad. For
instance, if a person said, “I shall beat anyone who breaks this container,”
and if another person walking by the container slipped and fell down, breaking
the container, it would not be appropriate for the first person to beat the
second person. The case with those who fought hadrat Emîr “kerrem-Allâhu
wejheh’ was similar to this example.
Even if we were to admit that fighting hadrat Alî would be
fighting the Messenger of Allah, then fighting the Messenger would not always
be disbelief. It would be disbelief if it were done in denial of his
prophethood. Yet it would not be disbelief if it were done out of worldly
ambitions, such as for obtaining property. For Qur’ân
al-kerîm contains an âyat-i-kerîma which
purports about highwaymen, “They are fighting Allah and theMessenger
of Allah and striving to arouse turbulence onthe earth.” On the other hand it has been reported unanimously that
highwaymen are not necessarily disbelievers. The âyat-i-kerîma
uses the expression, “fighting Allah and the Messenger of Allah.” The hadîth-i-sherîf, on the other hand, contains the
phrase, “fighting the Messenger of Allah.” When it is not disbelief to fight
Allah and His Messenger, how can it be disbelief to fight only against the
Messenger? Yes, it is definitely disbelief to fight the Messenger in order to
deny the religion and to affront Islam. Yet any war not made with an intention
of this sort would not be disbelief. Hadrat Műsâ’s (Moses’) holding (his
brother) hadrat Hârűn’s (Aaron’s) hair and beard with anger is a kind of fight.
Such things happen in warlike situations. What would be said if a person came
forward and lodged the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Your
position with me is like that of Hârűn with Műsâ,” against the background of this warlike situation? Rasűlullah’s beloved and blessed wife (hadrat Âisha)
was of the opinion that hadrat Alî was indulgent towards the murderers (of
hadrat ’Uthmân) and slack in executing the law of talion. So she was offended
with him. Likewise, hadrat Műsâ, seeing that hadrat Hârűn was indulgent towards
the people who had been worshipping a calf and slack in punishing them, hurt
his brother, who was a Prophet. If any kind of
war against a Prophet were disbelief, hadrat
Műsâ would have become a disbeliever then and there (may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from saying so)! By the same token,
Yűsuf’s (Prophet Joseph’s)
‘alaihis-salâm’ brothers hurt their father, Ya’qűb
‘alaihis-salâm’, by committing the known offense against their brother. This
was a behaviour no less serious than fighting. Therefore, one should be
reasonable in matters concerning those superior people’s actions.
Hadrat Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’ is a mother of
Muslims and a wife of the Messenger of Allah. It is stated in Qur’ân al-kerîm that she occupies a position on a par with mothership to hadrat
Alî. If a mother scolds or hurts her child, will it be justifiable for the
child to make a retort even if the mother’s behaviour is unfair? As a matter of
fact, no one has criticized hadrat Műsâ or Yűsuf’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ brothers. In
addition, relations between brothers is not comparable with relations between a
mother and a son. A line:
A person who fails to observe the values
is a heretic!
As is seen, the hadîth-i-sherîf, “To
fight you is to fight me,” cannot
be put forward as a supporting document for calling the As-hâb-i-kirâm
disbelievers. It is neither logical nor Islamic. Those who fought him did not
lose their îmân or pious deeds for having done so. Their îmân, their pious
deeds, their being Sahâbîs, their being praised and lauded through âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs are all factors deterrent to being hostile towards
them or swearing at them. Qâdî Nűrullah Shushterî, a Shiite scholar who has
realized these subtleties, states in his book Mejâlis-ul-mu’minîn, “Shiites do not curse the three Khalîfas. Ignorant
Shiites’ cursing is not important.”
We would like to add that some Shiite scholars, such as Abdullah
Mashhadî and others, after a thorough study of Sunnite and Shiite books and a
judicious reasoning of the matter, said that “Those who fought hadrat Alî did
not become disbelievers. They became sinners. For they did not deny the hadîth-i-sherîf. They interpreted it.” Because Shiites
consider Nasîr-ad-dîn Tűsî a very great scholar, they have to explain the
statements made by this scholar and other similar scholars. They say that
“According to the hadîth-i-sherîf, ‘To
fight you is to fight me,’ fighting hadrat Alî
must be disbelief. However, those who fought him did not become disbelievers
because they had not planned it. On the other hand, it is a sin, not disbelief,
to revolt against the time’s Imâm. If it results from a doubt or
misinterpretation, it is not a sin, but only a mistake of ijtihâd.”
Thus far, we have quoted from Shiite scholars. Now we
shall make some quotations from scholars of Ahl as-sunna:
It is never disbelief to disagree with hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd in
the teachings of fiqh. It is not a sin, either. For hadrat Alî, like all the
As-hâb-i-kirâm, was mujtahid. In the (religious) teachings which require
ijtihâd, it is permissible for mujtahids to disagree with one another, and in
this case each mujtahid will earn one thawâb. A person who fought out of
animosity would certainly become a disbeliever. In fact, some scholars of Ahl
as-sunna called Khârijîs ‘disbelievers’ on account of this principle. The hadîth-i-sherîf, “To fight you is to
fight me,” is intended for
Khârijîs. After all, these people could not be said to be ‘definitely
disbelievers’. For their fighting was not intended as an acknowledgement of
disbelief. For this reason, these people cannot be called renegades.
Nevertheless, their doubts were idiotic, and because they contradicted those âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs
with clear meanings, they will not be excused, since it is not permissible to
interpret âyats with overt meanings. According to the Ahl as-sunna, Khârijîs
will stay with disbelievers in the Hereafter. It is not permissible to pray for
their being pardoned or to perform the namâz of janâza for them. This is not
the case with those who were against hadrat Alî in the combats of Camel and
Siffîn. They fought him as a result of their doubts and interpretation. Because
theirs was a mistake of ijtihâd, they did not become disbelievers. Nor can they
be blamed for this. For they are praised in âyat-i-kerîmas
and hadîth-i-sherîfs. These people struggled not
to fulfill the desires of their nafs, but for the sake of Allah. A person who
will not admit this fact should at least hold his tongue, keep quiet. Thinking
that these people were the As-hâb-i-kirâm and the Mujâhidîn-i-Islâm, he should
avoid committing an act of disrespect against them. In fact, âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs
praise all Believers. The hope of attaning shafâ’at (intercession) and
salvation through the forgiveness of Allâhu ta’âlâ includes
every Muslim. If any one of the Damascenes who joined the combats of Camel and
Siffîn is known definitely to have been hostile towards hadrat Alî, to have
called him a disbeliever and to have cursed him, we will call that person a
disbeliever. Yet no one has been reported to have done so until now. Ignorant
people’s fabrications cannot be of scientific or documentary capacity. Since
those Sahâbîs are definitely known to have been Believers in the beginning, we
have to know them as such. If a person disbelieves the fact that the four
Khalîfas will go to Paradise or says about any one of them that he is not
worthy of being a Khalîfa or denies his knowledge or justice or taqwâ, this
person becomes a disbeliever. Yet if a person fights these
blessed people as a result of his sensuous indulgence or for worldly advantages
such as property or out of doubts or because of misinterpreting âyats and
hadîths whose meanings are not clear or definite, he will not become a
disbeliever. He will become a sinner.
Hadrat Mu’âwiya and hadrat Amr Ibni Âs’ ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ’ fighting hadrat Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’ was never
based on base motives or malicious reasons. They said that they were of the
opinion that the murderers of hadrat ’Uthmân should be arrested and retaliated
against and acknowledged that hadrat Alî was higher and more virtuous than
themselves. Whatever they did and said till their death was an indication of a
strong îmân. All their thoughts and toils were for Allah’s sake, for Islam. It
is explained clearly in the hadîth-i-sherîfs quoted in the four hundred and ninety-fourth page
of the book Izâlat-ul-hafâ that both parties fought for the same purpose.
42 – It is stated in the book Tarîqat-i-Muhammadiyya,
by Imâm-ý-Muhammed Birghivî, and
in the two books Berîqa and Hadîqa, which are explanations of the former: A hadîth-i-sherîf quoted by Imâm-i-Bukhârî and Imâm-i-Muslim states, “Certainly
there will come a time when my Ummat will belike the sons of Isrâîl [Jews and Christians]. They
will resemble them like a pair of shoes, which are exactlyidentical with each
other; to the extent that if one of them (Jews and Christians) commits fornication with his
mother, there will be people doing the same among my Ummat. Sons of Isrâîl
parted into seventy-two groups. My Ummatwill part into seventy- three groups.
Seventy-two of these groups will go into Hell on account of their heretical
creeds. Only one group will not enter there.” When the Messenger was asked who were in that group,
he said, “Theyare those people who follow me and my As-hâb.” It is written in the books Milel
ve Nihâl and Berîqa
that sons of Isrâîl parted into
seventy-one groups after Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ and seventy-two groups after Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’. This unique group, who will be safe from entering Hell owing
to their (correct) belief, are called the Madh-hab of Ahl
as-sunna wa’l-jamâ’a. Each of
the seventy-two groups claim to be the group of Ahl as-sunna and believe that
they will go to Paradise. However, this is not something to be judged by sheer
words or suppositions. It is judged in accordance with words’ and deeds’ being
agreeable with âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs.
The Madh-hab of Ahl as-sunnat parted into two sub-groups called Mâ-turîdî
and Esh’arî. Yet, since they are of the same
origin and do not criticize each other, they can be said to be
the same. On the other hand, the Madh-hab of Ahl as-sunna parted into four
Madh-habs in matters pertaining to worships and deeds. All these four Madh-habs
hold the same belief; in actual fact, they are one Madh-hab. These four
Madh-habs disagreed with one another in their interpretation of matters that
are not explained clearly in âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs. All of them performed ijtihâd to
understand these matters, exerted themselves, and arrived at different
conclusions. They do not disagree in matters that are explained clearly in Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs.
Ijtihâd is not performed in âyats and hadîths with clear definite meanings. If
a person errs in his ijtihâd of principles of belief that are not stated
clearly (in âyats and hadîths), he will not be pardoned. The seventy-two groups
who have deviated from the right way as a result of erroneous ijtihâd are
called holders of Bid’at or
people of Dalâlat (aberration)
or Heretics. However, these
people are not to be called disbelievers. If a person denies only one of the
tenets of belief stated clearly by Islam, he loses his îmân and becomes a
disbeliever. People who lose their îmân as a result of erroneous ijtihâd are
called Mulhid. It is
written in the books Radd-ul-muhtâr and Ni’mat-i-Islâm that, of the seventy-two aberrant groups, some members of the
groups called Batinî, Mujassima, Mushabbiha and Wahhâbîs, and the group called
Ibâhîs are mulhids.
The hadîth-i-sherîf quoted above shows that a person is either a Muslim
or a disbeliever. And a Muslim is either in the Madh-hab of Ahl as-sunna or a
holder of bid’at, that is, a heretic. This
means to say that a person who is not in the Madh-hab of Ahl as-sunna,
that is, who is without a certain Madh-hab, is either a heretic or a
disbeliever.
Îmân means to be fearless and Islâm means submission
and salvation. Yet îmân and Islâm are the same in Islam. The heart’s believing
all the information which Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ brought from Allâhu ta’âlâ through Wahy, is called Îmân and Islâm. All this information has been summarized
in six tenets. A person who believes in these six tenets will have believed all
the information. These six tenets are expressed in the credo termed Âmentu.
Every Muslim has to memorize
theÂmentu and have his children memorize it, teaching them the meanings it
purports. To this end, he should send his children to authorized courses of Qur’ân al-kerîm. The meaning of Âmentu is explained in detail in the book Belief
and Islam. A person who
believes these tenets is
called a Mu’min (Believer) or a Muslimân (Muslim). Performing the (prescribed) worships and
avoiding the harâms (all acts, behaviours, thoughts, statements forbidden by
Islam) is called Obedience to Islam. Muslims who obey Islam are called Sâlih (pious) and Âdil (just). All the As-hâb-i-kirâm were âdil and sâlih
Believers. A person who disobeys Islam out of sloth is called Fâsiq (sinner, sinful). A fâsiq also is a Muslim. In other
words, a Muslim will not lose his îmân by sinning or by not doing the worships.
However, if a person slights the concepts of worship and sin, that is, if he
does not respect Islam in due manner, he will lose his îmân. And a person who
does not have îmân is not a Muslim, that is, is called a Kâfir (disbeliever, unbeliever). A person who is not in the
Madh-hâb of Ahl as-sunna is called out of Madh-hab, or without (a certain) Madh-hab. A person without a certain Madh-hab is either a
heretic or a disbeliever.
Qâdî-zâda Ahmad Efendi ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’, in his
explanation of the book Birgivî Vasýyyetnâmesi, gives the following account, beginning on the forty-fourth page:
We believe in the fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ has
human Prophets on the earth. All Prophets taught the people in their times the Ahkâm,
i.e. the commandments and prohibitions which
Allâhu ta’âlâ conveyed to them by Wahy, that is, taught them through the
angel. People living in a Prophet’s time and
being taught by him are his Ummat. People
who believe a Prophet are called Ummat-i-ijâbat,
and those do not believe him are termed Ummat-i-da’wa(t).
The final Prophet
is Muhammad ‘alaihis-slâm’. No Prophet will come after him. He is the Prophet of all people, whereever and in whatever time
they live, and of all genies. All of them have to believe him.
A Prophet who brought a new religious system is called a Rasűl.
On the other hand, a Prophet who
invites people to adapt themselves to the religious system brought by the Prophet
previous to him is called a Nebî. Every Rasűl is a Nebî at the same time. Yet, every Nebî is not a
Rasűl. According to some (scholars), the number of Rasűls is three hundred and
thirteen. The number of Prophets in general, however, is not known. It is
stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf termed Haber-i-wâhid that their number is one hundred and twenty-four
thousand. A hadîth reported by only one person is of suppositional capacity.
Therefore, it would be more judicious not to comment on their number. It is
stated at the end of the thirty-sixth letter of the second volume (of Mektűbât) by Muhammad Mathűm-i-Fârűqî, and also in the book of
eulogy titled Emâlî as well as in the books
Berîqa
and Aqâid-i-Nesefiyya
and Hadîqa,
that saying the number of
Prophets may mean to make a non-Prophet a Prophet or to
deny the prophethood of a Prophet, which, in its turn, is disbelief. For it is written
in all books that denying one Prophet means denying all of them. Furthermore, it is
written in the commentary of the eulogy of Emâlî and in the three hundred and nineteenth page of Berîqa,
“No Walî can attain the grade of
prophethood. To belittle a Prophet is disbelief and aberration.”
Mawdűdî of Pakistan, who died in 1399 [A.D. 1979],
interprets the twenty-fourth âyat of Fâtir sűra in his book, Islamic
Civilization, as follows:
“Among each and every Ummat, without any exception, has
there come a threatening Prophet.” Then he adds, “A Prophet has come for every Ummat. The hadîth-i-sherîf, ‘One hundred and twenty-four thousand
Prophets have come,’ confirms this fact. Some passed Prophets are known about
partly. It is very well possible to know the countries of some of them, such as
hadrat Ibrâhîm, hadrat Műsâ, Confucius, Zoroaster (Zarathustra) and Krishna.
Each of them was sent to his own tribe. None of them claimed that his
prophethood was universal.”
It is written in Beydâwî and Mawâkib and in many
books of Tafsîr that the word ‘threatening’ used in the âyat-i-kerîma signifies Prophets or scholars, not (only) Prophets. This person
strives to corroborate the wrong meaning he attaches to the âyat-i-kerîma by means of a weak hadîth. No Islamic scholar has treated this
weak hadîth in documentary capacity. Also, inserting the names of some
disbelievers such as Confucius, Zoroaster and Krishna, he attempts, as it were,
a stratagem to impress young people with the conviction that these people were
Prophets. All corrupt religions are the remnants that came about as a result of
interpolations and defilements of true religious systems which Allâhu ta’âlâ had revealed to Prophets. Likewise, Confucius (d. 479 B.C.) made a
fame for his commendations of such ideas as worship and ethical values, which
he had somehow appropriated out of what had remained from the ancient true
religions prevalent in China. Consequently, his philosophy became a sect. Books
teaching his sect were translated into various languages. One of them is the
German book Wörte des Konfuzius (Statements of Confucius). This book is not only devoid of the six tenets of
îmân, which are commonly taught by all celestial religions, but also contains
many statements indicating sheer disbelief. A person whose disbelief is evident
cannot be said to be a
Muslim, none the less for calling him a Prophet.
Krishna is one of the ancient gods of Hindu disbelievers called Brahmins.
Formerly, they used to worship a stream by the same name. Later they began to
worship this man, about whom there are long legends.
It is stated in the book Berîqa, “The number of Prophets ‘salawâtullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’ is
not certainly known. For the hadîth-i-sherîf
stating that their number is one hundred and twenty-four thousand or two
hundred and twenty-four thousand is reported by only one person. And then it is
not known whether this hadîth is (in the authentic category called) sahîh. If
the number of Prophets is stated definitely, people who are not Prophets may
have been made Prophets, or some Prophets may have been denied. Both cases are
disbelief. Even if this hadîth were sahîh, it would be of suppositional
capacity. Supposition is of no value in matters pertaining to belief,
especially when the information is given in two alternatives like in this
example.”
There are two main groups of disbelievers:
Disbelievers with a holy book; disbelievers without a holy book. Disbelievers
who believe a certain Prophet and the holy book revealed to him are called Ahl-i-kitâb
(people of the Book), or
Disbelievers with a holy book. Even if their book is an interpolated and defiled one, the animals
they have killed by cutting their throats and uttering the name of Allah in the
manner prescribed by their religion can be eaten, with the exception of pork,
which can by no means be eaten. A Muslim may marry their daughters. Yet a
Muslim girl cannot be married to them. Of today’s Jews and Christians, those
who are attached to their changed religion are disbelievers with a holy book.
Those disbelievers who do not believe any Prophet’s book or any celestial book are called Disbelievers
without a holy book. Animals slaughtered by
these people cannot be eaten. Their daughters cannot be married, nor can Muslim
girls be married to them. Polytheists, Atheists, Idolaters, Magians, Brahmins,
Buddhists, Mulhids, Zindiqs, Munâfiqs, Renegades are all disbelievers without a
holy book. People who worship beings other than Allâhu
ta’âlâ are called Mushriks (polytheists). Mushriks are of two types: Mushriks in divinizing,
and mushriks in worshipping. A group of mushriks in divinizing are Magians.
These people (divinize and) worship fire.
They say, “There are two creators: One of them, Yezdân (or Ahura Mazda=Ormazd),
is the creator of goodnesses. The other one, Ahriman, creates evils.” Ancient
naturalists said that nature itself was the creator of all beings. Mushriks in
worshipping are Idolaters, who
worship
statues (idols and icons) they themselves have made. They believe
that these idols will intercede for them with Allah. Most Christians believe in
Trinity, which means belief in
three gods. Many of them divinize Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. On the other hand, a
group of Jews say that “Uzeyr is the son of God.” All these people become
mushriks. However, they believe that the book they possess is heavenly.
Communists, freemasons, and the nescient atheists of the modern era are
disbelievers without a holy book. A person who is not a Muslim though he is
borne from Muslim parents is called a Murtad (renegade). A person who does not believe in the prophethood of
Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ and yet who pretends to be a Muslim among Muslims for
worldly interests, is called a Munâfiq. A munâfiq may belong to another religion. Yet when he is among
Muslims he worships like Muslims, always utters the name of Allah, and conceals
his wrong belief. A person who is not a Muslim and yet who pretends to be a
Muslim, tries to change Islam and to spread irreligiousness in the name of
Islam, is called a Zindiq. A
zindiq says that he believes in the existence of Allah and in the prophethood
of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ and that he agrees with the Qur’ân and hadîths. Yet
he interprets Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs in accordance with his ignorant
mentality and short sight. He tries to spread his erroneous interpretations in
the name of Islam. He dislikes the correct statements made by scholars of Ahl
as-sunna. He calls the Islamic scholars ignoramuses. Today's people call these
zindiqs ‘enlightened men of religion’, ‘mujaddids’ and ‘religion reformers’. We should not believe these ignorant zindiqs, these fake men of
religion, and we should never read their books and magazines.
A person who says that he is a Muslim and utters the
statement called Kalima-i-shahâdat can not be stigmatized as a disbeliever only on
suspicion. As the book Ibni Âbidîn explains in its discourse on renegades in the
third volume, it is written in Hulâsa and other books that “If a person says that he is a
Muslim and yet one of his actions or words shows numerous signs of disbelief
with only one element that signifies belief or which is at least not certainly
disbelief, this person should not be called a disbeliever. For we have to have
a good opinion of a Muslim.” The book of fatwâ called Bezzâziyya
adds that “If it is understood
clearly that this person does or says that thing which causes disbelief
intentionally, he becomes a disbeliever. It would be futile for us to interpret
his action or statement otherwise.”
Lexical meaning of the word Din (religion) is way, work and
reward. Millet (nation, people), on the other hand, means ‘to write’. Tenets of
belief which a Prophet has brought from Allâhu ta’âlâ are called Din and Millet, or Usűl-i-din.
Every Prophet
brought the same Din and Millet in this sense. Din means source of water.
Commandments and prohibitions enjoined by a Prophet
are called Ahkâm-i-sher’îyya or Furű’i
din. Each Prophet
has a different religion in this sense. (In other words, each Prophet brought a different code of commandments and
prohibitions). Today the word Din (religion) covers the tenets of belief and
Islam altogether. Muhammad’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ religion is called the Islamic
religion or Islam.
It is wâjib (compulsory) for every Muslim to learn
the tenets of îmân and to accord his belief to them. A person who believes them
in summary becomes a true Believer. Yet he becomes sinful because he has not
learnt their reasons. On the other hand, it is not an Islamic command to learn
the evidences and reasons of the commandments and prohibitions. It is not
sinful not to know their reasons.
A person who commits a grave sin does not lose his
îmân. However, if he calls a harâm ‘halâl’, his îmân is gone. There are two
categories of sins: (I) Grave sins, called Kebâir. The seven gravest sins are 1- To attribute a partner
to Allâhu ta’âlâ. This sin is called ţirk (polytheism). ˝irk is the
worst type of disbelief. 2- Homicide or suicide. 3- To practice sorcery. 4- To
appropriate an orphan’s property. 5- To accept or to give interest. 6- To
desert the combat area when one is face to face with the enemy. 7- To commit
(the offence called) Qazf against a chaste woman. In other words, to impute an
unchaste motive to her. Any sin may be grave. All kinds of sins must therefore
be avoided. Committing a venial sin continuously will develop it into a grave
sin. A grave sin will be pardoned when the sinner makes tawba. If the sinner
dies without having made tawba, Allâhu
ta’âlâ may forgive him through or
without intercession (of a Prophet or another person He loves), depending on His Will.
If the sinner is not forgiven, he will go to Hell.
It is disbelief to abhor anything held sacred by
Islam or to respect anything which is to be scorned, such as to wear a rope
girdle called Zunnâr, which is worn by priests, or similar things, to respect
idols, to scorn religious books, to make fun of religious scholars, to utter an
expression that causes disbelief. These things signify denial of the Islamic
religion. They are signs of disbelief.
Allâhu ta’âlâ loves
those who make tawba. He forgives them. If the sinner (who has made tawba) sins
again, his tawba will not be cancelled. However, he will have to make tawba
again. If a person remembers a sin with pleasure although he has made tawba for
that sin, he will have to renew his tawba. It is farz to pay back the debts and
dues one owes to other people, to apologize to people one has backbitten, if
any, and to perform all sorts of prayers one has omitted in their prescribed
times, if any. These things, however, are not the tawba itself, but the
conditions for tawba. Returning one pound to its owner is better than performing
supererogatory worships for a thousand years or making supererogatory hajj
seventy times. It is not right not to make tawba for the fear that one’s tawba
will be cancelled if one sins again. It is ignorance. It is a delusion
instilled by the devil. It is farz to make tawba after each sin. When the tawba
is delayed for one hour, the sin is doubled. This comes to mean that the sins
of those people who postpone the performance of the prayers of namâz they have
omitted become doubled as each spare time as long as to permit the performance
of namaz is spent.
Tawba is not made only by saying that one has made
tawba (or that one is sorry about one’s sin). Acceptability of tawba is
dependent on fulfilment of three conditions:
1- The sinner has to cease from the sin concerned.
2- Fearing Allâhu ta’âlâ, the
sinner must feel shame and repentance for having sinned.
3- The sinner must make a heartful promise not to
commit again the sin concerned. Allâhu
ta’âlâ promises that He shall accept
the tawba made properly and observing its conditions.
Habits can change. One should do one’s best to
develop good habits.
Whether a person will migrate to the Hereafter as a
Believer is a matter which will be certain at his last breath (the time of
death). If a person who has lived as a disbeliever for sixty years becomes a
Muslim only a short time before his death, he will rise as a Believer in the
Hereafter. With the exception of Prophets ‘alaihim-us-salawâtu wa-t-teslîmât’
and a number of certain people who have been blessed with the promise (of Allâhu ta’âlâ) that they will definitely go to Paradise, no one can be said to
be ‘due for Paradise’. For it cannot be known beforehand how a person will be
at his last breath.
If a Believer who has migrated to the Hereafter has
left in the
world a permanent fruit of piety or useful books or
pious children to pray for him after him, he will go on receiving thawâbs. When
a person dies, the book wherein his goodnesses and vices are recorded will not
be closed. Sa’d bin Ubâda ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’, one of the As-hâb-i-kirâm, asked
(our Prophet), “Yâ Rasűlallah (O the Messenger of Allah)! My
mother is dead. How can I still please her?” The blessed Prophet
replied: “It is good to give water as alms.” When praying, one should ask blessings on the souls
of all Believers. All of them will receive the blessings. Praying will ward off
an approaching catastrophe. Giving alms will appease the wrath of Allâhu ta’âlâ, protect one from afflictions, and help an ill person whose time of
death has not come yet to heal. Allâhu
ta’âlâ does not like a person who does
not pray.
Every Muslim has to learn his Madh-hab in Creed and that which pertains to Deeds.
Madh-hab means way. Islamic
teachings told in a covert language in Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs are clarified through (an extremely painstaking and
knowledge-requiring process called) ijtihâd by profoundly learned scholars, who
are called Mujtahid. Our Madh-hab in creed is the Madh-hab termed Ahl
as-sunna wa’l-jamâ’a(t). ‘The
Madh-hab of Ahl as-sunna wa’l-jamâ’at’ means ‘the credo, the belief held by Rasűlullah’s As-hâb and their jamâ’at (people following them)’. Each and
every one of the As-hâb-i-kirâm is a Mujtahid, a halo, a light of Islam. They
are Muslims’ imâms, leaders, guides, and documents. Any person who strays from
the way shown by them will end up in Hell. The group of Ahl as-sunna have two
imâms, leaders: One of them is Abű Mansűr Mâ-Turîdî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’. He is a profound scholar
raised in the Madh-hab of hadrat Imâm-i-a’zam Abű Hanîfa ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
aleyh’. The scholars of Hanafî Madh-hab are in his Madh-hab. The other leader
is Abu’l Hasan-i-Esh’arî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’. He is one of the greatest scholars in
Shâfi’î Madh-hab. He is a very profound scholar. There is very small difference
between these two Madh-habs.
Today, there is no scholar so profoundly learned as to perform
ijtihâd. Every Muslim has to learn one of the four Madh-habs by reading one of
the books that are called ’Ilm-i-hâl and which teach the requirements of the
Madh-hab and then adapt his belief and all his actions to that Madh-hab.Thus he
will have affiliated himself with that Madh-hab. A person will not be a Sunnite Muslim unless he
enters one of the four Madh-habs. He will be a
person without a Madh-hab. And a person without a Madh-hab, in
his turn, is either in one of the seventy-two miscreant sects, or a
disbeliever. The book of Tafsîr titled Es-Sâwî gives the following account in its explanation of the twenty-fourth
âyat of Kahf sűra: “It is not permissible to follow a person who is not in any
one of the four Madh-habs even if his statements are agreeable with the
statements of Sahâbîs or with hadîdh-i-sherîfs that are sahîh (authentic) or
with âyat-i-kerîmas. A person who is not in one
of the four Madh-habs is aberrant. He will mislead others as well. Deviating
from the four Madh-habs will finally lead one to disbelief. It is a custom of
disbelievers to give those figurative âyat-i-kerîmas
termed Muteshâbihât their façade meanings.” If a man of religion states that he
is in the Madh-hab of Ahl as-sunnat and spreads the teachings of his Madh-hab,
his statements and books will be of value. Those who read them will acquire use
from them. Religious books written by people without a Madh-hab are harmful.
They will spoil the faith and îmân of those who read them. Our advice to our
friends and brothers in Islam is this: Try to learn the Madh-hab of Ahl
as-sunna and to teach it to your children! Each of the books listed in the
final pages of our books were translated from the books of scholars of Ahl
as-sunna. You must buy these books, read and learn them, recommend them to your
acquaintances, and try to spread them to all Muslims. Thus you will earn thawâb
for Jihâd.
Jihâd does not mean to stage a coup d’etat, to
disobey one’s commanders, to revolt against the government, to beat, to
destroy, to break, or to curse. Such things would serve no end but arouse
fitna. In other words, doing such things means separatism. It will bring
oppression and imprisonment to Muslims and cause prohibition of the teachings
of religion and îmân. Our master the Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ has cursed people who arouse such fitna.
Imprisonment is not an honour to be desired by a Muslim. The honour to be
yearned for by a Muslim should be to equip himself with the beautiful moral
qualities commended by Islam, to do good to everybody, to adapt himself to
Islam, and to be useful to all creatures. It is idiocy, a sinful behaviour, to
expose oneself to dangers. Allâhu
ta’âlâ declares, “Do
not expose yourselves to dangers!”
Jihâd means to
try to convey the religion of Allâhu ta’âlâ to
His born slaves. There are three ways of making Jihâd. The first way is to
fight, overcome and annihilate cruel tyrants who dominate people, use them like
slaves, prevent them from hearing
about the Islamic
religion and persecute and oppress them, and thus to help people hear about the
Islamic religion. Once people have heard about Islam, it will be up to them
whether or not they should accept it. Depending on their free choice, they may
become Muslims or go on doing their own worships, provided that they should
observe Islam’s rules and regulations. This type of armed Jihâd is performed
only by the (Islamic) government, (if there is any). The state’s army is in
charge of this duty. All Muslims will join this duty by doing the duties
assigned by the state and thus attaining the thawâb for Jihâd. The state
performs Jihâd also to defend our religion and nation against those
disbelievers attacking in order to annihilate them, as well as against
heretical, aberrant and seditious forces who prepare traps for defiling and
demolishing Islam. All Muslims will attain thawâb of Jihâd by contributing to
the government’s services.
The second type of Jihâd is to propagate Islam’s
teachings, the beautiful moral qualities it infuses, and the rights and
freedoms it confers on humanity through preaches, books, radio and television
broadcasts.
The third type of Jihâd is to support those who carry
on the first two types of Jihâd by praying for them. Doing the armed Jihâd for
the promulgation of Islam is farz-i-kifâya.[1] When the enemy
attacks, however, it becomes farz-i-ayn for every man, and even for women and
children when the number of men is inadequate. If they still cannot stop the
enemy, it becomes farz-i-ayn for Muslims all over the world to help them. The
second type of Jihâd is farz-i-ayn for Muslims who are able to do so, and the
third type is always farz-i - ayn for everybody. For performing the second type
of Jihâd, it is necessary to try to spread the books of Ahl as-sunna within the
laws. We are working for this world incessantly. A Muslim should work
ceaselessly for the Hereafter, too. Enemies of Islam are exerting themselves to
destroy Islam. For surviving their attacks, Muslims have to do two things:
First, they should send their children to courses where they teach Qur’ân al-kerîm. Second, they should try to spread books written by scholars of
Ahl as-sunna ‘rahmatullâhi alaihim ajma’în’. It is
---------------------------------
[1] Islam’s definite commandments are called farz. When a commandment is incumbent on every individual Muslim, it is termed farz-i-ayn. There are those types of commandments, however, which lapse from other Muslims when it is carried out by one Muslim or by a group of Muslims. They are termed farz-i-kifâya.
stated as follows in the fourteenth paragraph of the
chapter about Waqf in the book Fatâwâ-yi-Hindiyya: “For people who wish to do pious acts of charity, it
is better to construct buildings of public use, [such as hospitals], than
emancipating slaves. Publishing useful books [teaching Islam, morals and
science] is the best of all. To prepare and publish books of fiqh is better
than doing supererogatory worships.”
43- Another insidious enemy who attacks Islam’s foundation
with sly methods and tries to mislead Muslim children is an Egyptian named
Muhammad Qutb. See how nonsensically he writes in an article which he names
‘Line of Deviation’:
“The first chink in Islam’s basis showed
itself in the Umayyad policy in administrative and financial areas. For the
‘Melik-i-adűd’ established a hereditary system (of sovereignty) and began to
perpetrate a series of cruelties. Sultans’ and governors’ relatives became sort
of feudal chieftains.
“Then came the Abbasid era. Buildings of
caliphate and governorship became drinking and fornication dens instead of
offices for civil services. They were arranging musical revels with belly
dancers and carrying their injustice and egoism to their lower extremeties.”
The book Tuhfa states as follows in its answer to the seventieth lie
fabricated by people without Madh-hab: “If a person’s caliphate is declared
clearly through Nass, that is, by âyats and hadîths, this kind of caliphate is
called Khilâfat-i-Râshida. It is for this reason that the four great Khalîfas are called Khulafâ-i-râshidîn.
If a person’s caliphate is
inferred through reasoning or through implication of Nass, his caliphate is
termed Khilâfat-i-’âdila. If a person whose caliphate is neither declared clearly nor
implied seizes power by using force, his caliphate is called Khilâfat-i-Jâira,
and this kind of Khalîfa is
called Melik-i-adűd.”
A hadîth-i-sherîf, which exists in the five hundred and twenty-eighth
page of the book Izâlat-ul-hafâ, by Shâh Waliyyullah Dahlawî, states, “We
began this work with prophethood and with Allah’s compassion. After now
therewill be caliphate and (Allah’s) compassion. Then will come the (time of)
Melik-i-adűd. Then there will be torments, cruelties and mischiefs among my
Ummat. Wearing silkclothes, drinking alcohol and fornication will be made halâl
and (this state) will
be supported by many people. Things will go on like this till the end of the
world.” This hadîth-i-sherîf states clearly that hadrat Mu’âwiya will seize
power by force and that cruelty and mischief will
begin after him, not in his time. Shâh Waliyyullah, by writing that the cruelty
and mischief began with the establishment of the Abbasid state, foils Muhammad
Qutb’s slander.
Hadîth-sherîfs imply that hadrat Mu’âwiya will become
a Ruler. Therefore, hadrat Mu’âwiya became the Khâlifa-i-âdil
after hadrat Hasan abdicated
caliphate to him and the As-hâb-i-kirâm voted for him. It would be a very grave
calumniation to call this great Sahâbî Melik-i-adűd and to attach wrong meanings, such as oppressor,
disbeliever, to this word. And a person who translates this word as ‘king’ must
be quite unaware of Islam.
Sovereigns in disbelievers’ countries are called
‘kings’. King of France, King of England, King of Bulgaria were examples of
this. To call a Muslim Melik ‘King’ would mean to belittle a blessed person
Muslims respect, love and call Khalîfa and to say that that Melik (Ruler) and
all his people are disbelievers. Our master, the Messenger of Allah
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’, called hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘Melik’.
And billions of Muslims call him
Melik and Khalîfa. No one ascribed cruelty to this honourable Sahâbî, to this
renowned fighter for Islam, hadrat Mu’âwiya, one of those fortunate people who
are praised and prayed for in hadîth-i-sherîfs and who, as it is stated in âyat-i-kerîmas, have been forgiven and will go to Paradise. To compare these
fighters for Islam, these lions of those auspicious times praised in hadîth-i-sherîfs, to Europe’s cruel and faithless feudal chieftains, would mean
to thrust a dagger into the soul of Islam. These hadîth-i-sherîfs are
well-known: “In the Hereafter, the angels of torment will
torture those menof religion whose knowledge is useless before
torturingdisbelievers.” And “In
the Hereafter, the worst torment will be inflicted on that man of religion
whose knowledge isuseless.” These hadîth-i-sherîfs warn younger generations. They state that people
who are presented as religious scholars by false religious magazines are
thieves of îmân and wretched sinners who will be subjected to vehement torment
in Hell.
The writing above reminds of Lawrence, the notorious
spy during the First World War. This perfectly Arabic-spoken bearded British
spy, who wore a turban and a long gown (worn by Muslim religious men),
pretended to be an Islamic scholar and reviled great scholars of Ahl as-sunna.
Blemishing the As-hâb-i-kirâm, the Islamic Khalîfas and the Ottoman Turks, he
misled hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Thus he helped people who tried to
change and defile Islam to separate themselves from the Turks
and establish an independent state. Wahhabite books
call true Muslims ‘polytheists’. They stigmatize us Sunnite Muslims as
disbelievers. The spy named Lawrence is dead now. He is in Hell. They are
employing their native spies for his place now. Distributing thousands of
golds, they are publishing magazines and books praising them in every country.
In these books of theirs, they are censuring scholars of Ahl as-sunna
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’. However, Islamic scholars have
unanimously affirmed the high grade of those scholars, thus settling this
matter and leaving not even a smallest particular for the later generations to
discuss. To attempt to rake up past events that have already been discussed,
agreed on and settled from both historical and religious points of view, is an
indication of destructiveness rather than that of service. It is a sign of
malevolence.
All the Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman Khalîfas were believing,
good-charactered, just and blessed people. Yes, a very few of them succumbed to
their nafs and fell for the temptations of the devil. Yet these people did not
harm Islam. Their harm was to their own nafs. The worst of them abandoned the
Sunnî way and became a Mu’tazilî. And then this was caused by aberrant men of
religion. The fiends who misled them were degenerated members of mankind,
rather than descendants of the accursed devil. Imâm-i-Rabbânî ‘rahmatullâhi
ta’âlâ aleyh’ states in his book Mektűbât that “Muslims’ and statesmen’s deviation from the right way has
always been caused by malicious men of religion.” A worse act of immorality is
to try to stigmatize Islamic Khalîfas as immoral and irreligious people by
publicizing their private lawful harem lives in books and newspaper columns. It
is something that will shock and perturb honest people. A person may have read
the lies and calumniations in European histories or books written by priests
and freemasons and believed them. We recommend to them that they also read at
least a few Islamic histories and books written by scholars of Ahl as-sunna.
Thus the truth will be known. In fact, an article which is a collection of
sheer judgements without any documentary events or evidences must have been
written by a person with no background in Islam’s teachings. They write that
people in the times of Umayyads, Abbasids and Ottomans observed Islam. This
shows that statesmen in those times were believing and just people. For our
master, the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’, stated,
“People’s
religion is like their president’s religion.” Throughout
history we Muslims have taken many warning lessons
from mendacious, slanderous men of religion. At one time Ibni Teymiyya attempted
to ruin the îmân of the middle east. Scholars of Ahl as-sunna taught him his
lesson. Thousands of books of knowledge refuted his untenable ideas and
disgraced him. Later, someone named Abdoh of Egypt cooperated with freemasons.
Like the mongrel sect which was produced with the name Protestantism in
Christianity, this heretic attempted to eliminate the Ahl as-sunna, which he
disliked, and to insert the West’s irreligious philosophy into Islam. This man,
too, was given the answer he deserved. Yet, shameful to say, on the one hand
president of Cairo Masonic lodge Abdoh’s venomous ideas spread in Egypt’s
Jâmi’ul az-har. Thus a number of Religion Reformers appeared in Egypt. Rashîd Ridâ, Mustafâ Merâghî, who
was the rector of the madrasa of Az-har, Abd-ul-mejîd Selîm, who was Muftî of
Cairo, Mahműd Sheltut, Tantâwî Jawharî, Abd-ur-râziq Pâsha, Zekî Mubârak, Ferîd
Wajdî, Abbâs Aqqâd, Ahmad Emîn, Doctor Tâhâ Huseyn Pâsha and Qâsim Emîn were
only a few of them. On the other hand, like their teacher Abdoh, these people
were represented as modern Islamic scholars and their books were translated
into Turkish, thus causing many religious men to slip out of the right way.
Sayyed Abd-ul-hakîm Efendi ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’, the great
Islamic scholar and the mujaddid of the fourteenth (Islamic) century, stated,
“Abdoh, Muftî of Cairo, did not recognize the greatness of Islamic sholars,
sold himself to Islam’s enemies, and eventually became a freemason, joining
those unbridled disbelievers atrophying Islam from within. Ismâ’îl Hakký of
Izmir, Ömer Rýza Do¤rul, Hamdi Akseki, ˝erâfeddîn Yaltkaya, ˝emseddîn Günaltay,
Mustafâ Fevzî, Vehbî of Konya, Muhammed Âkif, and many other men of religion
read their books, were badly influenced by them, and deviated into various
ways.”
Abdoh and other people like him, who had drifted into
disbelief or aberration, raced with one another in their efforts to mislead
younger generations of religious men, thus pioneering the disasters predicted
in the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Catastrophes befalling my Ummat will be
through heretical [aberrant] men of
religion.”
In the meantime, Abdoh’s disciples would not sit still. They
published very many harmful books in a nature to incur divine wrath and
vengeance. One of them is Reshîd Ridâ’s book Muhâwerât, which was translated into Turkish by Hamdi Akseki,
given the title Islâmda Birlik (Unity in Islam), and published in Istanbul in 1332 [A.D. 1914].
In this book of his he followed his teacher’s example, attacked the four
Madh-habs of the Ahl as-sunna and, thinking that the Madh-habs originated from
differences of opinions and representing the Madh-habs’ differring methods and
conditions as bigotted controversies, went so far in aberration that he accused
them of “deranging Islam’s unity.” This attitude of his means to deride
millions of true Muslims who have been imitating one of the four Madh-habs for
fourteen hundred years, and to turn away from Islam and look for the ways of
coping with the time’s requirements in changing Islam and îmân. What is common
about these religion reformers is that they represent themselves as highly
intellectual Islamic scholars who have comprehended real Islam perfectly and
are at the same time quite aware of the time’s requirements, while calling
those truely pious Muslims who have read and learned Islam’s books and who have
been following scholars of Ahl as-sunna praised in the hadîth-i-sherîf,
“The best of times is their time,” ‘mobbish-minded imitators’. That these
religion reformers are vulgarly ignorant
people who are quite unaware of Islam’s credal and technical teachings is
completely blatant in their own oral and written statements. To clarify this
point, let us see what our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam’ states in the following hadîth-i-sherîfs:
“The highestpeople are scholars with îmân.” “Religious scholars are
Prophets’ inheritors.” “Knowledge pertaining to heart is one of the secrets
belonging to Allah.” “Scholars’ sleep isa worship.” “Respect my Ummat’s
scholars! They are stars of the earth.” “Scholars will intercede (for sinful Muslims) in the Hereafter.” “Scholars
of fiqh are valuable. It is a worship to be in their company.” “A scholar among
hisdisciples is like a Prophet among
his Ummat.” Who do these hadîth-i-sherîfs praise; scholars of Ahl as-sunna, who
have been teaching Islam for fourteen hundred years, or Abdoh and his
disciples, who have appeared recently? This question also is answered by our
master, the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’: “Every
century will be worse thanthe one previous to itself. Thus they will be all the
worse bythe end of the world.” “As the end of the world draws near, men of
religion will be worse and more putrid than a donkey’s carrion.” These hadîth-i-sherîfs are written
in the abridged version of Tezkira-i-Qurtubî. As it is unanimously stated by all the Islamic scholars praised
and lauded by Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa
sallam’ and confirmed by all the Awliyâ, the
only group of Muslims promised to be free from Hell are those who
are in the Madh-hab of scholars termed Ahl as-sunna(t) wa’l
jamâ’a(t). People who are not in
the Sunnite group shall go to Hell. Another fact they state unanimously is that
unification of Madh-habs is wrong. In other words, the scholars and the Awliyâ
mentioned above state unanimously that it would be an iniquitous and ridiculous
attempt to try to make one unified Madh-hab by selecting the facilities offered
by the four Madh-habs.
There is detailed information in this respect in the
book The Sunni Path.
Which case will a
person with wisdom prefer; to adapt himself to the Madh-hab of Ahl as-sunnat,
which has been commended unanimously by so many Islamic scholars for one
thousand years, or to believe these cultured (!), modern, religiously ignorant
parvenus, whose existence is a matter of the recent hundred years? The
prominent and loquacious ones among the seventy-two groups of people who it is
stated in hadîth-i-sherîfs will go to Hell, have
always assailed scholars of Ahl as-sunna ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’
and did their utmost to tarnish these blessed Muslims. Yet they have been
answered and disgraced through âyat-i-kerîmas
and hadîth-i-sherîfs. Seeing that knowledge
could not be the way recommendable for them to follow for the attainment of
their vicious ends, they have had recourse to banditry and violence, thus
causing innumerous Muslim bloodbaths in every century. On the other hand,
Muslims in the four Sunnite Madh-habs have always loved one another and lived
as brothers.
Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ states that “Muslims’
parting into Madh-habs (in
daily worships and procedures) is compassion of Allâhu
ta’âlâ (over Muslims).” However, religion reformers, e.g. Reshîd Ridâ, who
was born in 1282 [A.D. 1865] and died suddenly in Cairo in 1354 [A.D. 1935],
say that they will establish unity in Islam by unifying the Madh-habs. In
actual fact, our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ commanded Muslims
throughout the world to be united in one belief, the true way of îmân guided by
his four Khalîfas. Islamic scholars studied hand-in-hand and discovered the
true way of belief taught by the four Khalîfas and recorded it in their books,
naming this way commanded by our Prophet Ahl
as-sunna wa’l jamâ’a. Muslims
all over the world have to be united in this unique way called Ahl
as-sunna. And those who claim to
be aspirant after unity in Islam ought to join this already existent unity, if
they are sincere in their claim.
It is a shame, however, that this book of Reshîd
Ridâ’s, whose real purpose is to sow discord among Muslims and to annihilate
Islam from the inside, was printed with the title Islâmda
Birlik ve Fýkh Mezhebleri (Unity
in Islam and the Madh-habs of Fiqh) and the publication number
44-
We would like to embellish our book by appending a letter by Imâm-i-Rabbânî,
Mujaddid-i-elf-i-thânî Ahmad Fârűqî Serhendî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ aleyh’, thus
receiving barakat from the blessed soul of the exalted imâm, who was loved so
much by Islamic scholars and who was and is the guide of Awliyâ and of all the
people walking in the paths of Tasawwuf and who has been selected from among
selected people: