There are twenty-two groups who censure the Ashâb-i-kirâm.
The worst of these groups are the heretics who say that “Allah exists in Alî.
To worship Alî means to worship Him.” The second worst group, on the other
hand, castigate the first group, saying, “How could Alî ever be Allah? He is
human. Yet
he is the highest member of mankind. Allah sent the Qur’ân al-kerîm to him. But Jebrâîl (the archangel)
favoured Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ and brought the Qur’ân al-kerîm to him, depriving Alî of his right.” There is yet a third group,
who reprove them, saying, “What a nonsense to say! Our Prophet is Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. Only, he had said that Alî should be
Khalîfa after him. Yet the Sahâba did not obey him and gave the right of
caliphate to the other three, leaving Alî the fourth place.” Thus they vilify
the other three Khalîfas for having encroached upon Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
right and bear grudge against all the Ashâb-i-kirâm for having deprived him of
his right, while expressing their indignation over his failure to protect his
own right. All these three groups are disbelievers. The other groups are either
disbelievers or holders of bid’at. May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless them all with hidâyat (guidance)! May He grant them the
insight to see the right way!
Millions of people living in Iranian villages and in Iraq
today are floundering about in the miasma of this heresy. We have come across a
novel of some hundred pages, entitled Husniyya, which is said to have been being read as the most valuable book
by these miserable miscreants. The book was printed in Istanbul and builds its
theme over the concocted story of a conversation between a young woman, a
concubine in the palace of Hârűn-ur-rashîd, and some men. It is understood that
it was written in Iran, by an Iranian Jew named Murtadâ, and was translated
from Fârisî into Turkish. Misinterpreting the âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs, distorting the historical facts and events, and fabricating
pathetic stories so as to mislead the ignorant, it assails the Ashâb-i-kirâm
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum’ and the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat. For instance:
1– “Imâm-i Shâfi’î was in Baghdâd. Abű Yűsuf was a qâdî as
well. There was hostility between them,” he alleges. Being quite unaware of
ijtihâd, he looks on differences of ijtihâd as hostility.
2– “Abű Yűsuf and Shâfi’î and the scholars of Baghdâd
proved short of answering Husniyya,” he asserts. He has the face to write so
because he does not know the greatness of Imâm-i-Shâfi’î. As a matter of fact,
Farîdaddîn-i-Attâr ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ makes the following explanations in
Tadhkira-t-ul-awliyâ:
Imâm-i-Muhammad Shâfi’î ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ was only thirteen years
old when he had the self-confidence to make the
following
challenge in Harem-i-sherîf: “Ask me any questions you like!” He was fifteen
years old when he could give fatwâ[1].
Ahmad ibn Hanbal ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, who was the greatest scholar of his
time and had three hundred thousand hadîths committed to his memory, would pay
him visits for the purpose of learning from him. It appeared paradoxical to a
number of people around Imâm-i-Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) for him, such a great scholar
as he was, to sit before a person as young as he was. Yet when he was asked
why, he would explain, “He knows the meanings of the things we have memorized.
If I had not seen him, I would have failed to get any further beyond the gate
of knowledge. He is a sun illuminating the entire world; he is nourishment for
souls.” At another occasion he said, “The gate of fiqh had been closed. Allâhu ta’âlâ opened this gate again for His slaves
by means of Shâfi’î.” At some other time he observed, “I know no one who has
served Islam more than Shâfi’î has.” And again, according to Imâm-i-Ahmad (bin
Hanbal), the scholar denoted to in the hadîth-i-sherîf,
“Allâhu ta’âlâ creates a scholar every hundred
years, and through him teaches my religion to others,” was
Imâm-i-Shâfi’î. [This hadîth-i-sherîf states
that these scholars will appear in the Dâr-ul-Islâm.] Sufyân-i-Sawrî
‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ stated, “Shâfi’î’s wisdom was more than the sum of the
wisdoms of half of the people of his time.” Abdullah Ansârî ‘rahimahullâhu
ta’âlâ’ stated, “I do not know the Shâfi’î Madhhab well. Yet I like Imâm
Shâfi’î very much. For I see him ahead of others in every realm I look into.”
One day Imâm Shâfi’î was delivering a lecture, when he stood up and sat down
again, repeating the same behaviour a couple of times. When, afterwards, he was
asked why he had done so, he explained, “A child, who was a Sayyid, was playing
immediately outside the door. Whenever he passed before me, I stood up out of
respect for him. It would have been something inexcusable to see a grandchild
of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and not to stand up.”
If the author of the book Husniyya had known of this fact, he would perhaps
have felt shame to say that “Imâm Shâfi’î was hostile towards the Ahl-i-bayt.”
Rebî’ bin Haysam ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ related, “I saw Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’
dead in my dream. (The next morning, when I told my dream to people who were
good
---------------------------------
[1] An answer given by an Islamic scholar to Muslims’ questions.
at interpreting dreams,) they said that the greatest scholar of
our time was going to die. For it was stated in an âyat-i-kerîma that knowledge was a property of
Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’. Imâm Shâfi’î passed away a few days later.”
3– “When Husniyya explained that her Madhhab was love of
Ahl-i-bayt-i-Rasűl and put forward her arguments, the scholars were unable to
answer her,” he writes. The Ahl-i-bayt-i-Rasűl and all the Ashâb-i-kirâm were
of the same creed. They were in the path shown by the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs.
As a matter of fact, Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ states, “My Ashâb are like the
stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them you will be following the right
path.” He does not say, “some of my Ashâb,” or “only my Ahl-i-bayt.” He says,
“my Ashâb,” which means to say that they held the same creed. These people, on
the other hand, are trying to deceive Muslims by calling their wrong stories and
heretical beliefs ‘The madhhab of Ahl-i-bayt’. If there had been a scholar in
the so-called discussion, the concubine would not even have been able to open
her mouth. The author (of the book Husniyya) attempts to blemish the scholars
of Ahl as-sunnat by asserting that they were not able to answer her.
4– He says, (through the imaginary concubine), that “Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ became a Believer as he was a child,” tries to prove by
means of lies and solecisms that “a child’s belief is acceptable,” and simulates
how the so-called concubine “refuted the scholars by concluding that caliphate
was Alî’s right.”
Misrepresenting the Ahl as-sunnat as having denied the
fact that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was a child when he became a Believer,
he alleges that the concubine put the Ahl as-sunnat scholars to shame. The
truth, however, is that all the Sunnî books provide a detailed account of Imâm
Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ becoming a Believer as a child and praise the Lion of
Allah (Hadrat Alî) with highly laudatory remarks.
5– In another page he attacks the Ahl as-sunnat as follows: “After the
Messenger of Allah, Alî is higher than the Anbiyâ-i-mursalîn (prophets). The
Imâm (Alî) is the wasi-i-Rasűl (the Prophet’s
trustee), who has committed to his memory all the heavenly books, the Torah,
the Zabűr, the Bible, and the Qur’ân. Abű Bakr, on the other hand, was forty
years old when
he
gave up worshipping the idols called Lât and Uzzâ and became a Muslim; he
opposed the Rasűl-i-Hudâ several times; his skin and blood had been fed with
wine; how come you accept the belief of that person while rejecting the belief
of the innocent members of the Prophet’s family
and harbouring enmity and grudge in your hearts against that noble family?”
At many places of the Qur’ân al-kerîm, e.g. in the eighty-sixth âyat of An’âm sűra, which reads as
follows:
“And Ismâ’îl and Elisha, and Jonas, and
Lot: And to all We gave favour above the nations,” (6-80) Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that all prophets are higher than all non-prophets. To
say that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is higher than prophets means to
contradict the Qur’ân al-kerîm, which in turn is an act of kufr (disbelief). The other heavenly
books, (e.g. the Torah and the Bible,) were not in poetic form, and nor were
they memorized by anyone. As a matter of fact, Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was unable to answer three
questions he was asked about the Torah and waited for three days for Jebrâ’îl
(Gabriel) ‘alaihis-salâm’ to arrive with the answers. He spent the three days
in deep anguish, and so did all the Muslims around him. Finally, the Kahf sűra
was revealed and the answers proved to be in agreement with the facts in the
Torah. Hadrat Abű Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ and the Messenger of Allah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ were friends since their boyhood. They were
warm-hearted towards one another, and together most of the time. It is written
in books that neither of them ever tasted wine or worshipped idols. For
instance, the book Ma’al-il-faraj reports on the authority of Qâdî Abu-l-Hasan that Abű Hurayra
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ related: We were sitting in the presence of Rasűl-i-akram
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, when Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ said, “O
Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’! I swear by your right that
I never worshipped idols throughout my life.” Hadrat ’Umar warned, “Why do you
swear by the right of Rasűlullah? We led a life of nescience for so many long years.” Upon this
Hadrat Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ related, “My father Abű Quhâfa took
me to the place where the idols stood. ‘These are your creators. Prostrate
yourself before them,” he said. When he was gone, I said to an idol, ‘I am
hungry. Give me something to eat.’ It did not answer. I asked for water, and then
for clothes. No voice came out. I challenged, ‘I shall throw stones at you.
Stop me if you can!’
Silence, again. I threw stones at him. It fell flat on its face.
My father was surprised when he was back and saw all that. He took me back
home. My mother suggested that they should not say anything to me.” When Abű
Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ finished his words, the Messenger of Allah
‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “Jebrâ’îl ‘alaihi-salâm’ has
just come to me and said that Abű Bakr told the truth.”
Abű Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ sacrificed all his
property, his life, his children, and everything he had for his sake. The hadîth-i-sherîf that states, “Abű Bakr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ îmân is more than the sum of the îmâns of my entire Ummat,” would be sufficient in itself to prove that he was higher than
all the other Sahâbîs. In addition, there is many another hadîth-i-sherîf stating that he was the
highest of all. A few of them are quoted along with their documentary sources
in the (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye. Abű Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ never opposed Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wasallam’. In
fact, even his ijtihâds were in agreement with those of the Messenger of Allah.
Furthermore, (he was so deeply attached to Rasűlullah that) once he sincerely expressed his willingness to barter all
his acts of worship for one single mistake ever made by the Messenger of Allah.
The books of Ahl as-sunnat brim over with love and veneration for the
Ahl-i-bayt. His assailing the Ahl as-sunnat scholars with the accusation that
they “harbour enmity and grudge (against the Ahl-i-bayt)” reeks of the
treacherous and ignoble attempts to defame the Ahl as-sunnat which his book
bristles with. So many are the reports and passages laudatory of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’ in the books of Tafsîr and Hadîth written by the scholars of Ahl
as-sunnat that no Muslim can be imagined not to have heard at least one or two
of them. For instance, Abdullah ibni Abbas ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ reports: I
heard the Messenger of Allah state, “Love of Alî burns
a Muslim’s sins like fire’s burning (pieces of) wood.” Love of him entails correct
learning of his words and painstaking efforts to attain the personality
typified in his example.
6– He states in a page, “According to the Ahl as-sunnat, evils,
wrongdoings, disbelief and sins are in agreement with Allah’s qadâ and qadar
(foreordination, fate), although He does not approve of them. This belief is
like saying that a certain judge disapproves of his own decree. Those who say so
are
-117-
aware
of their own disbelief and they try to cover their own guilt by putting the
blame for disbelief on qadâ and qadar, which in turn is the devil’s madhhab.”
These statements betray his denial of qadâ and qadar.
Also, they contradict Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq by doing so. Distorting the âyat-i-kerîmas purporting that Allâhu ta’âlâ is the Creator of all, he
interprets them arbitrarily. However, the true meanings of those âyat-i-kerîmas are explained with such excellence
as will command the admiration of owners of wisdom in the tafsîr of Shaikhzâda
[Muhammad bin Shaikh Mustafâ], which is an annotation to (Qâdi) Baydâwî’s (book of tafsîr entitled Anwâr-ut-tanzîl).
He quotes (the imaginary concubine named) Husniyya as having said, “I stayed in
Imâm Abű Ja’far’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ home between the ages five and twenty. From
him did I acquire all this knowledge.” He begrimes the honourable name of that
great religious leader with his lies and disbelief for the purpose of smuggling
them into people’s credence. As a matter of fact, Imâm-i-Ja’far Sâdiq’s
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ statements on qadâ and qadar are quoted and explained in
minute detail in the (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye[1]. Furthermore, it is illogical of him
to say that it would be paradoxical for a judge to disapprove of his own
decree, in the matter of reconciling decree with approval. Naturally, it would
be paradoxical for a judge to disapprove of his fair and correct decree.
Likewise, it would be paradoxical for Allâhu ta’âlâ to disapprove of (people’s) obeying Him and doing good and
charitable deeds. In fact, He declares that He will approve of such acts. Yet,
how could a judge approve of a decree that he made under duress or by mistake
and which he, later, finds out to have been wrong? He would not approve of it
even if it was his own decree. Sirâj-ud-dîn Alî bin ’Uthmân Űshî, owner of the
fatwâs called the fatwâs of Sirâjiyya, states as follows in the third distich of the extremely valuable
qasîda entitled Amâlî: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has the Attribute ‘Hayât’, [that is, He is
alive]. He foreordains everything in the eternal past.” Several scholars wrote
annotations to this qasîda. Sayyid Ahmad Âsim Efendi, who translated the book
into Turkish, notes in his annotation, “Qadar means Allâhu ta’âlâ’s knowledge,
in the eternal past, of
---------------------------------
[1] Please see the thirty-fifth and fortieth chapters of the third fascicle of Endless Bliss.
all the future events. Qadâ means His showing this knowledge in
Lawh-il-Mahfűz.”[1] [Tayyibî], the annotator of Kashshâf, noted that “According to
some (scholars), ‘qadar’ means a ‘general commandment’, and ‘qadâ’ means ‘the
happening, one by one, of the events (stated in the general commandment)’. For
instance, [Every living being will die] is qadar. And death of every living
being is qadâ.” Shams-ad-dîn Mahműd bin Abdurrahmân Isfahânî, who wrote an
annotation to the book Tawâlî’, makes the following definition: “Qadar means the existence of
all things, en masse, in Lawh-il-Mahfűz. And qadâ means the creation of their
causes and them one by one when their (foreordained) times come.” Qadar means a
cellar-full of wheat, and qadâ is to dispense it piecemeal in certain
quantities. The words ‘qadar’ and ‘qadâ’ can be used for each other. Qadar:
(Ahmad becomes a Muslim of his own volition and using his own will power. And
Gregory prefers disbelief, which, also, is his own wish and predilection. There
is many an âyat showing this fact.) There is detailed information about qadâ
and qadar in the (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye. A person who reads the information with due attention will
easily detect the sly, tricky and hoodwinking sophistry which the Jewish author
engineers throughout the book (Husniyya). It would take no time for
connoisseurs of Tafsîr[2] to diagnose the unschooled and illogical inaptitude in the
interpretation of the âyats. Yet people who are unaware of Tafsîr and the
twenty main branches of Islamic sciences might be inveigled into taking the
book for granted under the influence of melodramatic expressions, such as “She
routed them, put them to shame, refuted them, outwitted them, proved them
false,” which abound in the book. Therefore, such mendacious and heretical
books, magazines and newspapers should not be read at all. Not to read them
means to protect yourself from becoming a disbeliever.
7– At one place he says, “At one time Shaikh Behlűl
[Behlűl Dânâ] said (to Imâm a’zam Abű Hanîfa): ‘O Abű Hanîfa! You say that man
does not have ihtiyâr (choice). An ass is wiser and
---------------------------------
[1] There is detailed information about Lawh-il-Mahfűz in the thirty-sixth chapter of the third fascicle of Endless Bliss.
[2] Islamic science dealing with the explanation of âyats of the Qur’ân al- kerîm.
more virtuous than you are. For it would not walk across an
impassable stream whatsoever you do to force it to!’ Ibrâhîm Khâlid was unable
to answer her. Hârűn Rashîd and Yahyâ Bermekî laughed.”
And, quoting the hadîth-i-sherîf stating that the group of Qadariyya are the fire-worshippers of
this Ummat, he adds, “The group of Qadariyya are people who commit sins and
then say that their sins were preordained in the eternal past by Allah. The
pre-Islamic Qouraishî polytheists were in the Jabriyya madhhab. Islam rescinded
that madhhab. But after the martyrdom of the Amîr-ul-mu’minîn Hadrat Alî,
during the reigns of Mu’âwiya and Yazîd, the ’alaihi-il-la’na[1], that madhhab reappeared and
survived as a cultural heritage for Muslims.” He tries to prove himself to be
right by offering preposterous arguments which give the impression of puerile
confabulations.
The scholars of Ahl as-sunnat have never said that man
does not have ihtiyâr (choice). According to them, the group of Jabriyya are
disbelievers. One should have never read books written by the scholars of Ahl
as-sunnat to believe the shameless slanders in the so-called book. Qadariyya is
another apellation for the sect of Mu’tazila. It can be concluded from the
so-called book that Shiites are in that sect, too. The sect of Mu’tazila can
also be called Qadariyya because they deny qadâ and qadar and say that man is
definitely able to do whatever he likes and creates his own actions. In other
words, those who deny qadar are the group of Qadariyya, and (the true Muslims)
who believe in qadar and qadâ are in the Madhhab of Ahl as-sunnat.
Muhammad bin Abdulkerîm Shihristânî states as follows in
his book Milal wa Nihâl: Wâsil bin Atâ, leader of the group Mu’tazila, and his followers
assert that “Man is the creator of his own optional actions. Allâhu ta’âlâ has to make the things that
are useful for His slaves. He has to reward the good and torment the evil.
Allah is one. He cannot have attributes additionally. The Qur’ân is composed of
letters, words and sounds, which, in their turn, are creatures and were created
afterwards. Man creates his own actions, good or evil. It is not something
right to say that Allâhu ta’âlâ creates evil, bad things, sins and disbelief. To say so means to
malign him. For he who
---------------------------------
[1] May he be accursed.
creates cruelty is cruel himself. And Allâhu ta’âlâ is not cruel.” These words of
theirs are wrong. The owner of an action is its agent, not its creator. As man
himself is a creature, likewise, his disbelief, belief, worship and
disobedience are creatures as well. The ninety-sixth âyat-i-kerîma of Sâffât sűra purports:
“Allâhu ta’âlâ has created you and your handiwork.” Imâm Baydâwî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, a scholar of Ahl as-sunnat,
explains the âyat as follows: “The actions you do and the things you make are
man’s handiwork. Yet Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, gives you energy to act and creates the causes of your
work.” Because the group Qadariyya have held the belief that everyone is the
creator of his own handiwork, they have become the fire-worshippers of this
Ummat. The Sunnî Muslims say that there is one creator. Fire-worshippers say
that there are two creators.
The Arabic book Ikd-ul-jawharî, by Mawlânâ Khâlid Baghdâdî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, contains
detailed explanations about irâda-i-juz’iyya (limited will, man’s will).
Abdulhamîd Harpűtî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ wrote an annotation to the book and
entitled his annotation Sim tul’abqarî. The annotation was published in Istanbul in 1305 [1888 A.D.].
Also, Mawlânâ’s[1] booklet Irâda-i-juz’iyya was published by offset litho as an appendix to the book Rashahât in Istanbul in 1291 [1874
A.D.], during the period when Safwat Pâsha was Minister of Education. The ninth
letter in the book Bughyat-ul-wâjid is a lithographic copy of that booklet. It is stated as follows in
the booklet:
May hamd (praise and gratitude) be to Allâhu ta’âlâ, who created the earth and
heaven, human beings and animals, and all their works and actions from nothing.
When Allâhu ta’âlâ wills to create
something, he says, “Be!” and presently that
---------------------------------
[1] Mawlânâ Khâlid Baghdâdî ‘rahmatullâhi
’aleyh’ (1192, Zűr-1242 [1826 A.D.], Damascus).
May blessings, salvations and goodnesses be upon Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’, our master and superior and best of the people living in hair
tents and in buildings made of sun-dried bricks, (i.e. all people,) and upon
his Âl (family, household), upon his relatives, and upon his Ashâb!
O you Muslim! May Allâhu ta’âlâ increase
your mental capacity! May He bless you with the lot of following the right
path! You must know that all groups of Muslims, and also most philosophers and
non-Muslims have acknowledged the fact that Allâhu
ta’âlâ, alone, is the one and only power that moves and effects every
being, everything, aside from the movements of animals. It is doubtless that He
is the creator also of the movements of animals and human beings. In other
words, Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, creates all their
movements, both the conscious ones, [i.e. those which they are aware of,] such
as illness, wealth, sleep and awakenness, and the unconscious ones, [i.e. those
they are unaware of,] such as growing and digesting the food consumed, which
are not dependent upon their will and option. As for the optional movements of
animals and human beings, i.e. their actions which they do by using their will
and choice; there are different views concerning these movements. According to
the group Jabriyya, for instance, there is only one source of power effective
in the optional movements: Allâhu ta’âlâ. They say that man’s power has no
function at all. Also, Abul-Hasan Alî Ash’arî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ, who is one
of our imâms in credal matters, says that they are dependent only upon Allâhu
ta’âlâ’s power and that man’s power has no function in them. The group
Mu’tazila, on the other hand, maintain that the so-called movements come into
existence only out of man’s power and option, while in the view of philosophers
they happen from man’s power and yet man has to do them. Abdulmalîk Juwaynî
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, who has been known as the Imâm of Haramayn, is
wrongly said to have held the same view. As a matter of fact, this jaundiced
information is belied by the sagacious scholar Muhammad bin Yűsuf Sinnűsî
‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in his book Umm-ul-barâhîn,
and by Sa’duddîn Teftâzânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ [722-792, Semmerkand], in Sharh-i-makâsid. The great scholar Ibrâhîm bin
Muhammad Isfarâinî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of our masters in credal
matters, states that those
movements
are dependent both upon the power of Allâhu ta’âlâ and
upon the slave’s power. According to Qâdî Abű Bakr Bâqillânî ‘rahimahullâhu
ta’âlâ’, however, the only power effective in the creation of such movements is Allâhu ta’âlâ, and that man’s power is effective only
in the nature of the movements, i.e. in their being good or evil. That the Imâm
of our Madhhab in credal matters, Muhammad bin Mahműd Abű Mansűr Mâturîdî
‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, held the same view, is acknowledged by Kemâladdîn
Muhammad ibn-ul-humâm ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in Al-musâyara;
by Kemâladdîn Muhammad ibn Abű Sherîf-i-qudsî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in Al-musâmara fî sharh-il-musâyara; by Hasan
Chalabi (Çelebi) bin Muhammad Shâh ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, -who was a
descendant of Molla Ghurânî-, in his annotation entitled Sharh-i-mawâqif; and by the research scholar
Gelenbevî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in Aqâid-ud-dawwâniyya.
Imâm Birgivî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a Sunnî scholar,
explains the true meanings which the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat derived from the
Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs in a splendid, concise and
clear style in his Turkish book Birgivî
Vasiyyetnâmesi. Qâdî-zâda (Ahmad Amîn bin Abdullah)
‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ makes the following explanation in the twenty-fourth page
of his commentary to the book:
Allâhu ta’âlâ is Murîd. In other words, He has the Attribute Irâda
(Will). He creates whatever He wishes. He creates whatever He wills to exist.
And whatever He does not will to exist, does not exist. It is not necessary for
him to make anything. He cannot be forced to do something. For Allâhu ta’âlâ is powerful over all. No one can have
power over Him. He never is incapable. Everything comes into existence out of
His Will. Goodness such as îmân and obedience (to His commandments), as well as
evils such as disbelief and disobedience, all come into existence out of His
Will. According to the group Mu’tazila, “Allâhu ta’âlâ does not will, and so He
does not create, evils and sins. These things are created by human beings and
by the devil. For it would be an evil deed to create evils. And Allâhu ta’âlâ will never do an evil deed.” The
(scholars of) Ahl as-sunnat answer them as follows: “It is not an evil deed to
create evils. It is an evil deed for men to do evils.” The group Mu’tazila put
forward the argument that “If Allâhu ta’âlâ willed
and foreordained evils and disbelief, men would
have
to acquiesce in disbelief and evils. For it is necessary to acquiesce in qadâ.”
The Ahl as-sunnat scholars answer them: “Disbelief itself is not Allâhu
ta’âlâ’s qadâ or qadar. It is His maqdî. That is, it is something made qadâ. It
is necessary to acquiesce in His qadâ. Yet it is not necessary to acquiesce in
the maqdî. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that He is the
creator and foreordainer of all, and that, yet, He does not approve of
disbelief.” The group Mu’tazila argue that “If Allâhu
ta’âlâ willed the perpetration of evils, evil practices, disobedience
(to His commandments) and disbelief would be blessed and rewarded (in the
Hereafter). For these things would mean to do what He willed. To do His will
means to obey His command.” And the Sunnî answer is as follows: “Obedience that
deserves rewards and blessings (thawâb) is only obedience to His commandments.
And it is not obedience to do what He willed.”
Abduljabbâr Hemedânî, who was Qâdî of the city of Ray and
a scholar in the group Mu’tazila, visited the vizier Sâhib bin Ibâd in his
office. Abű Ishâq Isfarâînî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a Sunnî scholar, happened
to be there. The following conversation took place between the two scholars:
Abd. – Allâhu ta’âlâ does not will evils and sins.
He does not like them and does not create them. These things are created by
evil people and by the devil.
Abű Ishâq – All the good
things as well as the evil ones are created by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Only what He
wills comes into existence in His property.
Abd. – Would our Rabb (Allah)
ever will disobedience to Himself.
Abű Ishâq – Could the
slaves ever be disobedient to Him if Allâhu ta’âlâ did not will and create (their disobedience)? The slaves (men) use
their irâda-i-juz’iyya and wish to commit sins and evils. And Haqq ta’âlâ
creates their wishes, if He wills to do so.
Abd. – If Allâhu ta’âlâ did not will hidâyat
(guidance) for a person, and if He decreed and foreordained that that person
would do evils, would He be doing good to him or harming him?
Abű Ishâq – He would be
harming him if He did not will to give him his right. However, not to will to
take His own right would not mean to harm the slave. He will reward for the tiniest
goodness done. Nobody’s good deeds will be left unpaid for.
He will forgive most of the wrongdoers, except for (people guilty
of) disbelief. As for the question why He wills (and creates) disbelief; Allâhu ta’âlâ has knowledge. He knows everything
that will happen in the future. He is Hakîm; whatsoever He does and makes, it
is always the best that can ever be (done and made). It depends only and only
on His will to bless any of His slaves with His Compassion by guiding him (or
her) to the true way of salvation. He does not have to do or make anything. As
a matter of fact, the eighth âyat-i-kerîma of Fâtir sűra of the Qur’ân al-kerîm purports:
“... For Allâhu ta’âlâ
leaves to stray
whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. ...”
(35-8)
In other words, He creates good and evil upon the slave’s will and option. The
slave’s will is the cause, the means for the creation. When Believers will îmân
and obedience by using their irâda-i-juz’iyya, Allâhu
ta’âlâ also wills them and creates them. If Allâhu ta’âlâ did not will them, too, no
one would be a Believer or an obedient Muslim. On the other hand, when a
disbeliever wills disbelief and a sinner wills wrongdoing, He creates those
evils if He, too, wills them. No one could be a disbeliever or a sinner if He
did not will their evil deeds.
Nothing comes into existence upon only the slave’s will.
Its creation takes place when Allâhu ta’âlâ, also, wills it. Allâhu ta’âlâ wills and creates evils and iniquities as well. Yet He does not
like them and does not approve of them. As for goodnesses; He both wills them
and likes them and approves of them. A fly cannot move its wings unless Allâhu ta’âlâ wills it to do so. All the
goodnesses and evils that men do come into existence with His Will. When the
slave wants to do something, it does not take place if He does not will it,
too. It takes place if He, too, wills it. Something He does not will to exist,
does not exist. If it existed after all, it would mean some drawback in His
power. Allâhu ta’âlâ is omnipotent.
All human beings and genies would be obedient Believers if He willed them to be
so. Conversely, they would all be disbelievers if He willed them to be so.
Question: Everything comes into
existence with His Will. He has willed the disbelief of disbelievers. They
cannot stand against His Will. Therefore, they have been forced to be
disbelievers. To command them to be Believers would mean to command something
impossible. Why doesn’t He will them to be Believers while commanding them to
be Believers? Since
He
commands everybody to be Believers, why doesn’t He will everybody to be
Believers?
Answer: Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Deeds
cannot be disapproved of or questioned. Allâhu ta’âlâ knew in the eternal past all the things that would (and will) take
place in the future. His Knowledge is dependent upon the things that will
happen. In other words, He knew them as they would happen. He knew them as such
because they would be so; they do not have to be so because He knew that they
would be so. So, Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Will is in agreement with His Knowledge. And
His Attributes Power and Creativeness also are in agreement with His Will.
The slaves have irâda-i-juz’iyya, i.e. choice and wish.
They may wish or not wish to do something. Abű Mansűr Mâturîdî ‘rahimahullâhu
ta’âlâ’, one of the two imâms (leaders) of Ahl as-sunnat, states that
irâda-i-juz’iyya is not a distinct being by itself. It is not a self-standing
existence. It has no relation with the Divine Power (of Allâhu ta’âlâ). Allâhu ta’âlâ knew in eternity that so and
so would wish to commit a certain sin (at a certain time). When (the time comes
and) that person wishes to commit that sin, Allâhu ta’âlâ also wills and creates it, and thereby the sin takes place. Man’s
will is the cause of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s qadâ, decree and creating.
There are three kinds of things that men are unable to do:
1– Things that are themselves impossible to do. An example
of them is to make two objects occupy the same space at the same time. A bottle
cannot be refilled before the liquid it already contains is poured out.
2– Things that are naturally possible themselves, and yet
pragmatically impossible for men to do. An example of them is to lift a
mountain.
3– Things that are possible to do. However, men do not do
them because Allâhu ta’âlâ knew (in the eternal past) that they would not do them. Allâhu ta’âlâ does not command the first
and second kinds of things. Yet He commands the third kind. For instance, He
commanded Abű Jahl to be a Believer although He knew in the eternal past that
he would not be a Believer, and although He willed his disbelief.
As is seen, man has the choice to do or not to do
something, and he does whatever he chooses to do. This choice of the slave’s
causes Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Will and creation. When the slave
wishes to do something good, He wills and creates it. When the
slave wills to commit an evil, He, too, wills it, and creates the evil. He does
not force anyone to be a disbeliever or to commit sins.
It is Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Divine Law of Causation to create
everything through causes. Likewise, He has made man’s will a cause for
creating his good and evil deeds. He has sent Prophets ‘alaihim-us-salâm’ to
men to teach them îmân and the ways of doing good deeds and deserving thawâb
(rewards, blessings in the Hereafter). He has commanded them to have îmân and
to perform the acts of worship and good deeds, (which are taught in the books
written by the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat). He has prohibited them from
disbelief and from committing sins and evil deeds. He has given them wisdom,
and has enjoined these responsibilities on owners of wisdom.
Allâhu ta’âlâ creates whatsoever He wills. Everything He creates has
infinite uses. That is, He is Hakîm. The human mind cannot comprehend these
facts. Mind can assess and comprehend only things it has been familiarized with
and things perceived through the sense organs. There are innumerable ultimate
divine causes and uses in His creating the disbelievers, giving them long
lifespans, abundant food, high ranks and positions, and willing that they abide
by their disbelief and commit evil deeds; in His creating snakes, swine and
poisons; [in His creating sources of destructive energy that are fatal to
mankind and ruinous to countries; in His placing stupendously great energy that
can annihilate biggest cities in the unimaginably small nucleus of an atom,
itself already imperceptibly tiny; in His creating kinds of energy such as
light, electricity, magnetism and chemistry; and in His formulating laws and
orders in substances, forces and organisms, most of which still remain unsolved
and unknown despite all the studies and research carried on under various
subjects such as physics, chemistry and biology.] It is a base and inferior
deed to make something useless. Everything Allâhu
ta’âlâ creates has various uses. His Will, which is one of His eight
Attributes, is eternal, i.e. it always existed. Both He Himself and His eight
Attributes existed in the eternal past. They are not beings that came into
existence afterwards. The heretics called Kerrâmiyya, a sub-group in the group
Mushabbiha, asserted that the Divine Attribute ‘Will’ was not eternal, it was
an attribute
that
came into being afterwards. This assertion caused them to become disbelievers.
A person who denies the fact that the eight Attributes are eternal, and asserts
for instance that one of the Attributes came into existence afterwards, becomes
a disbeliever (kâfir).
Allâhu ta’âlâ creates everything through His Attribute
Tekwîn, which means to create. He, alone, is the creator of all classes of
beings on the earth and in heaven, all substances, objects, peculiarities,
events, forces, laws and relations. No other creator exists. No other being can
be called ‘creater’, and no other person can be said to have ‘created’ something.
An âyat-i-kerîma in the Qur’ân al-kerîm purports that “Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, created all.” The
blessed meaning of another âyat-i-kerîma is: “He, alone, is the Creator and the
Commander.” An âyat-i-kerîma in the Yâsin sűra purports,
“... For He
is the Creator Supreme, of skill and knowledge (infinite).” (36-81) He, alone, creates animals that live on land, in water and
in air, [microbes, electrons around (the nuclei of) atoms, molecules, ions],
men, angels and genies, all beings and their movements, deeds, pauses, acts of
worship, sins, good deeds, harms, disbeliefs and beliefs. The group Mu’tazila
say, “The slaves create their own good deeds. Haqq ta’âlâ has given the slaves
such great power as they can create their own deeds. This is the case with
animals as well.” They are wrong.
Men and animals wish to do something by using their irâda-i-juz’iyya.
This wish is called kasb (acquiring,
acquisition). Allâhu ta’âlâ creates that act if
He wills to do so. The slave cannot create anything. We, [i.e. Qâdîzâda Ahmad
Efendi,] explained this fact in detail in our booklet Irâda-i-juz’iyya. He, alone, creates the
movements of hands and feet, the speech of a tongue, the opening and closing of
eyes. He, alone, creates the movements of flies, insects, microbes, stars and
winds, [and their vibrations, and electrical attractions and repulsions,
gravitations, lifting forces of liquids and gasses]. He, alone, creates and
sends sustenance (rizq) for men, animals and genies and for our souls. Food
that we consume is our sustenance, whether it reaches us through (ways and
means which Islam countenances and which are termed) halâl or through
(religiously illegal ways which Islam terms) harâm. According to the group
Mu’tazila, food that reaches a person through harâm is not rizq (sustenance).
They are wrong in this,
too.
Life of a living being does not come to an end before the sustenance assigned
for it (by Allâhu ta’âlâ in the eternal past) is
finished; i.e. it does not die as long as it has sustenance to consume. No one can
consume some other person’s sustenance. Acts of worship do not increase a
person’s sustenance, yet they add barakat[1]
to it. Allâhu ta’âlâ foreordained and allotted
everybody’s sustenance in the eternal past. Its amount does not increase or
decrease. He, alone, kills the living, gives life to the dead, makes the
healthy ill, and makes the ill healthy. Microbes, doctors, and Azrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’
(the Angel of Death) are all causes and means. When they take effect, it is Him
who creates and gives them the effect. He, alone, creates the burning effect in
fire, the cooling effect in snow, [heat, light, and electrolysis in
electricity]. Fire, snow and electricity are the apparent causes. They are the
means and conditions which Allâhu ta’âlâ has
made causes for His creating. [He, alone, creates our sense organs as well as
the sensory powers they enjoy; the events of nutrition, reproduction,
excretion, oxidation and osmosis in cells; the heart, blood, the functions of
the circulatory system and other tissues, organs and systems, and the order
whereby they interact. Communists, heathens and miscreants and] heretics, [who
have existed since very old times,] say that every substance and every force
have their own properties whereby they effect and that fire, for instance, has
burning properties whereby it always burns. They are quite wrong. In fact,
according to the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat, the effects that the causes appear
to possess are not their essential properties. It is His Divine Law of
Causation to create the effects and functions in the causes as soon as He
creates the causes themselves. Fire will never be able to burn if He does not
create its burning property and it will not burn a person who falls into it
unless He wills it to do so. Substances do not have any properties in their
essence. Haqq ta’âlâ creates the properties of
substances and the effects and functions in the causes. He does not create the
so-called properties and effects if He does not will to do so. He would have
created heat in snow and
---------------------------------
[1] Lexically, barakat means abundance,
blessing, fruitfullness. When something has barakat, it is somehow more
nutricious and more healthful than it would have been otherwise, although
barakat does not materially add to its amount.
coldness in fire if He had willed to do so. He, alone, creates the
cutting effect on the sword, the piercing power displayed through a bullet, and
the fatality that poison seems to exercise. He creates the drowning of a person
who falls into deep water. He would not drown him, and on the contrary, he
would, for instance, become healthier, if He willed so. He, alone, creates a
bird’s and an aircraft’s flying, [the air’s power to lift as well as the
various types of friction]. He could as well not create such properties and
forces and not make them fly. He creates diseases and various faculties in
various medicines. Ibrâhîm (Abraham) ‘alaihis-salâm’ sat on Nimrod’s fire, and
it did not burn him at all. It would have burned him if it had been the fire’s
essential property to burn. It is not the fire itself that makes the burning. Allâhu ta’âlâ makes it burn. Allâhu ta’âlâ creates the properties and
functions He wills in substances. The deed that He creates comes into existence
through the substances. However, the ultimate Divine Habit of Allâhu ta’âlâ is such that He has given
certain different properties and effects to every substance. He has made
different substances causes and means for the changes in one another. He
creates wheat from grains of wheat, and barley from seeds of barley. He creates
man from man and animals from their own genera. [He creates plague from plague
bacilli and meningitis from meningoceles. In different substances He creates
different interchanges of electrons between their atoms, different
radioactivities and different reactions in their nuclei.] He creates satiation
with food. If He had not created satiation, we would not feel satiated after
eating tons of food. If He had not created thirst we would not feel thirsty
even if we did not drink any water.
There is no other creator besides Him. He is the creator of the entire
existence. He makes substances move. He changes their places. He takes them
from one time to another. He converts them from one state into another. He
creates things that the minds of mankind marvel at. From a drop of semen and
infinitesimally small spermatozoa He creates a mature man. [From a great Prophet such as Nűh (Noah) ‘alaihis-salâm’ He creates
a disobedient, atheistic and asinine son named Canaan. From a stone-hearted and
narrow-minded unbeliever like Abű Jahl He creates a faithful son, the Believer
named Ikrima. He creates disbelief in the heart of a base unbeliever who
announces and advertises His existence and Will and the
greatness
of His power with the perfectly systematic structures, properties and movements
of his hands, tongue and all the motes of his body. He creates such people’s
attacking the religion in such fury as they unleash all their forces based on
diction, penmanship, rank and wealth. He makes His own creature His enemy. He
creates a talent, a force called ‘heart’ in the human heart, which He sometimes
illuminates, purifies and makes a mirror reflecting His existence, and
sometimes a blackened rubbish heap emitting disbelief and iniquity.] He creates
a nuclear energy powerful enough to blow up a mountain, in the depth of the
nucleus of an atom, which cannot be seen even with a microscope. He creates
sugar in the beet; the power of assimilation termed photosynthesis in the leaves;
honey in the bee; countless grains of wheat from one grain; a living animal
from the lifeless egg; fragrance from the flower; leaves, flowers and fruits
from a dry tree; animals, flowers and trees in water; and soft water in hard
water. [He creates chemical reactions and many physical and chemical
properties. He converts the soil into plants, and plants into animals. He
decomposes human beings and animals and converts them into earthen substances,
liquids and gasses. He creates the opposite of everything, reversible
reactions, and even from them, other reversals. He creates everything in a
perfectly calculated order in this factory of the universe. Day by day, it is
being realized better under the lights of science that all the apparently
destructive and ruinous changes are in actual fact created with very well
calculated and utterly harmonious relations and in an amazingly perfect order.]
8– He says, “When the Messenger of Allah was requested to
define the Firqa-i-nâjiyya, i.e. the only group of Muslims who will be saved
from going to Hell, of all the seventy-three groups; he stated: My Ahl-i-bayt
are like Nűh’s Arch. He who gets on board will be saved.”
The fact, however, is that this statement (of the Prophet’s) was made at another time. The
blessed Prophet’s answer to the question
mentioned above is quoted in (the authentic Islamic) books as, “The Firqa-i-nâjiyya are those who follow me and my Sahâba.” He is shameless enough to make changes even in hadîth-i-sherîfs. Muslims who hold the true
îmân and follow the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’
and the Ashâb-i-kirâm, are called Ahl as-sunnat
wa-l-jamâ’at.
9– He makes a mockery of himself as follows: “All the
Sahâba were neither Mu’tazilî, nor Shâfi’î, nor Mâlikî, nor Hanafî, nor
Hanbalî. The group of salvation are those who follow the Messenger of Allah and
the Ahl-i-bayt. He who is not in the path guided by the Ahl-i-bayt will not be
saved.” With these words he tries to make others believe that he holds the same
belief as did the Ahl-i-bayt.
The truth is that the belief held by the Ahl-i-bayt
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ was the belief held by Hadrat Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, who in his turn shared the same belief with the rest of
the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. And this belief is the
very belief taught by the Messenger of Allâh ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’.
Thousands of Sunnî scholars gathered the tenets of this belief and wrote them
in their books along with the documents and sources of each and every one of
them. A group of people far below the grade of ijtihâd and without any
expertise in the Islamic sciences derived wrong meanings from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs, called their concoctions
and absurdities the ‘madhhab of Ahl-i-bayt’, and tried to make others believe
them. Enemies of Islam incited this fitna and wrote books insidiously. Imâm
a’zam Abű Hanîfa learned most of his knowledge from his master, Imâm Ja’far
Sâdiq, who was a very much beloved member of the Ahl-i-bayt, and conveyed his
learnings to his disciples. Then, ‘Alevî’ (Alawî), which means a follower of Imâm Alî and a member of the
madhhab of Ahl-i-bayt, is synonymous with ‘Sunnî’. Therefore, the group with
whom the attribute ‘Alawî’ would go appropriately are the Sunnî Muslims. People
who live in Irân, Syria and Iraq and call themselves Alawîs today are not Alawîs at all.
The following observations are made in the six hundred and seventh
page of the book Mawdű-ât-ul-’ulűm: All
the Ashâb-i-kirâm held the same credal tenets. For they had had the honour of
attending the sohbat of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
and serving him. Under the edification of that sohbat, they had completely
liberated themselves from the shackles of mistrust. They had developed full
understanding of the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs and a perfect and unshakable belief
in the truth revealed in these most authentic sources. No sooner had the last
members of the Ashâb-i-kirâm migrated from the world to the Hereafter than
ignorant people
began
to appear here and there and write duplicitous books which were merely heaps of
platitudes reflecting their personal sensuous indulgences. With time these
blind adventurers lost their way for good and misled many others as well.
Bid’ats and heresies began to spread far and wide. Muslims parted into
seventy-three groups. A group of scholars protected themselves from all the
eccentricities they were being tempted into, survived the devil’s persistent
efforts to misguide them, and managed to abide by the path led by the
Ashâb-i-kirâm. The people of this right path were called Ahl as-sunnat. The
scholars of (this lucky group called) Ahl as-sunnat parted into various
Madhhabs in matters pertaining to acts of worship, personal behaviours and
social transactions. Four of these Madhhabs have reached our time intact so as
to be correctly learned from books. These Madhhabs are Hanafî, Shâfi’î,
Mâlikî, and Hanbalî.
No other true Madhhab exists any longer. It is a fruit of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s
compassion (over Muslims) that the group of Ahl as-sunnat parted into different
Madhhabs. The hundred and fifth âyat-i-kerîma of
Âl-i-’Imrân sűra purports: “Be not like those who
are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving clear
signs: ...” (3-105) Baydâwî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ explains this âyat-i-kerîma as follows: “Jews and Christians had
been informed of the true path whereon on they were to be united, along with
clear evidences and authentic documentary sources. Yet they could not
understand the unity of Allâhu ta’âlâ, that He
is unlike His creatures, and many other facts about the Hereafter. They passed
various provisional judgements about them. O Muslims! Be not like them, and do
not part into sects like them!” This âyat-i-kerîma
proscribes disunity on tenets of belief. It does not prohibit parting into
Madhhabs in the teachings of fiqh or in the technicalities pertaining to acts
of worship. For Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi
wa sallam’ stated, “It is rahmat-i-ilâhî (compassion
of Allâhu ta’âlâ) for my Ummat to part into groups [in
the knowledge of fiqh].” Another hadîth-i-sherîf
reads as follows: “A mujtahid is given two
blessings (thawâb) if his ijtihâd turns
out to be correct. However, if he is mistaken in his ijtihâd he will still be
rewarded with one blessing.”
10– He writes as follows: “The âyat-i-kerîma
telling about Abű Bakr’s having been together (with the Messenger of Allah)
is a
sign showing his belieflessness and infamy, rather than his virtue. That night
Jebrâîl came down and said, ‘The unbelievers have reached a unanimous decision
on your murder tonight. Tell all your Sahâba not to go out of their homes
tonight. Go to the (so-called) cave, alone.’ So, Hadrat Messenger convened the
Sahâba towards sunset and told them about the commandment. That night Hadrat
Alî, despite his child age, fearlessly took the Prophet’s
place in his bed. As Rasűlullah was on his way
to the cave, he saw someone approaching from the distance. He stopped and
waited. When that person came near him, he saw that it was Abű Bakr. Presently
the Prophet asked him why he was out despite
Allah’s commandment. The latter’s answer was: ‘O Messenger of Allah! I was
anxious about you. I could not leave you alone and sit at home.’ Jebrâîl came
and warned: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Do not leave Abű Bakr! If the unbelievers
come here and catch Abű Bakr, they will follow you, find you, and kill you.’
Reluctantly, Hadrat Messenger took Abű Bakr along to the cave. For Hadrat
Messenger did not feel safe against the unbelievers and against Abű Bakr. Haqq
ta’âlâ had informed him that the unbelievers and Abű Bakr were going to
conspire against him, that Abű Bakr meant harm, and that they were ‘saying
things that were not in their hearts.’ There are many âyats informing about
their conspiracies. The Messenger of Allah did not need companions or comrades.
The âyat, ‘He (Allah) hath reinforced thee with soldiers that thou dost not
see,’ proves this fact. Abű Bakr did not join any of the holy wars and somehow
deserted from all of them. There are many âyats exemplifying friendships
between Believers and unbelievers. The Arabic language teems with examples
wherein the word ‘sâhib = companion’ is used to describe a donkey’s keeping
company with a man. Then, Abű Bakr’s having been called ‘sâhib = companion’
should not be construed as a sign of virtue that he was in possession of. If
the anxiety he felt in the cave had been on behalf of the Messenger of Allah,
then it would have been an act of worship. In that case, to tell him not to be
anxious would in effect have meant to prevent an act of worship, which, in its
turn, is not something that the Messenger of Allah could be imagined to have
done. If his anxiety proceeded from sinfulness, then he did not have belief in
the Prophet of Allâhu ta’âlâ. In that case, what
use could there have been for him in that companionship? And it would have been
useless to tell him not to be anxious. Preventing a sinful act is,
on
the other hand, something the Messenger of Allah normally should have done. The
Messenger had told him, before, that he, (the Prophet,
that is,) would be permanently protected against enemies. Abű Bakr did not have
confidence in that (divine assurance). It would not be incorrect to say that
his wailing and crying served no purpose unless it was intended to betray
(their hiding place) to the unbelievers. If he had had îmân, Allâhu ta’âlâ would have protected him against the
biting of the snake. Nor could the Prophet’s
consolatory remark, ‘Allah is with us,’ considered to have reflected any credit
on him. Otherwise, the âyat, ‘When three people talk secretly among themselves, Allâhu ta’âlâ is the fourth’, would necessarily
connote that disbelievers who talked secretly were to be held dear. This
âyat-i-sherîfa shows clearly that Abű Bakr was a base person and did not at all
have îmân. The âyat-i-kerîma (that describes the
event) says, ‘I gave him serenity and ease of heart.’ It does not say, ‘I gave
them... .’ This shows that he (Abű Bakr) did not have îmân. Sinners and
wrongdoers of this sort, and even people who were worse than unbelievers are
held higher and better than the innocent members of the Prophet’s family. Such preferences show that the Muhâjirs are those
who migrated (to Medina) after the Prophet did.
Those who migrated with him or after him should not be called Muhâjirs.”
The fact, however, is quite the other way round. The fortieth âyat-i-kerîma of Tawba sűra, which relates (Hadrat Abű
Bakr’s) companionship (with the Messenger of Allah) in the cave, is a clear
sign signifying the high virtue and honour of Hadrat Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’. For, that night Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ came down with the news, “The unbelievers have decided to kill you tonight,”
and said, “Tonight, tell Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’ to lie in your bed, and migrate to
Medîna-i-munawwara, taking Abű Bakr as-Siddîq along!” His assertion
that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was only a child, is untrue, too. He was
twenty-three years old. Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ said, “If I had a thousand
lives in my body, I would sacrifice all of them for the sake of following you,”
and presently took the Prophet’s place in his
bed. On the night between the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh days of the
blessed month of Safer, a night between Wednesday and Thursday, Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ went out of
his house, recited the initial twelve âyat-i-kerîmas
of Yasîn sűra, breathed them on the unbelievers
standing
along the street, walked quickly past them, and went to a place. At noon time
he honoured Hadrat Abű Bakr Siddîq’s place. The blessed arrival was reported to
Hadrat Abű Bakr. As soon as he saw Rasűlullah’s
beautiful face, which appeared at the door like the rising of a full moon, he
exclaimed with joyous surprise, “Please do come in, o Messenger of Allah! Let
us be honoured with your orders!” The blessed Prophet
went in, honouring the place with his presence, and stated, “I have been commanded to migrate to Medina tonight.”
Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ suggested, “Could I come along and be honoured
with your service?” When the blessed Prophet
said, “You will be going, too,” Hadrat
Abű Bakr was very happy. And when the Prophet
stated, “I need a camel for the migration,”
he said, “I would sacrifice all my property, my life and my children for you. I
have two camels. Please choose one of them as a gift from me.” The Prophet’s answer was: “I
have always accepted your presents, and I shall go on doing so. But I would
like to use my own property for tonight’s worship of migration. Sell me one of
your camels!” Presently he paid for it, and ordered Abű Bakr to send
for a certain person, namely Abdullah bin Urayqit, and hire him as their guide.
Hadrat Abű Bakr did as he was told, and the Prophet
entrusted the two camels to the newly hired guide’s care, telling him to herd
the two camels to the cave on mount Sawr three days later (and that they would
be awaiting him there). Then he said to Abű Bakr’s son Abdullah, “Every night, come to the cave (where we will be
hiding) with intelligence on what is going on in
Mekka.” Abű Bakr Siddîq’s daughter, Asmâ, prepared them food enough
to last for three days. Because she could not find any string to tie up the
parcel, she used her own sash, which she undid, cut into two lengthwise, and
wrapped around the parcel. So she has been known with the nickname ‘Asmâ of two
sashes’ ever since. When Abű Bakr Siddîq opened the (front) door for them to go
out, the blessed Prophet warned, “Close the door. We will use the window facing the back.”
They jumped out through the window lest there should be any track left behind
them. When they reached before the cave, Abű Bakr implored, “Please do wait, O
Messenger of Allah! Let me go in first. There may be something harmful and your
blessed body may be hurt.” He entered the cave, cleaned inside it, took off his
shirt, tore it into pieces,
plugged
the holes, and invited the Best of Mankind, saying, “Please come in, O
Messenger of Allah!” The Master of Mankind and the Darling of Allâhu ta’âlâ ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’
honoured the dark cave with his presence. On an occasion later, Abű Bakr Siddîq
related the event as follows: “When he entered the cave, I saw blood on his
blessed feet. I wept. I knew then that he was not accustomed to walking barefoot.”
[After spending three nights in the cave, they went out on
Monday night, (i.e. on the night between Sunday and Monday). They came to the
Kubâ village of Medina on Monday, which was the twentieth of September and the
eighth of the Arabic month Rabî’ul-awwal. That day became Muslims’ Hijrî[1]-Shamsî[2] new year’s day. The six hundred and twenty-third (623) Mîlâdî[3] new year’s day took place within the first hijrî shamsî and
qamarî (lunar) year.]
As is seen, in order to vilify Abű Bakr Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’, he gives a false account of the events during the Hegira, and laces his
fiction with a pathetic bouquet by adding the lie that Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
was only a child when he took the Prophet’s place in his bed. For achieving his aim of maligning the Sahâba
he shows no hesitation as to the sordid methods to be used, including false
interpretation of âyat-i-kerîmas, fabrication of bogus hadîth-i-sherîfs, and denial of sahîh hadîth-i-sherîfs. He is immoral enough to misrepresent the âyat-i-kerîmas that were intended for unbelievers
and hypocrites and to interpret them in such a manner as if they had been
revealed to castigate Hadrat Abű Bakr Siddîq and the Sahâba ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’.
As a matter of fact, the eleventh âyat-i-kerîma of Fat-h sűra purports:
“Those who lagged
behind and deserted from the Jihâd will say: We were engaged in (looking after)
our flocks and herds and our families:... They say with their tongues what is
not in their hearts. ...” (48-11) He inverts this âyat-i-kerîma into a sheer vilification of Hadrat
Abű Bakr. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam’ foretold the appearing of heretics in his various hadîth-i-sherîfs. He stated in one of those hadîth-i-sherîfs: “Of all those people who carry Muslim
---------------------------------
[1] Reckoned from the blessed Prophet’s migration to Medina.
[2] Solar.
[3] Reckoned from the time supposed to be Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ birth-time.
names, the person I fear most is he who changes the meanings in
the Qur’ân al-kerîm.” On another
occasion he stated: “They will be taxing the Muslims with (the iniquities censured in) the âyat-i-kerîmas which were intended for (censuring) the disbelievers.” It is written in all the literature of siyar[1] as well as in
books of Tafsîr (explanation of the Qur’ân al-kerîm) that Abű Bakr Siddîq and ’Umar Fârűq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’
joined all the Holy Wars, including Badr, Uhud, Hendek (Trench), Conquest of
Mekka, Hunayn, and Tabuk, and that they always kept around him (in order to
learn from him and to protect him against danger) like moths hovering around a
bright light.
Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was commander of some of the
military expeditions. For instance, a company under his leadership was sent
onto the tribe of Fezâra in the blessed month of Sha’bân in the seventh year of
the Hegira. He went there, slew some of the unbelievers, took others captive
and brought them to Medina.
An important example is given in the following passage
which we borrowed from the book Manâqib-i-Chihâryâr: During the Holy War of Badr, on the seventeenth day of
Ramadân-i-sherîf, Friday, under the sweltering heat of a July noon the two
armies attacked each other. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wasallam’, Abű Bakr, ’Umar, Abű Zer, Sa’d
and Sa’îd ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ were seated at the commanding post. The Muslim
soldiers were in trouble. The blessed Prophet sent Sa’d and Sa’îd for help. He sent Abű Zer next, and he was
followed by ’Umar. An hour later, Abű Bakr saw that there was no decrease in
the trouble, drew his sword, and was about to gallop off on his horse, when the
blessed Messenger held him by the hand and said, “Stay with me, O Abâ Bakr! Seeing your face relieves me of all sorts
of suffering that come to my body and heart. Your company gives strength to my
heart.”
The word ‘sâhib’, [which means ‘companion’,] is used for good and bad people alike, and for animals as well. Yet it can be clearly understood from the semantic content of the âyat-i-
---------------------------------
[1] Literature that deals with facts about our blessed Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, his biography, his beautiful moral qualities, his utterances, which are called hadîth-i-sherîf, etc.
kerîmas (wherein the word was used) whether it was used for a
complimentary purpose or a censorious one. In fact, it means ‘gentleman’,
‘protector’, and ‘adviser’ in some âyat-i-kerîmas. To understand these meanings, it is necessary to have expertise
in some extensive and profound literary sciences such as lughat, metn-i-lughat,
ishtiqaq, sarf, nahw, beyân, bedî, meânî, belâghât, etc. People who just
scribble what they understand from âyat-i-kerîmas in the name of explaining the meanings in the Qur’ân al-kerîm, without learning these
sciences, are slandering the Qur’ân al-kerîm by doing so. Allâhu ta’âlâ complains about such slanderers, and says that they are the worst
of the cruel people, in the twenty-first âyat of An’âm sűra. That Abű Bakr
as-Siddîq’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ being called ‘sâhib’ is intended to
acknowledge his value and high virtue is manifested in the same âyat-i-kerîma. For, (as is related in the âyat-i-kerîma,) he was told not to be afraid and
he was blessed with serenity [peace and courage].
Fear and sorrow are not acts of worship by themselves. Nor
are they sinful acts. They are acts of worship or sinful acts depending on the
intention (of the person who feels them). It is sinful to be afraid that you
may suffer harm if you perform the acts of worship such as ghusl[1], namâz[1], wudű[1], and jihâd[1] for the sake of Allah. On the other hand, it is an act of worship
to fear Allâhu ta’âlâ with the thought
of His greatness. Indeed, the anxiety or fear in the former case prevents you
from performing the acts that are farz, (i.e. commanded by Allâhu ta’âlâ,)
whereas the fear (of Allâhu ta’âlâ) that you feel in the latter case protects
you from committing the acts that are harâm, (i.e. forbidden by Allâhu ta’âlâ).
Husayn Wâiz-i-Kâshifî Hirawî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ gives the following account
in his Tafsîr: “The unbelievers came before the cave. Abű Bakr said (to the
blessed Prophet): ‘O Messenger of Allah! If
one of the unbelievers looks under his feet, he will see us.’ Rasűlullah’s answer was: ‘What do you think will become of those two people when Allâhu ta’âlâ is with them as
the third
---------------------------------
[1] For detailed information about ghusl (ritual washing); namâz (Islam’s prescribed daily prayer); wudű (ablution); and jihâd (serving Islam physically, financially and spiritually), please see Endless Bliss: 4-4; ibid: 4-1; ibid: 4-1, 2, 3, 5; and all the publications of Waqf Ikhlas, respectively.
(person)?” This hadîth-i-sherîf manifests the superior position occupied by Hadrat Abű Bakr. In
other words, the Best of Mankind assures his companion that Allâhu ta’âlâ’s
help and protection is with them.” Then, to tell Abű Bakr as-Siddîq not to be
afraid or anxious does not mean to say, “Take your love of me out of your
heart.” Hence, the fear that Abű Bakr as-Siddîq felt on behalf of the Messenger
of Allah was a token of the affection he had in his heart, which in its turn
was an act of worship. To tell him not to be afraid must, therefore, have been
intended to make known that most valuable and most virtuous act of worship,
rather than to prevent him from that act of worship.
He writes, on the one hand, that the Messenger of Allah
had told his Ashâb that he would be under (Allah’s) protection against the
enemy and, on the other, that “Jebrâîl came to him and said: O, Messenger of
Allah! Do not leave Abű Bakr! The unbelievers will catch him, find your track
and kill you.” This inconsistency in his statements betrays his mendacity.
Abű Bakr as-Siddîq did not cry and yell at all. His
anxious statement, “O Messenger of Allah! I fear that they may harm your
blessed body,” is quoted in all authentic books. As they were in the cave, he
pressed his blessed foot against one of the holes, which he noticed had been
left unplugged, in order to protect the Messenger of Allah from any possible
danger. Why should it detract from his high honours that the snake in the hole
bit his foot? Rasűlullah himself ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was stung by a scorpion
one day. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ had a very much beloved son named
Muhsin. That blessed boy was pecked to death by a cock. Why should these events
bring discredit on a person? And why should they, after all, ever be signs of
unbelief in a person’s heart?
Allâhu ta’âlâ’s being with His slaves (men) means His Attributes’
being with them. Whereas His Attribute Wrath’s being with them brings them
ruination and disgrace, His Attributes Rahmat (compassion), Nusrat (help) and
Muhabbat (love) bless them with esteem and happiness when they are with them.
By saying, “Allah is with us,” Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ shares his
high prophetic honour, togetherness (with Allâhu ta’âlâ) with Hadrat Abű Bakr.
Thereby he gives the good news that Abű Bakr also will enjoy the muhabbat
(love), the merhamat (mercy, compassion), the ihsân
(kindness)
and the ikrâm (grace and favour) that Allâhu ta’âlâ manifests
to His most beloved slave, the Prophet. What a
great fortune! That is virtue itself! What other honour could be as superior as
the virtue acknowledged through âyat-i-kerîmas
and hadîth-i-sherîfs? What enemy concoctions
could ever convince a person into denying the brightness of the sun? One must
be a blind idiot to believe such downright falsehood.
Allâhu ta’âlâ’s being with those who talk secretly among
themselves means His Attribute Knowledge’s being with them, which in effect
means that He knows their secrets. The âyat-i-kerîma in question has nothing to do with liking or censuring. It is a
mere restatement of the fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ has the Attribute Knowledge.
He also misinterprets the âyat-i-kerîma
which purports, “... then Allâhu ta’âlâ sent down His
peace upon him, ...” (9-40) He says that peace was sent down upon Rasűlullah. Peace is sent down upon a place where it
does not exist. His assertion connotes that Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ did not have peace in his heart before (the
descent of peace), and that he was afraid. On the other hand, he says within
the same context that Allâhu ta’âlâ had promised
him that He would protect him against the unbelievers. Accordingly, should we
conclude that the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was afraid
because he did not have confidence in Allâhu ta’âlâ’s promise? It is a very
nasty insult to the Prophet of Allâhu ta’âlâ to allege that peace was sent down upon
him (despite the earlier divine promise). His bigoted impulse to vilify Abű
Bakr as-Siddîq side-tracks him, unknowingly, into a vicious denigration of the
Messenger of Allâhu ta’âlâ, which in effect
means his ending up in the pit of unbelief. Perhaps his real aim is to
denigrate the Messenger of Allah, and thus to demolish Islam. It is written in
all books of Tafsîr that the peace (mentioned in the âyat-i-kerîma)
was sent down to Abű Bakr as-Siddîq. In fact, Rasűlullah
already had peace in his heart. Yet Abű Bakr Siddîq had lost the peace in his
heart on account of his excessive affection for the Messenger of Allah.
Likewise, during the Holy War of Hunayn, most of the Ashâb-i-kirâm scattered,
with the exception of Abbâs, Abű Bakr and a few other heroes ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’, who would not retreat at risk to their lives. It is
understood from the semantic content of the âyat-i-kerîma
that at that moment Rasűlullah lost
the
peace in his heart because of his apprehension that the religion of Allâhu ta’âlâ would perish. Indeed, an âyat-i-kerîma in Tawba sűra purports:
“On the day of Hunayn, Allâhu
ta’âlâ sent down peace upon his Messenger and
upon the Believers.”
The âyat-i-kerîma that purports, “Those who migrated
to Allâhu ta’âlâ and to His
Messenger,” does not mean, “Those who joined
the Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ after his migration to Medîna.” It means, “Those
who left their hometown for the sake of Allah and with the command of His
Messenger.” The âyat-i-kerîma is explained so in the hadîth-i-sherîfs. Also, those people who were sent to Abyssinia and to Medîna-i-munawwara
before Rasűlullah’s Hijrat (migration to
Medîna), were Muhâjirs as well. Ahmad bin Muhammad Qastalânî gives the
following brief account of the events previous to the Hegira in his book Mawâhib-i-ladunniyya: After the
treaty of Aqaba, the Rasűl (Messenger) ‘alaihis-salâm’ ordered his Sahâba to
migrate to Medîna. The Sahâba left Mekka in groups. The Prophet himself stayed in Mekka, awaiting
the divine permission to migrate. ’Umar bin Khattâb and his brother Zayd and
twenty other Muslims rode off on camels. The only two people who shared Rasűlullah’s abide in Mekka were Hadrat Abű
Bakr and Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’. When Abű Bakr asked for permission
to leave, the Prophet said, “Be patient, O Abâ Bakr! I hope that Allâhu ta’âlâ will make you my
comrade.” This information belies the false author’s statement
that “That night Jebrâîl came down and said: ... Tell all your Sahâba not to go
out of their homes tonight.” There were only two Muslims left in
Mekka-i-mukarrama. Who could have been the Sahâbîs to be told to stay home,
then? The unbelievers came together and made a unanimous decision to kill Rasűlullah. Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ informed
him about this and said, “Don’t lie in your bed tonight!” It is an open fact
that the so-called book’s assertion that the Muhâjirs are those few people who
“migrated (to Medîna) after the Prophet did,” and that the Sahâbîs who left Mekka with the (Prophet’s) command afterwards “should not be
called Muhâjirs,” is quite wrong. Then, Abű Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
is the most honourable and the most valuable member of the Muhâjirs.
11– He asserts, “The Qur’ân is made up of letters and
words, which are things that came into existence afterwards.
Then, Kalâmullah (the Word of Allah) is not eternal. The other
Attributes (of Allâhu ta’âlâ) are not eternal, either. If the Qur’ân had been
eternal, whom would it have commanded and prohibited in the absence of
creatures? It would have been out of place to command something nonexistent to
do or not to do something. Allâhu ta’âlâ challenges the unbelievers to “make a hadîth like it (if you
can).” The ‘hadîth’ in this context means ‘Qur’ân’. Something which is hadîth
cannot be qadîm (eternal). If the Qur’ân were qadîm, the people named in the
Qur’ân would be qadîm, too.”
The belief that the eight Attributes (of Allâhu ta’âlâ)
are not eternal entails the surmise that Allâhu ta’âlâ must have been -may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from believing or saying so- powerless, unable and
ignorant before He created the creatures. Allâhu ta’âlâ knew in the eternal past all the facts that are stated in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. His stating the things that
He knows does not necessarily mean that the things that He states are eternal
as well. Because this person compares the Attributes of Allâhu ta’âlâ to human attributes, he
denies the Attributes stated in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. Please read the first chapter of the third fascicle of Endless Bliss! The word ‘hadîth’ in the âyat-i-kerîma (that he quotes) does not mean ‘Qur’ân al-kerîm’. It means ‘words of
unbelievers’. Hence, the âyat-i-kerîma means, “Say words like (those in) the Qur’ân al-kerîm (if you can). But you can’t!
For the Qur’ân al-kerîm is qadîm
(eternal), whereas your words are hâdith, i.e. creatures.”
The distich, “The Sifât-i-dhâtiyya and the
Sifât-i-thubűtiyya of Allâhu ta’âlâ are all qadîm. They always existed. And they will never cease to
exist,” is explicated as follows in the qasîda (eulogy) entitled Amâlî: “If the
Attributes had come into existence afterwards, there would have been changes in
the Dhât-i-ilâhî (Divine Person = Allâhu ta’âlâ Himself). And something which is susceptible to changes must be
hâdith, i.e. it must have come into existence afterwards. Hence, Allâhu ta’âlâ must have come into existence
afterwards, which is something quite contrary to fact.”
The eleventh distich of Qasîda Amâlî reads as follows:
“The Qur’ân al-kerîm is the Word of
Allâhu ta’âlâ. It is not a creature, i.e. something created
afterwards. It is an Attribute of the Dhât-i-ilâhî.” Ahmad Âsim Efendi explains
it as follows: The Qur’ân al-kerîm is the
meanings that come out of the words and
sounds.
The words and sounds themselves are not the Kalâm-i-ilâhî (the Word of Allah).
Likewise, our speech is in our heart. Our words are its translation into the
world of tangibility. Perfection and superiority of every living being lies in
its attribute of speech. A living being without speech is imperfect. Since Allâhu ta’âlâ also is a living being, He must have
the attribute ‘speech’. All prophets and heavenly books taught the belief that Allâhu ta’âlâ has the Attribute ‘Speech’. The word
and the sound which Műsâ (Moses) ‘alaihis-salâm’ heard from the tree was the
Kalâm-i-ilâhî. Yet a hâfiz’s voice is not the Kalâm-i-ilâhî. The meanings it
represents are the Kalâm-i-ilâhî. Allâhu ta’âlâ hears
creatures’ speech without letters and sounds. He revealed His Speech, which is
letterless and soundless, in the Arabic language. It did not make any changes
in the Kalâm-i-ilâhî. A person wears various clothes and appears in various
guises, yet he himself does not change at all. The Speech of Allâhu ta’âlâ, unlike the speech of creatures, does
not need words and sounds. However, to change or translate the words and sounds
(through which the Speech of Allâhu ta’âlâ is
revealed) means to change and defile the Kalâm-i-ilâhî (Word, or Speech of
Allâhu ta’âlâ). The Qur’ân al-kerîm is committed
to these words and sounds. Allâhu ta’âlâ Himself
placed His Speech into these words and sounds.
The Qur’ân al-kerîm was written also in
Lawh-il-mahfűz in the same words in a state that we are not familiar with. It
was not a creature. (The Archangel named) Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ revealed it
to our master, the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’,
sometimes saying the message softly in lettered and vocal susurration into his
blessed ear, (in a nature tasted and enjoyed, and therefore known, only by the
blessed Darling of Allâhu ta’âlâ,) and sometimes planting it into his heart in
the form of lettered but voiceless inspiration. It is not the case that the
meanings were “inspired into his heart without words and Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’, an Arabic-speaking person, translated the Kalâm-i-ilâhî into
these words and sounds.” Yes, there was also Wahy that was inspired in this
manner. That is, the Kalâm-i-ilâhî was (sometimes) inspired into his blessed
heart and he rendered the inspired meanings into certain locutions and uttered
them. These utterances, whose meanings were inspired by
Allâhu ta’âlâ and words and sounds were articulated by Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’, were termed hadîth-
i-qudsî. The Qur’ân al-kerîm
should not be mistaken for the (prophetic utterances called) hadîth-i-qudsî.
The Kalâm-i-lafzî, which is (the
Kalâm-i-ilâhî) in words and sounds, is the same as the Kalâm-i-nafsî, which is (the Kalâm-i-ilâhî)
without words and sounds. ’Ilm (Knowledge) and Kalâm (Speech, Word) are two
distinct Attributes of Allâhu ta’âlâ. The Qur’ân
al-kerîm is not the Attribute Knowledge; it is the Attribute Speech.
Imâm Rabbânî, Mujaddid-i-alf-i-thânî, Ahmad bin Abdul-ahad
Fârűqî ‘quddisa sirruh’ provides the following information in the eighty-ninth
letter of the third volume of his book Maktűbât: “Imâm a’zam Abű Hanîfa and Imâm Abű Yusűf ‘rahimahumallâhu
ta’âlâ’ discussed the matter whether the Qur’ân al-kerîm was a creature or not for six months between themselves, and did
not reach a settlement. After the sixth month, they reached a consensus and
said unanimously that a person who said that the Qur’ân
al-kerîm was a creature would become a disbeliever. The letters,
words and sounds which represent the Kalâm-i-nafsî and express the
Kalâm-i-lafzî are definitely creatures, i.e. things that were created
afterwards. Of all creatures, the letters and words of the Qur’ân al-kerîm are the closest to Allâhu ta’âlâ and therefore the most
valuable. As for the Kalâm-i-lafzî and the Kalâm-i-nafsî; they are azalî and
qadîm (eternal in the future and [everlasting] in the past).” He gives detailed
information on this issue in the hundredth and the hundred and twentieth
letters.
12– He says, “The hadîths and tafsîrs which we know were
reported by the Amîr-ul-mu’minîn Hadrat Alî, by Imâm Hasan, by Imâm Husayn, by
Salmân, by Abű Zer, by Mikdâd, and by Ammâr bin Yâser. The hadîths that you
narrate were reported on the authority of people like Mu’âwiya and ’Amr ibn Âs
and Enes bin Mâlik and Âisha and others. On the other hand, the Owner of the
Sharî’at, (i.e. the Prophet) said,
‘The hadîths reported from me can be narrated on the authority of four people.
There is not a fifth person. Others are hypocrites.’ You have made these
hypocrites dominant over Muslims. None of the Sahâba could ask the Messenger of
Allah any questions. For the Believers had been prohibited to ask questions.
Hadrat Alî was the only person who asked questions.”
The author’s enmity against religion betrays itself throughout the
passage we have quoted above. The (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i
Ebediyye abounds with answers to such
falsifications.
We specially recommend that you read the great scholar Sayyid Abdulhakîm
Arwâsî’s ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ letter, which covers the fifth chapter of the
second fascicle of Endless Bliss under
the caption Books of Tafsîr - Hadîth-i-sherîfs.
The book Miftâh-us-sa’âda, which was written by Taţköprüzâde Ahmed bin Mustafâ Efendi, -who
was at the same time the author of the biography entitled Shaqâyiq-i-Nu’mâniyya, which provides
an extensive list of profiles of the scholars who were raised and educated
during the Ottoman period-, was rendered into the Turkish language, with the
title Mawdű’ât-ul-’Ulűm, by his son Kemâleddîn
Muhammad ‘rahima-humullâhu ta’âlâ’. The following passage is a translation from
the Turkish version:
Of the (earliest) four Khalîfas, (i.e. Abű Bakr, ’Umar,
’Uthmân, and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’,) Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ occupies the
first place in point of number of the hadîth-i-sherîfs that the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat ‘rahima-humullâhu ta’âlâ’
reported on the authority of them each. This is a natural concomitant of the
fact that he outlived the other three Khalîfas. Because Hadrat Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’ was the earliest Believer of them all and spent all his time spreading
Islam’s rules and principles and solving Muslims’ problems, fewest traditions
have reached us through him. For this reason, most of the scholars of Ahl
as-sunnat obtained their religious information from Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’. Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ would say: “Ask me whatever you like! I know
whether each âyat came down at night or during the day, during a battle or in
peace-time, on a plain or in the mountains. I know why each âyat came down. I
asked (the Messenger of Allah) the meaning of each âyat, learned it and
memorized it. Ask me and I shall tell you.” Abdullah ibn Mes’űd reports, “The Qur’ân al-kerîm was revealed in seven
different dialects. Each dialect has inner and outer meanings. Alî possesses
all those meanings.”
The scholars of Ahl as-sunnat acquired their information not only from
Imâm Alî, from Hadrat Hasan and Husayn, from Salmân and from Abű Zer
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’, but also from all the other Sahâbîs. For they were all
exalted and ’âdil (just and trustworthy) people. Jamâladdîn Yűsuf bin Ibrâhîm
Erdebîlî makes the following observation in his book of Fiqh entitled Anwâr-il-’amal-il-abrâr: As Abű ’Amr bin Salâh
states in his
book Ma’rifat-ul-hadîth, and Yahyâ bin Sharaf
Muhyiddîn Nawawî states in the book Irshâd,
there were a hundred and twenty-four thousand Sahâbîs when Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’
passed away. All of them were exalted and ’âdil (just and trustworthy) people.
It is stated as follows in a hadîth-i-sherîf,
which is reported on the authority of Abű Sa’îd Hudrî in Imâm Baghawî’s book of
hadîths entitled Masâbîh, [which
contains four thousand, seven hundred and nineteen (4719) hadîth-i-sherîfs]: “Do not
speak ill of my Sahâba! If you gave alms in pure gold as huge as the mount of
Uhud, you would not attain thawâb (blessings, rewards in the
Hereafter) comparable to the thawâb which one of my
Sahâba would be given for half a mud’ of barley which he gave with the
intention of alms!” [One mud’ is a unit of weight equal to eight
hundred and seventy-five (875) grams.] This transcendent discrepancy was only
one of the benefits of having attained the sohbat of the Messenger of Allah
‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ and of having been in his presence (at
least once, regardless of the brevity of the togetherness). It is harâm to
swear at the Ashâb-i-kirâm. It is a grave sin. For, all the Ashâb-i-kirâm were
mujtahids. It was wâjib for them to behave in accordance with their ijtihâd in
those wars, and they did so. Another point which Erdebîlî stresses in Anwâr is that it is not permissible to swear at
or to censure Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, for he was one of the
greatest Sahâbîs. Imâm Muhammad bin Muhammad Ghazâlî gave the following
warning: It is harâm to describe, in oral or written forms, the martyrdoms of
Imâm Hasan and Imâm Husayn or the battles that took place among the
Ashâb-i-kirâm. Indeed, doing so may imply animadversion and provoke enmity against
any one of them. Conveying the Islamic religion to posterity was their common
service, whereto each and every one of them had contributions. To censure any
one of them, therefore, means to censure Islam, which in effect means to
demolish the religion.
It is stated as follows in a hadîth-i-sherîf, which is quoted on the
authority of Imrân bin Hasîn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ in the book Masâbîh: “The most
useful and the highest Muslims among my Ummat are those contemporary with me.
The second best ones are the Muslims posterior to them. The third highest
Muslims are the generation following them.
After them people will be (mostly) apt to give evidence without being asked to do so; and they will
not be trustworthy. They will be treacherous. They will not keep their vows.
They will be pleasure-seeking and lecherous people.” Another hadîth-i-sherîf quoted in the same book on the authority of Jâbir bin Abdullah
states, “None of the Muslims who have seen me
will enter Hell; nor will any of the Muslims who will see the ones who have
seen me!”
It is stated in another hadîth-i-sherîf, which Abdullah bin Zubayr reported on the athority of his father
Zubayr bin Awwâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’: “On the
Rising Day each of my Sahâba will (rise from his
grave in the country where he died and) lead the other
Muslims who lived (and died) in the same location to the place of gathering (for judgement), illuminating their
path.”
Husayn bin Yahyâ Bukhârî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ provides
the following information in his book Rawda-t-ul-’Ulamâ: “It is permissible for a mujtahid to act in accordance with any hadîth-i-sherîf. Any Sahâbî’s word (any
information given by any of the Sahâba) is an authentic document.” Imâm a’zam
Abű Hanîfa ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ said (to his disciples): “If you discover a
statement made by any of the Ashâb-i-kirâm and disagreeable with my ijtihâd,
leave my word aside and follow the Sahâbî’s statement!”
These facts show that the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat
‘rahima-humullâhu ta’âlâ’ took the words of the Ahl-i-Bayt as documentary
sources and hinged their teachings on this base. For, the Ahl-i-Bayt and all
the Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ always stated the same things,
which were what they had heard from Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. Their disagreements based
on ijtihâd should not be construed as changing the âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs.
13– He writes, “We are in the madhhab of Ahl-i-Bayt. A person who
denies the Ahl-i-Bayt is accursed. Existence of an undisputed and innocent imâm
is always necessary. Every prophet appointed a
trustee, a caliph. Our Messenger is the highest of prophets and his trustees
are the sayyid-i-awsiyâ. Those who are on our side are never without tahârat
(cleanliness). When they cannot find pure water, they do not make ablution.
They wash their face with their right hand,
instead
of using both hands. They do not make masah behind their ears or on the back of
their neck. They do not wash their feet. They perform the acts of sujűd
(prostration), rukű’, qiyâm and quűd in the same manner as the Ahl-i-Bayt
performed them. They believe that it is harâm (forbidden by Islam) to eat the
rabbit, which is a menstruating animal. They say that tanning will not clean a
dog’s skin. They do not perform namâz behind a sinful person. They do not
renounce (the worship called) hajj with favour of sinners’ prevention. They do
not make nikâh with, (i.e. they do not marry) a girl born out of wedlock. They
do not base their deeds (of worship) on qiyâs. ‘Satan is the first person who
employed qiyâs. And the second person to employ qiyâs was Abű Hanîfa,’ they
say. They wear their ring on the index finger of their right hand. They say
that the title ‘Amîr-ul-mu’minîn’ belongs only to Alî by rights. They curse his
enemies and know them as disbelievers. They say, ‘Formerly, Shâfi’î satirized
Abű Hanîfa. Later he became his partner in his villainous path and accompanied
him to his destiny: the fire. The Sunnîs abandoned love of Alî and joined the
wrongdoers and the cruel in their journey to Hell. When Abű Bakr was intent
upon caliphate, Alî embarrassed and discomfitted him and his followers. This is
the path of Âl-i-Rasűl.”
This word for word translation from the heretics’ book is
intended to alert the true Muslims to the heinous intentions lurking behind the
sophisms. We owe Allâhu ta’âlâ infinite gratitude, for the Islamic scholars confute their
arguments with authentic documents and prove that the path that these heretics
have been following is quite wrong. Qiyâs means to elucidate the religious commandments that are not openly
stated in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and in hadîth-i-sherîfs. Satan did not practise qiyâs. It opposed itself to the
commandment (of Allâhu ta’âlâ). The heretic tries to dissimulate the grudge he
harbours towards Imâm a’zam Abű Hanîfa by misrepresenting Satan’s opposition
and denial as qiyâs, (which is one of the methods used by the Islamic scholars,
particularly by the great Imâm Abű Hanîfa, for the benevolent purpose of
exploring the hidden rules and commandments in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and in hadîth-i-sherîfs,) and thereby to camouflage
his ulterior plan to demolish the Islamic religion by blackening the name of
the great Islamic scholar.
That the book Husniyya was
written by a Jewish enemy of
Islam
is reported in the book Tuhfa-i-ithnâ ash’ariyya,
which is in Persian and was reproduced by Hakîkat Kitâbevi (in Istanbul,
Turkey). It is a palpable fact that the book Husniyya
was written by a Jew for the purpose of generating discord among Muslims and
thereby demolishing Islam from the interior. His most deadly weapon is the
casuistry whereby he misrepresents the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat as if they
were enemies of the Ahl-i-Bayt. In point of fact, it is written in our books
that the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat had very profound love and respect for the
Ahl-i-Bayt and that every statement made by (any individual member of) the
Ahl-i-Bayt was an authentic documentary source whereon they based their
religious instructions. It is such a shameless effrontery to misrepresent the
lovers of the Ahl-i-Bayt as their enemies. It is very clever of him to write a
scenario in which the protagonist is a concubine who gets into a discussion
with the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat and disgraces them with arguments that they
cannot confute. He tries to smear the dirt of his infidelity and animus on the
great Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ by asserting that the concubine
had learned her knowledge from Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq. His assertions are refuted
one by one with antitheses based on the Qur’ân al-kerîm
and hadîth-i-sherîfs in the translation of Sharh-i-’aqâid by Sirri Pâsha of Crete; in the
book Milal wa Nihâl (by Abul Fat-h
Muhammad bin Abdulkarîm Shihristânî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’); in the
commentary of Qasîda-i-Amâlî by Ahmad
Âsim Efendi ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, who was at the same time the translator of
the Arabic dictionary Qâműs, written by
Muhammad Ya’qűb Fîrűzâbâdî (729 [1329 A.D.], Fîrűzâbâd, which is to the South
of Shîrâz, Iran – 816 [1414 A.D.], Zebîd, Yemen); in the Turkish book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye; and in Documents of the Right Word. (The book Qasîda-i-Amâlî was written by Alî Űshî bin
’Uthmân of Ferghâna (d. 575 [1180 A.D.])). Sayyid Ayyűb bin Siddîq
‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ relates the following event in the sixty-third episode
in the book Chihâr yâr-i-ghuzîn: There
was a heretic named Abdulmajîd in the city of Kűfa [today’s Baghdâd]. One day
he visited Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ and asked the following
question:
Heretic: Who is the highest one
among the Sahâba?
Ja’far Sâdiq: Abű Bakr
as-siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ is the highest of them all.
J.S.: Allâhu ta’âlâ has
declared him to be the second person after His
Messenger. There cannot be an honour higher than that.
H: Didn’t Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ lie in the
Messenger’s bed without any fear of the unbelievers?
J.S.: Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’
entered the cave before the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa
sallam’, and did not fear at all.
H: He wouldn’t have done so if he had not feared
the unbelievers. Indeed, Allâhu ta’âlâ told Abű
Bakr through His Messenger not to be afraid.
J.S.: His fear was lest the Messenger of
Allah should suffer harm. He put his foot on a hole. The snake bit him several
times. He did not withdraw his foot despite the unbearable pain lest the
Messenger of Allah should be disturbed. He suppressed an interjection of pain
not to wake the Messenger of Allah. If his fear had been for himself, he would
not have put himself at risk of being poisoned to death.
H: The fifty-fifth âyat-i-kerîma
of Mâida sűra, which purports, “Those who establish
regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly
(in
rukű’),” praises Alî.
J.S.: The âyat-i-kerîma which purports, “Allâhu ta’âlâ will bring a tribe that will perform jihâd against
apostates. Allâhu ta’âlâ will love them,” is about Abű Bakr
as-siddîq and exalts him even higher.
H: The two hundred and seventy-fourth (274) âyat
of Baqara sűra, which purports, “Those who (in
charity) spend of their goods by night and by day, in secret and in public,
...,” praises Alî, doesn’t it?
J.S.: Wa-l-layl sűra lauds Abű Bakr as-siddîq
and adds greatly to his honour. For, he donated forty thousand gold coins, leaving
aside none for himself. Allâhu ta’âlâ sent
Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ to His Messenger with the glad tidings, “I am pleased with Abű Bakr. Is he pleased with Me, too?”
Abű Bakr answered, “I am pleased with Allâhu ta’âlâ, I
am pleased (with Him), I am pleased (with Him).”
H: Alî is lauded in the nineteenth âyat of Tawba
sűra, which purports, “Do ye make the giving of
drink to pilgrims, or the
maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of)
those who believe in Allâhu ta’âlâ
and the Last Day and strive with might and main in the cause of
Allâhu ta’âlâ? They are not comparable. ...”
J.S.: The tenth âyat of Hadîd
sűra, which purports,
“Not equal among you are those
who spent (freely) and fought, before the victory, (i.e. the conquest of Mekka,)
(with those
who did so later). They are higher in rank than those who spent (freely) and
fought afterwards. ...,” lauds Abű Bakr. Abű Jahl [’Amr bin
Hishâm bin Mughîra] attempted to hit the Messenger of Allah. At that moment Abű
Bakr arrived and prevented him.
H: Alî never was an unbeliever.
J.S.: It is true. Yet
Allâhu ta’âlâ commends Abű Bakr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ îmân in the
hundredth âyat of Tawba sűra, which purports, “The
vanguard (of Islam) - the first of those who forsook (their homes)
(the Muhâjirs) and of those who gave them aid
(the
Ansâr), ... Well-pleased is Allâhu ta’âlâ with them, ...
For them hath He prepared Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein for
ever...”, and in the thirty-third and thirty-fourth âyats of Zumar
sűra, which purport, “And he who brings the Truth
and he who confirms it...” “They shall
have all that they wish for, in Paradise. ...” No one’s îmân has
been praised so strongly. Whenever the Messenger of Allah said something, the
Meccan disbelievers would contradict him, saying, “You are lying.” Abű Bakr
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ would always be there to confirm: “You are telling the
truth, O Messenger of Allah.”
H: Doesn’t Allâhu ta’âlâ complain
in the hundred and fifty-fifth âyat of ’Imrân sűra, which purports,
“Those of you who turned back on the day the two hosts met
(at
Uhud). It was Satan who caused them to fail, ...”?
J.S.: Quote the final part of the âyat, too!
It purports, “... But Allâhu ta’âlâ has blotted out,
(i.e. I have forgiven,) (their fault): ...”
H: It is farz (an open commandment of Allâhu
ta’âlâ) to love Alî. The people suggested in the twenty-third âyat of Shűra
sűra, which purports, “... Say: No reward do I ask
of you for this, (i.e. for having taught you Islam and giving you the
glad tidings of Paradise,) ... except the love of
those near of kin, (i.e. my close relatives)
...,” are Alî, Fâtima, Hasan and Husayn.
J.S.: It is farz to invoke blessings on Abű
Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ and to love him. The tenth âyat of Hashr sűra
purports, “And those Believers who came after them,
(i.e. after the
Muhâjirs and Ansâr,)
(till the end of the world) say: Yâ Rabbî
(O Allah)! Forgive us,
and our brethren who came before us, [i.e.
the Ashâb-i-kirâm]!...” A word to the wise from the (book of) Tafsîr (entitled)
Husaynî: “The Islamic scholars caution that if a person dislikes any one of the
Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ he will not be included among
the Believers mentioned in this âyat-i-kerîma, and he will be deprived of the blessing in the prayer for
forgiveness.”
H: The Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’
stated, “Hasan and Husayn are the highest
youngsters of Paradise. And their father is even higher.”
J.S.: The blessed Prophet’s statement about Abű Bakr as-Siddîq
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ bears even higher recommendation. As I have heard
from my father Muhammad Bâqir, our forefather Imâm Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’anh’ related: I was in the presence of Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ one day, when Abű Bakr and ’Umar
came round. Rasűlullah stated, “O Alî! These two are the
highest male inhabitants of Paradise.”
H: O Ja’far. Who is higher; Âisha or Fâtima?
J.S.: Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ was Rasűlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’
wife. She will be with him in Paradise. Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ was Alî’s
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ wife. She will be with him (in Paradise).
H: Âisha fought against Alî. Will she enter
Paradise?
J.S.: The fifty-third and fifty-fourth âyats
of Ahzâb sűra purport, “Do not hurt the Messenger
of Allah. After him, never marry his wives with nikâh. Both these deeds are
grave sins.” As is stated in the books of Tafsîr entitled Baydâwî
and Husaynî, we must maintain our respect for the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ after his
death by holding his blessed wives in respect.
H: Could you authenticate Abű Bakr’s
caliphate with passages from the Qur’ân al-kerîm?
J.S.: I can furnish proof from
the Torah and the Bible as well as from the Qur’ân al-kerîm. The hundred and sixty-fifth âyat of
An’âm sűra purports,
“Allâhu ta’âlâ hath
made you (His) agents, inheritors of the earth: He hath raised you in ranks:
some above others: ...” The fifty-fifth âyat of Nűr
sűra purports,
“Allâhu ta’âlâ has promised, to those
among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety,
grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those
before them, (i.e. to the Israelites); ...” It is
stated in (the books of Tafsîr entitled) Baydâwî and Husaynî that this âyat-i-kerîma informs about the ghayb (facts
unknown to creatures), that the Qur’ân al-kerîm is the Word of Allâhu ta’âlâ, and that the (earliest) four Khalîfas, (i.e. Abű Bakr, ’Umar,
’Uthmân, and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum ajma’în’,) are canonically lawful and
rightly-guided Khalîfas. In the Torah and in the Bible, (in their undefiled
originals), and also in the last âyat of Fat-h sűra it is purported,
“Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’
is the Messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong
against unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst one another,...” This âyat-i-kerîma generalizes about all the Sahâba and implies the great honour
attached to Abű Bakr. The latter half of this âyat purports,
“... This is their similitude in the Taurah
(Torah); and their similitude in the Gospel.
...” It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf reported on the authority of my forefather Alî, “Allâhu ta’âlâ gives me such miracles as He has given to none of His
(other) prophets. On the Rising Day I shall be the first to rise from the
grave. He will command me to summon my four Khalîfas. When I inquire, ‘Who are
they, Yâ Rabbî?’ He will declare, ‘Abű Bakr.’ Upon this the ground will be
cleft apart and Abű Bakr will rise from the grave before all. ’Umar will rise next,
being followed by ’Uthmân and Alî, respectively. ...”
The heretic was too impatient to wait for the completion
of the quotation:
O, Ja’far. Are these things mentioned in the Qur’ân?
J.S.: The sublime meaning of the
sixty-ninth âyat-i-kerîma of Zumar sűra is:
“... The prophets
and their witnesses,
(or the martyrs,) will be brought forward (for the settlement of accounts; ...”
H: O, Ja’far! I have felt hatred towards the three
Khalîfas throughout my life. Now I am penitent for it. Would Allâhu ta’âlâ
J.S.: Make tawba right away! This
tawba is a sign for your future happiness (in the Hereafter). If you had
migrated to the Hereafter with your (former) heresy, your life of piety would
have come to naught.
As is seen, all the Ahl-i-Bayt loved Abű Bakr and all the
Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. If there really had been a
concubine honoured with having seen Imâm-i-Ja’far Sâdiq and serving him, she,
too, would necessarily have learned the greatness of the Ashâb-i-kirâm and she
would have loved them all. This fact shows that the heretics living in Iran,
Iraq and Syria are lying in the name of Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq.
When Abű Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ passed
away in the thirteenth year (of the Hegira), all the inhabitants of Medîna wept
for him. When Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ heard about the sad news, he, too, wept
and came (to Hadrat Abű Bakr’s house), saying, “So the caliphate is over.” He
stood at the door and uttered the following words:
“Yâ Abâ Bakr! You were Rasűlullah’s darling, companion, fellow-sufferer, intimate, and counsellor.
You were the earliest Believer. Your îmân (belief) was purer than that of us
all. Your yaqîn (certitude of belief) was firmer and your fear of Allah was
greater. You were the wealthiest and the most generous of all. You were the
most compassionate and the most caring to the Messenger of Allah. Your sohbat
(company, togetherness) with the Messenger of Allah was better than the sohbat
of any of us. You are the champion of the beneficent! Your good deeds tower
above ours. You are ahead of us in all kinds of goodness. Your position in the
presence of the Messenger of Allah was the highest. You were the closest to
him. In kindness and goodness and all sorts of refinement, in stature, age and
mental capacity you were the most similar to the Messenger of Allah. May Allâhu ta’âlâ reward you profusely (for
having always been by his side in all situations and under all conditions),
for, at a time when others accused him of lying you would confirm him saying,
“I believe you. You are telling the truth.” You were like his ears and eyes. Allâhu ta’âlâ honoured you with ‘sidq’
(=faithfulness) in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. You supported the Messenger of Allah at his hardest times. In
times of peace you were in his presence, and in wartime you were at his side.
You were the Khalîfa of his Ummat, and the protector of his religion.
As the ignorant renounced his religion you gave new energy to
Islam. As others were totally bemused, you came forward like a lion roaring. As
others all dispersed, you abode by the path guided by Muhammad Mustafâ. You
were the least talking, the most eloquent and the most literary of the Sahâba.
Every statement you made, everything you found and everything you did were
pure. Your heart was stronger than all ours, and your yaqîn (definite belief)
was firmer. You would see the aftermath of everything in advance, and you would
enlighten the (spiritually) retarded by guiding them into Islam. You were
compassionate, forgiving and fatherly with the Muslims. You carried the heavy
load of Islam. As others all failed to hold the right of Islam, you observed it
perfectly. You were like a mountain that winds could not move. Your deeds were
truth and knowledge. Your words were manly statements of truth. You extirpated
all bigotries and heresies. You planted the tree of true religion. You made
hardships easy for the Muslims. You extinguished the fire of apostasy. You
restored the religion of Rahmân (Allâhu ta’âlâ, the Compassionate). You were
energy for Islam and îmân. You occupy a very high position in heavens, among
angels. Separation from you is a source of profound grievance for the Muhâjirîn
and for the Ansâr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’.” He wept so bitterly
that his blessed eyes shed blood. Then he went on:
“We welcome Allâhu ta’âlâ’s qadâ and qadar. We accept the
sufferings He has inflicted on us. Yâ Abâ Bakr! After the painful bereavement
of the Messenger of Allah, no other disaster that befell on us has been more
grievous than your death to us. You were a shelter, a support, a shade for the
Believers. You were very harsh and fervent against the hypocrites. May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless you with the presence
of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’! May He bless us with patience and rewards for the
grievance of parting with you! May He protect us against eccentricities and
heresies in your absence.” All the Ashâb-i-kirâm listened to Hadrat Alî’s words
quietly ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’. At the end they all sobbed bitterly.
These words of Hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ provide positive proof
for the purport of the latter part of the final âyat of Tawba sűra. This fact
exposes the shameless casuistry in the machinations wrought out all through the
book entitled Husniyya and uncloaks the
scheme for demolishing Islam from
within
disguised under the blessed appellation of Ahl-i-Bayt. It is incumbent upon
every individual Believer to tear that book to pieces and thereby to eliminate
a virus that may bring ruination to young Muslim Alawîs and Shiites.
14– He says, “When the Messenger asked for a pen and paper
to write a booklet for the Sahâba during his death agony, ’Umar prevented the
others from doing the commandment of the Messenger of Allah. On the other hand,
it is a fact written in the Qur’ân al-kerîm that all his utterances are Wah-y.” Please read the twenty-eighth
(28) chapter of the third fascicle of Endless Bliss for detailed information about the event the impostor is trying
to garble, and for the elucidations presented!
15– He asserts, “On the day when the Messenger of Allah passed away,
the munâfiqs (hypocrites) among the Sahâba sat together at a place called
‘Saqîfa-i-banî Sa’îda’, and began to discuss the caliphate. A few of them were
suggested that they should take the office. When one of them, namely Sa’d bin
Ubâda, accepted the suggestion, his son drew his sword and said to his father,
‘How will you explain this to Alî? At ‘Ghadir Hum’ the Messenger held him by
the hand and told you that he made him (Alî) your Khalîfa and Imâm. And you
paid homage to him. How come you give up now?’ Then ’Umar drew his sword in
homage to Abű Bakr, whereupon Abű Ubayda and twenty other miscreants paid
homage to him (Abű Bakr). None of them performed the (prayer termed) Salât of
Janâza (for the Prophet). Three days later Alî
joined them and they assembled in the mosque. ’Umar walked up to Alî and said,
‘Most of the people paid homage to Abű Bakr. You and the other Hâshimites
should do so, too.’ Zubayr drew his sword and began to make for ’Umar. Yet Alî
stopped him. Alî turned to Abű Bakr and ’Umar and said, ‘O Sahâbîs, you have
disobeyed the Prophet and Allah. Caliphate is my
right. Give me my right.’ When ’Umar answered that they would not pay homage to
him, Alî said, ‘I would kill hypocrites and enemies of religion like you if the
Messenger had not told me not to do so in his will.’ Abű Bakr and Abű Ubayda
said, ‘O Alî, you are young. You are thirty-three years old. Abű Bakr is old.
You will get the caliphate anyway finally. Do not rekindle the fire that has
just gone out!’ Alî said, ‘Caliphate belongs to us. It’s no one else’s right.’
Bashîr bin Sa’d Ansârî said, ‘O Alî. No one would have paid homage to Abű Bakr
if you had said these words earlier.’ ’Umar
discontinued
the meeting for fear of Alî’s being paid homage to. The following day Salmân,
Abű Zer, Mikdâd, Ammâr bin Yâser, Burayda-i-Eslemî, Sahl bin Hanîf,
Huzayfat-ibni Thâbit, and Abâ Ayyűb al-Ansârî suggested to kill Abű Bakr. Alî
did not agree with them and said, ‘The Messenger told me this: O Alî. You and I
are like Hârűn (Aaron) and Műsâ (Moses). The Israelites abandoned Hârűn and
worshipped an ox. Likewise, my Ummat will abandon you and choose others.’ On
Friday the Sahâba came to the mosque and tried to dissuade him from that
offensive arrogation. Negotiations tended towards a stalemate. Three days later
a crowded army recruited by Khâlid bin Walîd and led by ’Umar assembled before
the mosque and marched against Alî. Salmân stood up and said to them, ‘The
Messenger informed that you were dogs of Hell. Alî went to his home. ’Umar
forced everyone out in the street to pay homage (to Abű Bakr). The tribe called
Hazrajj and Abű Ubâda and nine thousand other people refused to pay homage.
Another group that would not pay homage included ten thousand people with Mâlik
bin Nuwayra in the lead. This unitarian Believer was slain during salât by
Khâlid bin Walîd, sent forth by ’Umar. How could one ever call this
‘Ijmâ-i-Ummat’?”
Leaving the book alone with its whimsical improvisations,
let us direct our attention to historical documents.
Tabarî, a tome of history, was written by Muhammad bin
Jarîr (Tabarî) ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’. The first page of the third volume of
its Turkish version begins as follows:
Since the beginning of Rasűlullah’s illness (of death) Abű Bakr as-Siddîq would never go to his
home. He would stay in the Masjîd-i-sa’âdat and steadily attend to Rasűlullah’s needs. Rasűlullah yielded his blessed soul on the
twelfth of Rabî’ul-awwal, Monday, in the eleventh year of the Hegira. His
blessedhead was on the breast of Hadrat Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’. Hadrat Alî
went out sobbing. Hadrat Abű Bakr entered and saw Hadrat Âisha sobbing and
slapping her own face with her hand. Rasűl ‘alaihis-salâm’ lay there, his face
covered with a cloak. He removed the cloak and saw that the blessed Prophet was dead. Replacing the cloak, he
walked into the mosque, made khutba and said, “O Sahâba! The Messenger of Allah
has passed away. Allâhu ta’âlâ has blessed him with death. Should there be anyone (among you)
worshipping Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, let him know that he is dead. And those
who worship
Allâhu ta’âlâ; let them know that Allâhu
ta’âlâ is never dead.” Then he recited the hundred and
forty-fourth âyat of Âl-i-’Imrân sűra, which purports:
“Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’
is no more than an Apostle: many were the Apostles that passed away
before him. (He, too, will pass away.) If he died or were slain, will ye then
turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm
will he do to Allâhu ta’âlâ; on the other hand, Allâhu ta’âlâ
will swiftly
reward those who abide by (their slavery to Him) with gratitude.”
Mughîra-t-abni-Shu’ba came in with the news that the Ansâr had
assembled and elected Sa’d bin Ubâda Khalîfa. Hadrat Abű Bakr held Hadrat ’Umar
by the hand and they went out together. On the way they met Hadrat Abű Ubayda
bin Jerrâh. [Abű Ubayda ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was one of the ten people who are
called Ashara-i-mubashshara because they had been blessed with the Glad Tidings
that they would go to Paradise (after death). He took part in all the Holy
Wars. He was a man of great valour. He was commander-in-chief of the army that
marched into Damascus. According to a report in Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ,
the Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ had commended him as follows: “This is the trustworthy of my Ummat.” He was
fifty-eight [58] years old when he passed away in the eighteenth year (of the
Hegira). Genies were heard to mourn over his death. So, he was a blessed person
who had been blessed with the Glad Tidings of Paradise and praised with the
commendation “the trustworthy of my Ummat” by the Messenger of Allah and who
spent his life attacking the enemies of religion before the Messenger of Allah.
It is a fact as manifest as the sun that a Jewish book that shamelessly labels
such a high person as a ‘miscreant’ must have been written for the purpose of
shattering Islam.] Hadrat Abű Ubayda also told them that the Ansâr had come
together in Banî Sa’îda’s house and made Sa’d bin Ubâda Khalîfa. The three
people went to the place. They saw that the tribes of Aws and Hazraj had
assembled and were willing to pay homage to Sa’d bin Ubâda ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’,
who lay ill. There was a large crowd. They suggested to Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’: “Let us have two Khalîfas; one to represent you, and one from amongst
us!” Abű Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ made a long admonitory speech, in
which he quoted âyat-i-kerîmas and lavished
compliments on the Ansâr. Then, quoting the hadîth-i-sherîf,
“The Imâm (Leader, Khalîfa) must be of Qoureishi origin,” he concluded, “Let
us choose our Khalîfa from among the Qoureishi people. In his view you will be
as honourable as you were in the view of the Messenger. I have two candidates
from the Sahâba. Both of them are Qoureishi notables. They are ’Umar and Alî.”
The Ansâr were inclined to pay homage to Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. ’Umar was
fearful of another chaotic situation and suggested, “O Abâ Bakr! You are of
Qoureishi origin! Hold out your hand, and we’ll pay homage to you.” “You hold
out your hand, and let’s pay homage to you,” was Abű Bakr’s answer. ’Umar
pulled Abű Bakr’s hand and paid homage to him. When the Ansâr saw this, they
followed ’Umar’s example and unanimously paid homage to Abű Bakr. However, the
rumour that the Ansâr were going to pay homage to Sa’d bin Ubâda had spread
throughout Medîna. All the Sahâba came together and marched to prevent the
nomination. ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ met them and shouted: “O people! Come and
pay homage to the Prophet’s ‘alaihis-salâm’
Khalîfa!” That day all the inhabitants of Medîna paid homage to Hadrat Abű Bakr
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. Thus a very grave conflict was avoided. Hadrat Alî,
Hasan and Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ were busy consoling the Ahl-i-Bayt.
Therefore, they were the only three people who paid homage (to Abű Bakr) later.
The following day, Tuesday, the Sahâba came together in the mosque.
’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ mounted the minbar and said, “O Ashâb-i-kirâm!
You must be grateful to Allâhu ta’âlâ for having
gathered you around Abű Bakr, who is the best of you. If there is anyone who
has not paid homage yet, let him do so!” Then Abű Bakr as-Siddîq said, “O
people! I would like you to know that I accept the office only lest there should
be discord and bloodshed among the Sahâba. I am human, like any one of you. It
is human nature to make mistakes. When I do not make mistakes, pay gratitude to
Allâhu ta’âlâ. And when I am wrong, show me the right course! Obey me as long
as I obey Allâhu ta’âlâ. Yet if I am disobedient (to His commandments), pay me
back with your disobedience to me! Now, let us offer our service to our Prophet ‘alaihis-salâm’. Let us pay him his due. Let
us wash him, perform the salât (termed salât of janâza) for him, and place him
into his blessed grave.” He dismounted the minbar and went to the Messenger’s
‘alaihis-salâm’ house. He lifted the cloak covering the most
beloved
Prophet’s face and smelled the blessed face,
relishing the most delicate musky odour that emanated from his blessed face and
hair. He put his face on the Messenger’s blessed face and said, “I would
sacrifice my mother and father for your sake; how beautiful you smell, both
alive and dead!” Then quoting a hadîth-i-sherîf
that read, “My Ahl-i-Bayt should wash me (when
I am dead),” and which he had heard from the Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’, he
ordered, “Let Abbâs and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ wash him.” Abbâs and his son
Fadl came to the place. Hadrat Alî joined them. The (new) Khalîfa, (i.e. Hadrat Abű Bakr,) said, “O Alî! Wash the Messenger of
Allah.” Then he turned to Rasűlullah’s servant Usâma and told him to assist with the washing.
He and the other Sahâbîs waited at the door. He ordered Aws bin Hawlî
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, one of the Ansâr, to go in and help the others. They
washed the blessed Prophet with his garment on, wrapped him in three white shrouds
and fumigated him with incense. Abű Talha dug a grave. They could not reach an
agreement concerning the place of the grave. Hadrat Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’ quoted the following hadîth, which he had heard from Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’: “Prophets are
buried whereever they pass away.” His bed
was removed and a grave was dug at its place. The Messenger of Allah was placed
beside the blessed grave and his Sahâba came in groups and performed the salât
(of janâza) for him without an imâm to conduct the salât. The (prayers of)
salât continued till midnight. He was placed in the blessed grave at midnight.
It was Wednesday night, (i.e. the night between Tuesday and Wednesday). Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam’ passed away on Monday. It was Monday also when he honoured
the world with his presence. It was Monday, again, when he placed the (sacred
stone called) Hajar-ul-aswad on the wall of Kâ’ba when he was sixteen years
old. On another Monday he left Mekka for the Hijrat (Hegira). And it was
another Monday when he arrived in Medîna.
Three days after the burial Hadrat Abű Bakr gave the following order:
“The Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ sent you out for Holy War under the command of
Usâma. Yet the Prophet’s illness intervened and
the task could not be fulfilled. We must execute the commandment before doing
anything else! Do not be remiss in this duty! Be ready for the Holy War.” He
prepared
and
motivated the Sahâba for the Holy War. Usâma was twenty-two years old then. A
report of insurrection in the Arabian deserts was received. The Sahâba were of
the opinion that they should not leave Medîna under Usâma’s command and that
otherwise the rebels would enter the town and slay the Khalîfa. Yet their
objections and insistent discouragements proved futile when Hadrat Abű Bakr
persevered, “We shall do Rasűlullah’s
commandment at all costs. I cannot replace a commander liked by Rasűlullah.” So the army left Medîna, Usâma on horse
and the others on foot. The Khalîfa began his short farewell speech to the
Sahâba as follows: “My first piece of advice is that you should obey Usâma.”
Then, turning to Usâma, he ordered, “Go to the place commanded by the Messenger
of Allah! Then go to Damascus.” It took Usâma forty days to go to the tribe of
Huzâ’a, slaughter the apostates, carry out the task, and come back with victory
to Medîna.
The people of Arabia had abandoned Islam; they had become
apostates. The Khalîfa sent Khâlid bin Walîd for the chastisement of the
apostates. Khâlid routed the ringleaders of the apostates. Those who survived
the slaughter returned to Islam. The Khalîfa sent the officials of zakât for
the collection of zakât. Mâlik bin Nuwayra, one of the notables of the tribe of
Banî Tamîm, had been authorized by Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ to collect the zakâts of his
tribe. Mâlik’s tribe paid tribune to Abű Bakr and sent their zakâts. A
Christian woman named Sijâh bin Hâris of Mosul came to Hidjâz (Hejaz) with
pretensions to being a prophet. She
invited Mâlik (bin Nuwayra) to her religion. Mâlik’s answer was: “I will fight
for you. But let me have time to think over converting to your religion.” The
following morning Sijâh said to him, “I have received wah-y from my Rabb
(Allah). You shall fight the members of Banî Tamîm who deny me.” Mâlik fought
and won. He slaughtered numerous Muslims and caused many others to lapse into
Sijâh’s iconoclasm. When Sijâh improved in power, she went to Yemen to support
Musaylama-t-ul-kazzâb[1]. Khâlid (bin Walîd) marched against Mâlik although he had not
been ordered to do so by the Khalîfa. Mâlik sent the zakâts that he had
collected to Khâlid, who accepted them and reported the event to the Khalîfa.
Upon this the Khalîfa sent an order to
---------------------------------
[1] A renegade who claimed to be a prophet.
Khâlid telling him not to inflict any punishment on villages
whence he heard voices calling the azân (adhân). A cavalry detachment caught
Mâlik, took him to Khâlid, and said that they had not heard any voices calling
the azân. Abű Qatâda ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, (who was in the detachment, too,)
said he had (heard voices of azân). When Khâlid asked Mâlik why he had become a
follower of Sijâh, he replied, “I am not her follower. I only made peace with
her. I did not join her religion.” Yet when he accidentally blurted out the
expression, “your master said so,” Khâlid ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ became angry and
exclaimed, “You dirty dog, you mean he is our Prophet and not yours? You are a hypocrite. You became a follower of
Sijâh! You killed so many Muslims for her sake.” He had him decapitated. Abű
Qatâda did not like it, went back to Medîna and related the events to Hadrat
’Umar. Upon this ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ went to the Khalîfa (Hadrat Abű Bakr)
and said, “Khâlid killed Muslims cruelly. Call Khâlid back and punish him!” The
Khalîfa replied, “O ’Umar! Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, ‘Khâlid is the sword of Allah.’ How can I even
chide him despite this commendation about him?” Mâlik’s brother came and said,
“My brother was a Muslim who had paid homage to you. I demand my brother’s
blood from Khâlid.” The Khalîfa sent for Khâlid. When ’Umar saw Khâlid he
collared him, took his arrows and broke them to pieces, and castigated him, saying,
“Don’t you ever fear Allah? You killed a Muslim.” When the Khalîfa asked Khâlid
to explain himself, he said, “O Khalîfa! Didn’t you hear the Messenger of Allah
say, ‘Khalîd is the sword of Allah’?” “I swear in the name of Allah that I did,” replied the
Khalîfa. Khâlid concluded presently, “The sword of Allah would behead only
unbelievers and hypocrites.” “You are telling the truth. Go back to your office
now,” ordered the Khalîfa, fully appeased. When ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ heard
about this, he regretted Khâlid’s having escaped punishment. This is the end of
the passage we have translated from Tabarî.
Abdulqâdir-i-Geilânî ‘qaddas-Allâhu sirrah-ul-’azîz’, one
of the descendants of Ahl-i-Bayt, quotes, in his book Ghunya, the statements made by his ancestor
Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ on the very day when Hadrat Abű Bakr
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ were to be elected Khalîfa.
According to a narration in the hundred and fifty-fifth page of the
second volume of the (Turkish) translation of Mawâhib-i-
ladunniyya, Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ said to Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, “Whatever Hârűn (Aaron)
was in relation to Műsâ (Moses) ‘alaihim-as-salâm’, you are the same with relation to me. Only, no prophet shall come after me.”
Hence, the proximity implied is not in prophethood but in subordination. “As
Hârűn represented Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ (in his absence) before death (of the
latter), you are my proxy in my absence as long as I live,” is the meaning that
should be derived from the hadîth-i-sherîf. In
fact, Sherefeddîn Husayn bin Muhammad Tayyibî interprets it identically. It is
a very well known fact that Hârűn’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ death was previous to
Műsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’. Then, not only the hadîth-i-sherîf
should not be construed as an implication that Imâm Alî were to be Khalîfa
immediately after the Messenger of Allah, but it also presupposed that he was
not going to be (the first) Khalîfa.
According to a narration in the fifth episode of the book Manâqib-i-chihâr yâr-i-ghuzîn, Abdullah
ibn ’Umar is quoted, in Bukhârî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’, as having related, “In
the time of the Messenger of Allah we used to talk on the virtues of the
Sahâba. We would hold Abű Bakr the highest, then ’Umar, then ’Uthmân, and then
Alî.” And ibn Munzir quotes Imâm Alî as having stated, “The highest member of
this Ummat (Muslims) is Abű Bakr.”
It is stated as follows in the thirty-fourth episode of
Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’: A huge amount of ghanîma was won and brought
home after a Holy War. As ’Umar, the time’s Khalîfa, was distributing the
shares of those who canonically had a right from one-fifth of the ghanîma, Imâm
Hasan (Hadrat Alî’s elder son and at the same time our Prophet’s grandson) came. The Khalîfa gave
him a thousand dirhams (3.365 kg ~ 7.411 pounds ~ 0.529
st) of silver. Then Hadrat Husayn came, and another thousand dirhams was given
to him. A while later the Khalîfa’s own son, Abdullah came. The Khalîfa gave
him five hundred dirhams (of silver). Abdullah was offended. He said, “You have
given Hasan and Husayn more than you have given me although they are only small
children and I am a grown up wrestler. I have taken part in many Holy Wars,
attacked the enemy and slain many an unbeliever before Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. Is it fair to give me less than the amount you
have given them?” “O my son! So you hold yourself equal to them? They have a
father named Alî and
a
mother named Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’. And their grandfather is
Fakhr-i-’âlam (the Master of Worlds) ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’.” When
Imâm Alî heard about these words, he said, “I heard Rasűlullah
state, ‘’Umar is the light of the people of
Paradise and the nűr (haloe, light) of
Islam.’ ” Hasan and Husayn informed ’Umar with the Glad Tidings.
Abu-l-mu’în Meyműn bin Muhammad Nasafî makes the following
observations in his book Tamhîd: It was not stated (beforehand) who the (first)
Khalîfa would be. If it had been stated that caliphate belonged to Alî and his
offspring, the Sahâba would have acknowledged it and the report would have
reached us. It would be a very grave slander against the Ashâb-i-kirâm to
assert that those great people withheld a clearly stated commandment. The
Ashâb-i-kirâm conveyed to us all the pieces of religious information, including
how to wash ourselves in the lavatory. If there had been a clear statement, or
even an implication concerning caliphate, it would definitely have been
conveyed to us by Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, by his children, and by the Sahâba.
When Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
passed away, The Sahâba came together in the hall of Banî Sa’îda and recited
the hadîth-i-sherîf, “If a person does not know the Khalîfa of his time, his death happens like
that of an irreligious person.” They concluded that it would not be
permissible to spend one day without a Khalîfa. Therefore, it is disbelief not
to know the Khalîfa. For the Khalîfa is indispensable for the performance of
some Islamic commandments. For instance, some religious practices and social
activities, such as the performance of Friday and ’Iyd prayers and (provision
of conditions for) orphans’ marriage, are dependent upon the Khalîfa. To deny
the Khalîfa is, therefore, to deny the (Islamic commandments termed) farz,
which, in its turn, means disbelief (in Islam itself). When one of the Ansâr
suggested that there could be two Khalîfas, “one from amongst us and one from
your group,” Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ stood up and said, “I think caliphate
goes (best) with Alî. I want him to be Khalîfa.” Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
presently stood up, drew his sword, and said, “O Abâ Bakr! You are the Khalîfa
of Allah and His Messenger! The Rasűl-i-Ekrem ‘sal-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
put you before us all. No one can go before you. The Messenger of Allah ordered
me, ‘Go and order Abű Bakr to be imâm for my Ummat!’
A person authorized by the
Messenger
of Allah to conduct our religious practices is welcome to conduct our worldly
practices.” Since the Rasűl-i-ekrem had made him his Khalîfa to conduct the
public worship (termed salât jamâ’at) for his place, he was nicknamed ‘Khalîfa-i-Rasűl
(The Messenger’s Khalîfa)’. All the Sahâba liked Hadrat Alî’s statements and
reached consensus on the caliphate of Hadrat Abű Bakr. Then they ran back to
perform their (final) service to the Messenger of Allah. After the interment,
the Khalîfa made (a speech termed) Khutba and concluded, “You have brought me
to the commanding post although I am not the best among you. Accept me (as your
Khalîfa).” Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ stood up again and said, “We are not to
refuse or accept you. Who could ever draw you back from the position to
exercise command over us where you have been appointed by the Messenger of
Allah?” Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ grew thinner and thinner during his
caliphate, so much so that he dwindled to a pitiable appearance at last. When
his blessed daughter Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ asked him what the matter was
with him, he said, “O my dearest child, the light of my eyes. The fire of
separation from Muhammad Mustafâ ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ has been
melting me away.”
Abdullah ibn Abbâs related: When the Izâ jâ-a (Nasr) sűra[1] was revealed, my
father Abbâs said to Alî, “This sűra informs (us) that Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ’ ’alaihi wa sallam’
is to pass away soon. Who do you think he will appoint (as) Khalîfa (after
him)?” Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ requested, “O my uncle. Please do go and ask Rasűlullah. If he gives the office to us, this
will prevent contensions between us and the Qoureish. If he is to give it to
someone else, then beg him to command that person to protect our rights.” When
Abbâs found the Messenger of Allah alone and asked him, the Messenger of Allah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “O my uncle! Allâhu ta’âlâ has given the
caliphate to Abű Bakr. Acquiesce in whatever he says so that you will attain
salvation and happiness. He who obeys him will find the right path.” If a person believes the fact that Hadrat Abű Bakr was a
rightly-guided Khalîfa and loves all the Ashâb-i-kirâm, he has found the right
path.
Salmân-i-Fârisî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was one of the
greatest Sahâbîs. He was praised in a number of hadîth-i-sherîfs.
---------------------------------
[1] The hundred and tenth (110) sűra (chapter) of the Qur’ân al-kerîm.
Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ appointed him governor of Medayn.
He passed away there in the thirty-fifth year (of the Hegira). That a person of
his greatness could have said, “dogs of Hell,” about Imâm ’Umar and a great
host of Sahâbîs, and ascribed this extremely abominable slander to the
Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, is not something that a
Muslim could ever be expected to believe. For there are various hadîth-i-sherîfs that prohibit maligning any
one of the Ashâb-i-kirâm. A Jew only would venture the effrontery to write the
slander that Salmân-i-Fârisî not only disignored all those hadîth-i-sherîfs but also concocted false
hadîths. Indeed, a hadîth-i-sherîf which is quoted on the authority of Bukhârî and Muslim in Manâwî
reads, “Holders of bid’at[1] are dogs of Hell.” The dogs of
Hell censured in this hadîth-i-sherîf are people who have deviated from the true path of Ahl as-sunnat
and who traduce the Ashâb-i-kirâm. The book Husniyya reverses the fact.
16– The Persian Jew named Murtadâ fibs as follows in his
book entitled Husniyya: “The élite as well as the rank and file among the Ummat
sent letters to various Muslim cities and provided a consensus on slaying
’Uthmân. In fact, some thirty thousand Muslims from Egypt arrived in Medîna to
voice a complaint about ’Uthmân’s cruelties. These people joined the
ijmâ-i-ummat and together they killed ’Uthmân in an unsightly manner, tied his
feet with ropes, and dragged him around all day long. Muslims came in groups
and kicked his corpse, saying, ‘What made you deem it permissible to perpetrate
all those cruelties on Muslims?’ ”
On the other hand, the event is related with unanimous
exactitude in all the literature on the Islamic history. The Turkish version of
the grand work of history entitled Tabarî, for instance, provides the following
account in the hundred and seventy-fifth page of its third book:
During the caliphate of Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
there lived a Jew named Abdullah bin Saba’ in Yemen. He had perused quite a
number of books on antiquity and was awaiting
---------------------------------
[1] Any sort of addition, deviation,
misinterpretation, invention and heresy in Islam’s tenets of belief or
practices is termed bid’at. People who practise bid’ats or hold beliefs
that are bid’ats are called holders of bid’at (heretics).
an
opportunity to ingratiate himself with the Khalîfa by simulating a dramatic
conversion to Islam in his presence. With this ruse in mind he came to Medîna
and, so to speak, became a Muslim. The Khalîfa, however, did not even pay
attention to his soi-disant devotion. Thwarted, he launched a nationwide smear
campaign against the Khalîfa. No sooner had the Khalîfa been notified of the
Jewish convert’s libellous activities against him than he had the villain
deported from Medîna. Yet the Jew was too dogged to give up; he went to Egypt
and resumed his character assassination against the Khalîfa. Owing to his very
adroitly exploited scholarship, he did not have to take pains to lure the
ignorant and soon made a ring of sensation-fanciers around himself. The slogans
which he most frequently insinuated were, “Every Prophet
had a vizier for himself. Our Prophet’s vizier
is Alî. Caliphate was his right. ’Uthmân appropriated his right.” He enticed
the fellahs (Egyptian peasants) into saying that ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
was a disbeliever and had Abdullah bin Sa’d, the governor of Egypt, write
complaints about the Khalîfa. Four thousand Egyptians came to Medîna and told
the Khalîfa their complaints about him. The Khalîfa answered all their
interrogations and proved in the light of âyat-i-kerîmas
and hadîth-i-sherîfs that he was right. So the
army of Egyptians went back home. A year later, another huge crowd arrived,
four thousand people from Egypt and four thousand from Iraq. When the people of
Medîna took up arms and asked why they were there, they stated their intentions
to make hajj (pilgrimage). So the people laid down their weapons. However, they
were there for the purpose of deposing Hadrat ’Uthmân. The Egyptians’ candidate
for caliphate was Hadrat Alî, while the Iraqi group preferred Hadrat Talha. When
the Egyptians told Hadrat Alî their intentions to make him Khalîfa, he reproved
them, saying, “Our Prophet ‘alaihis-salâm’
foretold that an accursed army would be encamped at the very site you have been
stationed at the moment.” That night the Khalîfa ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ visited
Hadrat Alî and told him to persuade the army to go back. Hadrat Alî obeyed the
Khalîfa’s order and the following morning he counselled the army (to go back).
The army was leaving, when Hadrat Alî came to the Khalîfa with the suggestion
to replace the governor of Egypt and appoint the Egyptians’ candidate as the
new governor. So the Khalîfa appointed Muhammad bin Abî Bakr as the new
governor. The
Egyptians
and the new governor set out for Egypt. Yet on the way they found a letter
written by the Khalîfa on one of the heralds. It contained a commandment from
the Khalîfa to the replaced governor and said, “Accept the people who will be
there soon.” At that time handwritings did not have any diacritical marks,
which have phonemic functions in some contemporary languages as well as in
Arabic today and which diversify the meanings of morphological entities which
are otherwise identical, -the same written form, for instance, means ‘accept’
or ‘kill’, depending on the number and the place of the diacritical dots. It
was the latter sense wherein the Egyptians happened to construe the word used
in the letter. Terribly indignant, they turned back, making the Iraqi group
turn back with them, and besieged the Khalîfa’s house. Twenty days later, on a
Friday night, (which is the night previous to Friday,) Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ manifested himself to Hadrat ’Uthmân in a dream
and blessed him with the Glad Tidings, “Yâ ’Uthmân
(O ’Uthmân)! Tonight you will have iftâr[1] with us!”
The soldiers burned the gate and entered the yard. Merwan (bin Hakem) was in
the yard with five hundred guards under his command. They fought. Blood flowed
like a stream. The five hundred guards fought to death. Merwan collapsed with a
deep wound. Muhammad bin Abî Bakr was first to enter the house. Yet, moved by
the Khalîfa’s words, he went back out. Then Kinâna bin Beshîr, one of the
Egyptians, martyred the Khalîfa as he was reading the Qur’ân
al-kerîm. They plundered the palace. Alî, Talha, Sa’îd and Sa’d
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’, four of the ten blessed people called Ashara-i-mubashshara,
did not even go out of their homes. All the people grieved. It was the
eighteenth day, Friday, of the month of Zilhijja in the thirty-fifth year of
the Hegira. The troops coming for help from Kűfa and Egypt were too late. The
Khalîfa was eighty-two years old. The time was late afternoon. Three days
later, three of his relatives carried him out of the house and buried him in
the cemetery of Bakî’. So badly terror-stricken were the people that nobody
dared attend the interment. Thus Abdullah bin Saba’ attained his wish and
reaped the fruits of his labour. He started the first fire of anarchy in the
Islamic world and inflicted the first wound on Islam.
---------------------------------
[1] The dinner which is eaten after breaking fast after sunset.
And now this book is trying to rekindle the fire of
anarchy and discord, to divide Muslims into groups and to confuse people’s
minds by disintering the subversive and seditious sophisms invented by the
notorious Jew (named Abdullah bin Saba’). Hadrat ’Uthmân’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
house was under siege, when the muadhdhin[1] called him to the mosque. He said, “I will not be able to come to
the mosque for salât. Tell Alî to conduct the prayers.” So Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’ conducted only the Friday prayer, appointing Abű Ayyűb al-Ansârî as his
deputy to conduct the other prayers. During the siege the Khalîfa (Hadrat
’Uthmân) sent Abdullah bin Abbâs as his deputy on hajj. A couple of days later
(after the Khalîfa’s martyrdom) the Egyptians went near Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
and said to him, “We have appointed you Khalîfa.” He refused it, saying,
“Appoint someone else! I will pay homage to him.” Then they went to Talha, only
to be refused once again. Five days later they sent the people of Medîna to
Alî. He would not accept it despite all their earnest and insistent requests.
The Egyptians were of the opinion that if they should go back without (having
elected) the Khalîfa a number of tumults would arise and there would not be
anyone to suppress them.
To avoid another possible fitna, Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
suggested that Rasűlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ Sahâba should pay homage first.
They brought Talha and Zubayr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’. Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
said, “I am not disposed to accept the office. But the Muslims are without an
Imâm now. If any one of you accept it I will pay homage to him.” Then, looking
at Talha he added, “You are worthy to accept the honour more than anybody else
is. Hold out your hand and I will pay homage to you.” “It would not devolve on
me in your presence,” was the latter’s answer, which he complemented with a
gesture of homage. Zubayr was the second to pay homage. Then the people
followed their example and paid homage. It was the twenty-fifth day of
Zilhijja. The (new) Khalîfa performed (the speech termed) Khutba. Then they
performed the Friday prayer. The Khalîfa’s first operation was to dismiss
Hadrat Mu’âwiya from (governorship of) Damascus and appoint Abdullah ibn Abbâs
for his place.
---------------------------------
[1] Person who recites a certain invitation to
the five daily prayers termed namâz or salât. This invitation, called adhân (or
azân), is explained in detail in the eleventh chapter of the fourth fascicle of
Endless Bliss.
However, Abdullah ibn Abbâs would not accept it. His explanation
for the refusal was, “Do not dismiss him. He has been governor there for a long
time. The dismissal may cause fitna.” So the Khalîfa suspended the dismissal
and Hadrat Abbâs did not go to Damascus. Yet a year later he reactivated the
dismissal and replaced several other governors as well. Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’ sent an army against the new governor, forcing him to return to Medîna. A
herald from Damascus came with the report, “More than a hundred thousand
Damascenes demand that you should retaliate for the blood of ’Uthmân
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. Every day they come to the mosque and weep for
’Uthmân.”
As is seen, a Jewish convert was the instigator of the
earliest fitna in Islam. He was the first sower of discord among Muslims. That
today’s lâ-madhhabî people are his followers is manifest in their book.
A hadîth-i-sherîf quoted on the authority of Talha bin Abdullah ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anh’ in the book Masâbîh reads as follows: “Every prophet has a companion. ’Uthmân is my
companion in Paradise.”
Enes bin Mâlik ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ relates: ’Uthmân
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was absent during (the oath of allegiance called)
Bî’at-ur-ridwân. He had been sent to Mekka on a mission. The Messenger of Allah
‘alaihis-salâm’ held one of his blessed hands with the other and stated, “’Uthmân is (away) doing the mission of Allah and His Messenger. So
I am making the oath of allegiance on his behalf.” Thereby he made his hand ’Uthmân’s hand.
Murra bin Kâ’b ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is quoted to have
related the following event in Masâbîh: Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ was foretelling the
imminent fitnas, when someone walked past. The Messenger pointed to him with
his blessed hand and said, “On the day of fitna this person
will be on hidâyat (guidance, the right path).” When I
stood up and looked at the person, I saw that he was ’Uthmân.
The great scholar Mawlânâ Nűraddîn Abdurrahmân Jâmî ‘rahimahullâhu
ta’âlâ’ relates the following event on the authority of Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anhâ’ in his book Shawâhid-un-nubuwwa:
(One day) Rasűlullah ‘alaihis-salâm’ said, “Yâ Âisha (O Âisha)!
Send for one of my Sahâba.” When I asked,
“Shall
I send for Abű Bakr?” he did not answer. So I knew that Abű Bakr was not the
person he wanted. Then I asked if I should send for ’Umar. There was no answer.
I asked once again, “Shall I send for Alî, the son of your paternal uncle?” And
his answer was silence once again. When I asked if I should ask for ’Uthmân, he
stated, “Send for him. Let him come here.”
When the Messenger of Allah ‘alaihis-salâm’ told him something he turned pale.
During his caliphate (years later) his house was besieged. When he was asked
why he would not resist, he said, “The Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ told me many things.
I promised him. So I am being patient.” Hadrat Âisha concludes as follows:
“Then I realized that that day the Messenger of Allah ‘alaihis-salâm’ had
forewarned him about the event.”
Abdullah ibn Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ relates:
On the day of Hunayn,[1] after the dispersal of the unbelievers Rasűlullah ‘alaihis-salâm’ and I were walking
past someone, when the blessed Messenger of Allah said to the person, “O you the enemy of Allah! Allâhu ta’âlâ does not like you.” When I
attempted to remind that that person disliked the Qoureishis, the Best of
Mankind stated, “Yes, he dislikes ’Uthmân.”
Abdullah ibn Abbâs quotes Rasűlullah as having stated, “I swear (in the name of Allah) that ’Uthmân will
save seventy thousand people of my Ummat (Muslims) from going to Hell by doing shafâ’at (intercession) for them.”
Some time after giving his daughter Ruqayya in marriage to
’Uthmân, Rasűlullah asked his daughter, “How do you find ’Uthmân bin Affân?” When
the blessed lady replied that she found him virtuous and good, the best of
fathers observed, “O my dearest daughter! Show extra
deference to ’Uthmân. For, of all my Sahâba he bears the closest moral and
behavioural resemblance to me!”
Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was planning to enter into another
marriage in addition to his married life with Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anhâ’. Rasűl’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ blessed heart was hurt when he heard about his
son-in-law’s intention. He would
---------------------------------
[1] The Holy War fought against the tribes
called Hawazin and Saqîf in the eighth year of the Hegira (629 A.D.)
not forgive him despite his apology and renunciation. Abű Bakr
tried to intercede, yet the blessed Prophet would still not forgive him. ’Umar’s intercession was futile,
too. Finally ’Uthmân offered his intercession, and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was
forgiven this time. When the blessed Prophet was asked why (he had forgiven his son-in-law upon ’Uthmân’s
intercession), he explained, “So virtuous is the
person whose shafâ’at (intercession) I have accepted that Allâhu ta’âlâ would replace the earth and the sky with each other if he asked Him
to. Or, if he invoked, ‘Yâ Rabbî (O Allah)! Please forgive all the sins of all the Ummat of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’,’ He would forgive
all Muslims.”
Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ did not have the money he needed
for his forthcoming wedding with Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhâ’.
He put his suit of armour up for sale. ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ saw the suit
of armour as he was walking by the market place, and recognized it at first
sight. He beckoned to the salesman, asked him how much the owner charged for
the suit of armour, paid the priced four hundred dirhams of silver, took the
suit home, and sent it to Alî along with another present, i.e. four hundred
dirhams of silver. His brief message said: “This suit of armour is an honour
which would weigh too heavy on anyone except you. And please do use the silver
for incidental wedding expenditures. We would be so happy to know that you
accept our apology.”
The great scholar Imâm Muhammad Pârisâ ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of
the greatest Awliyâ, provides the following information in his book Fasl-ul-khitâb: Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
preached the following admonitions: “I have heard that some people hold me
superior to Abű Bakr and ’Umar and ’Uthmân. Those people are hypocrites. They
do so in order to sow discord among Muslims and to separate brothers from one
another. The Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ forewarned me
against them and told me to kill them at sight of them. They pretend to be
Muslims although they are unbelievers and enemies of Islam. Being dirty inwardly,
they boast of their mendacities. They defile the Qur’ân
al-kerîm. They agree on irreligiousness. They malign the greatest
Sahâbîs and even the Rasűl-i-ekrem. They dwell on the differences among the
Ashâb-i-kirâm. Allâhu ta’âlâ will not forgive
them. Their seniors tutor the juniors in heresy and
discipline
them as chronic heretics. They undermine Islam and spread bid’ats. A person who
holds fast to the Sunnat (the true path guided by the Prophet)
at that time will be superior to martyrs and devout worshippers, and sa’âdat
(salvation and happiness) will be with him. (As for those separatists;) no one
on the earth is baser than they are. The earth is cross with them. The sky
shades them with condemnation. They are the worst people on the earth. They
secrete fitna. They are known with the appellation ‘enjâs’ = (dirty beings) in
the world of angels. They curse the Sahâba in their mosques, coffee-houses and
schools, and they do it in the name of worship. Their hearts do not accomodate
any human feelings. Allâhu ta’âlâ strips them of
human appearance.” When the Sahâba heard these statements, they asked, “O
Amîr-al-mu’minîn! What must we do if we live long enough to see that time?” He
replied, “Be like the Hawârîs (Disciples) of Îsâ (Jesűs) ‘alaihis-salâm’! Learn
our path. Do your best to adhere to the commandments of
Allâhu ta’âlâ, to obey His Messenger, to love all his Sahâba, and to
avoid the words and writings of those aberrant people! Abiding by the true path
of Sunnat is better than deviation and heresy.”
Imâm Refî’uddîn, Tâj-ul-islâm ’Uthmân bin Alî Merendî
quoted the following hadîth-i-sherîf on the authority of Abdullah bin ’Umar: Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
stated, “Allâhu ta’âlâ has made it farz (incumbent) upon you to perform (acts of worship such as) namâz (or salât),
fast, hajj (pilgrimage) and zakât; and likewise He has made it farz upon you to love Abű
Bakr as-Siddîq and ’Umar-ul-Fârűq and ’Uthmân Zin-nűrayn and Alî Murtadâ. If a
person dislikes any one of these four people, none of his (acts of worship such as) namâz, fast, hajj
and zakât will be accepted. On the Rising Day people with such hapless dislike
will be driven to fire [of Hell].”
17– The heretic goes on as follows in the book Husniyya:
“Imâm Ja’far Sadîq used to command (the temporary marriage contract termed)
mut’a nikâh. For Allâhu ta’âlâ has canonically legitimized the nikâh termed mut’a in His
âyat-i-jelîl which purports, ‘Pay the women whom you sexually utilize.’ (Mut’a
nikâh means a temporary marriage contract made between a man and a woman. To
realize it the man proposes to the woman to lend herself to him for a certain
length of time in
return for a certain sum of money and the woman accepts it (if she
likes to) without any witnesses.) Scholars of Tafsîr and Fiqh agree on the fact
that the âyat (we have quoted above) implies the mut’a nikâh. There is not
another âyat or a hadîth-i-sherîf to invalidate this âyat. ’Umar, the time’s Khalîfa, took the
liberty of banning this temporary marriage on the pretext that its practice had
been causing fitna without being based on an âyat or hadîth. ’Umar bin Hasîn
stated, ‘We practised the mut’a nikâh. It was never proscribed in âyats or
hadîths.’ And Abdullah bin ’Umar observes, ‘My father’s word could not abrogate
Rasűlullah’s sunnat.’ Everything is
canonically permissible unless it is prohibited in âyats or hadîths.”
It is written in all the books of Tafsîr and Fiqh that the
twenty-fourth âyat-i-kerîma of Nisâ sűra, which purports,
“... Seeing
that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers as prescribed;...” does not imply mut’a nikâh. It implies the mahr, i.e. the money
(which the bridegroom has to pay the bride during the Islamic contract of
marriage called) nikâh. For instance, the âyat-i-kerîma quoted above is explicated as follows in the twenty-sixth page of
the Tafsîr-i-Baydâwî, and in its
annotation entitled Tafsîr-i-Shaikhzâda: “This âyat-i-kerîma is about nikâh, which is canonically legal (in the Islamic
religion). It does not legitimize mut’a nikâh. As a matter of fact, it commands
the payment of mahr. The kind of nikâh termed mut’a was canonically legal
formerly. Later, it was prohibited. Islam does not approve of a temporary
contract performed in the name of nikâh.”
Mawlânâ Ekmeluddîn [Muhammad bin Mahműd Bâbertî] provides
the following explanation in the two hundred and thirty-first page of the book Inâya, which is a commentary of the book Hidâya, which was written by the great
scholar Burhânaddîn Merghinânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’:
The nikâh termed mut’a is null and void. Yes, it was formerly legal in
Islam, as is reported by Abdullah ibn Abbâs. Yet the Ashâb-i-kirâm declare
unanimously that later it was proscribed in hadîth-i-sherîfs.
In fact, they quote the hadîth-i-sherîfs in
which it is proscribed. For instance, Muhammad ibn Hanafiyya narrates as
follows: “My father, Imâm Alî, ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ related: On the very day
when the fortress of Hayber was conquered [in the seventh year of the Hegira], Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ proscribed
the mut’a nikâh.” In the face
of
this report on the authority of Imâm Alî, could Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq, who was a
most beloved member of the Ahl-i-Bayt, ever be imagined to have commanded the
mut’a nikâh? Absolutely not. Indeed, the author of the book entitled Husniyya,
a Jewish convert under the nom de plume Murtadâ, is a shameless liar who not
only misinterprets âyat-i-kerîmas and denies hadîth-i-sherîfs for the purpose of making others
believe his lies and slanders, but also has made a habit of monopolizing the
advocacy of the path of Ahl-i-Bayt. He represents his concoctions in the name
of hadîth-i-sherîfs and then, so to speak,
favours them as if they were the commandments of the Ahl-i-Bayt. This duplicity
takes effect with the ignorant, although a person who knows his faith Islam
well will not believe his lies. Our scholars have answered lies of this sort in
the light of âyats and hadîths and proved that the followers and the true
lovers of the Ahl-i-Bayt are the Sunnî Muslims.
Rebi’ bin Maysara ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ relates: On the day
we conquered Hayber, the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
made the mut’a nikâh halâl (permissible) for three days. My paternal uncle and
I went to a house where a woman lived. Both of us wore overcoats made from thin
cloth. My uncle’s overcoat was of a better quality. The woman, a non-Muslim
(ahl-i-kitâb), came to the door. She looked at my coat and noticed that I was
younger. “This man’s coat is not like the other one’s; nor is his youth,
though,” she said, and ushered me in, thus forgoing the coat for the sake of
the youth. I spent the night there. In the morning I heard Rasűlullah’s town-crier announce in the
streets: “O Muslims! The Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ has
forbidden the mut’a nikâh.” So we all ceased from the mut’a nikâh.
That the Messenger of Allah prohibited the mut’a nikâh as
he was alive is a fact unanimously acknowledged by the Sahâba. This unanimity,
(which is termed Ijmâ’,) does not make changes or amendments in the religious
principles, but it discovers and announces the changes and amendments that are
made by the âyats or hadîth-i-sherîfs which cancel the religious principles put by other âyats or hadîth-i-sherîfs previous to themselves.
Question: How could there
have been such unanimity despite the fact that Abdullah ibn Abbâs used to say
that the mut’a nikâh was halâl?
Answer: He was among those who
said, afterwards, that it had been prohibited. As a matter of fact, Jâbir bin
Zayd reports that ibn Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ said before his death that the
mut’a nikâh had been prohibited, and that his contribution finalized the
unanimity.
They assert that the mut’a nikâh is permissible in the
Mâlikî Madhhab. This assertion is inane, especially with the hadîth-i-sherîf quoted on the authority of
Alî ibn Abî Tâlib by Imâm Mâlik bin Enes in Muwattâ, [the first book written on Hadîth]. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’ is reported (in the book) to have said, “On the day we conquered the
fortress of Hayber, Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ prohibited consumption of
domestic donkey meat and practice of mut’a nikâh.” This is the end of the
passage we have borrowed from the book Inâya.
Mîzân-ul-kubrâ is another book
in which it is written that the mut’a nikâh is null and void in all four Madhhabs.
In all the Turkish as well as the Arabic literature on the
subject, e.g. in the thirteen hundred and twenty-eighth (1328) page of the book
of Tafsîr written by Hamdi Efendi ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ of Elmalý, the
twenty-ninth âyat of Baqara sűra is quoted, which purports,
“It is He (Allâhu ta’âlâ) Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; ...” (2-29) Hence, all kinds of food and drink and apparel are halâl for
you unless they are made harâm through âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs. This âyat-i-kerîma indicates that it is harâm to violate people’s right of chastity
and sexual safety. This prohibition borders only on Islam’s dictated area of
permissions, (called halâl,) such as the conjugal rights realized by way of
(the canonically prescribed marriage contract termed) nikâh. As is seen, the
maxim, “Everything is canonically permissible unless it is prohibited in âyats
or hadîths,” which the heretics attempt to exploit as a proof to attest that
the mut’a nikâh is halâl, has nothing to do with nikâh. Nor does it fulfill the
requirements of a scientific or religious argumentation. The Khalîfa ’Umar
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ did not consider it necessary to authenticate his
interdiction of the mut’a nikâh with a hadîth, nor did his interjection meet
any objections on the part of the people around him. This shows that everybody
knew that the mut’a nikâh had been prohibited (by the Prophet) beforehand.
18– He asserts, “After Rasűlullah’s
death, Abű Bakr and ’Umar quoted the hadîth, ‘We prophets do not leave an
inheritance
behind us. Whatsoever we leave behind is alms,’ and expropriated the date
orchard called (Fadak) from Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ, giving it to the Bayt-ul-mâl.
Fâtima was offended with Abű Bakr and pronounced a malediction over him. Indeed
the Messenger of Allah had given it to her as a present before his death, and
dates from the orchard had been brought to her for three years. Fâtima proved
this fact with the testimony of witnesses such as Alî and Hasan and Husayn and
Qanber. Yet Abű Bakr rejected their testimony. Indeed, the so-called hadîth was
a concoction of that cruel person. His daughter Âisha was the only other person
who quoted the so-called hadîth. If there really had been such a hadîth, it
would have been in Fâtima’s repertoire of hadîths and she would not have made a
demand that was harâm. The Sunnîs are trying to exculpate Abű Bakr from blame
at the cost of slandering the Ashraf-i-kâinât (the Prophet).
You assert that he (the Prophet) did not
communicate Allah’s commandment to Fâtima. If he did communicate it to her, in
this case she disobeyed it, which, in its turn, is an act of disbelief. (Since
this case is out of the question,) he who concocted this hadîth is a disbeliever.
Besides, Abű Bakr should have produced a witness. It was cruel of him also to
demand witnesses. Furthermore, it is written at various places of the Qur’ân al-kerîm that prophets do leave an inheritance
behind them.”
However, Ahmad Jawdat Pâsha ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’
provides the following historical information in the three hundred and
sixty-ninth (369) page of his book Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ (History of Prophets):
Hadrat Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, the Khalîfa, gave the weapons and
the white mule, which had been the personal belongings of the Messenger of
Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, to Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. He
left the (Prophet’s) other belongings to the
Bayt-ul-mâl. As for the date orchard called Fadak and the orchards in Haybar; Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had devoted
them as property for pious services before passing away, enjoining how to
dispense them. He used to dispense his personal property to envoys who came and
left, to guests and visitors, and to travellers and transients. Abű Bakr
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ maintained the tradition without any alterations. When
Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ asked for the property she believed to have
inherited from her blessed father,
stated,
“No one can inherit (any) property from us, Prophets. The property that we leave
behind is alms,” and added, “I cannot change Rasűlullah’s principles. I am afraid to take a wrong course.” Upon
this, Fâtima asked, “Who will inherit from you?” “My offspring and my wives
will.” “Then, why should I not inherit from my father?” “I heard the
Rasűl-i-akram, your father, say, ‘No one can
inherit property from us.’ Accordingly, you cannot inherit
(property) from him. However, I am his Khalîfa. I give the same people the same
alms as he used to give. It is my duty to defray your expenses.” Fâtima
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ was silent. Never again did she make any mention of the
subject.
Ahmad bin Muhammad Shihâbuddîn Qastalânî ‘rahimahullâhu
ta’âlâ’, a great scholar of Egypt, presents the following information in the
four hundred and ninety-first (491) page of the first volume of the translation
of the book Mawâhib-i-ladunniyya: The six books of Hadîth authenticated by all the Islamic
scholars are called Kutub-i-sitta (the Six Books). One of them was written by Ahmad bin Alî Nasâî.
That great scholar quotes the hadîth-i-sherîf, “We prophets do not leave inheritance (after death).” The word ‘inherit’ used in the âyat-i-kerîmas, “Sulaymân (Solomon) inherited from Dâwűd (David),” and “Yâ Rabbî! Give me children that
will inherit from me,” should not be construed as
‘inherit property’. It means ‘inherit knowledge and prophethood’. The hadîth-i-sherîf that we have quoted above is
quoted also by Imâm Abd-ur-Ra’űf Manâwî, who adds that he has borrowed it from
Imâm Ahmad’s book Musnad.
Abdulhaqq Dahlawî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a scholar of
Hadîth, states as follows in the five hundred and seventy-second (572) page of
the second volume of his book Madârij-un-nubuwwa, which he wrote in Persian:
Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated,
“We, prophets, do not inherit (property), nor do our relatives inherit (property) from us. What we leave behind is to be dispensed as alms.”
When he passed away, the personal property he left behind consisted of
household effects, weapons and beasts, and a date orchard called Fadak. He used
to give the dates from the orchard to his family and to the poor. After
his
death, his daughter Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ asked the Khalîfa Abű Bakr to
give her (her share of the) inheritance. The Khalîfa quoted the hadîth-i-sherîf (we have written above) and refused to
give her any property. Hadrat Fâtima asked, “Who will inherit your property
when you die?” “My family and my children will,” was the Khalîfa’s answer.
Fâtima pursued, “Then, why do I not inherit property from my father?” Upon
this, Abű Bakr as-Siddîq explained, “I heard your father the Messenger of Allah
say, ‘We prophets do not leave (property
as) inheritance behind us.’ However, I
am his Khalîfa. I shall give the same people the same things he would give, and
dispense the property he has left in the same manner he would spend it.” Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had
promised several people that he would give them property. After his passing
away, the people concerned came and demanded the property promised. The Khalîfa
satisfied all such demands. Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ was not the only person
whom Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ refused to give any inheritance. Âisha
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’, and likewise the other blessed wives of the Best of
Mankind were all turned down and reminded of the hadîth-i-sherîf
stating that prophets did not have worldly inheritors. Whenever the Khalîfa
quoted the hadîth-i-sherîf, all the Sahâbîs who
heard him acknowledged that they remembered the hadîth-i-sherîf
and not a single objection was raised. The Khalîfa did not meet any of the
demands for inheritance, although he gave the relatives of Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’ whatever the blessed Prophet
himself had been giving them before; he said that he would not change the
principles of the Messenger of Allah, and swore that he loved Rasűlullah’s relatives more than he did his own
relatives. It is incredibly astonishing to know that there are people who
assert that Hadrat Fâtima was offended with Hadrat Abű Bakr on account of
inheritance and felt lifelong hatred against him. Could Fâtima ever be imagined
to have rejected a hadîth-i-sherîf unanimously
quoted by the Ashâb-i-kirâm? It would be justifiable, to some extent, to claim
that she was hurt, which would have been natural for her as a human being, but
how could she ever be alleged to have held a grudge throughout her life? It is
an established fact that Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’, as she was about to pass
away, stated that she was pleased with Abű Bakr and they mutually forgave each
other for all the offences and
unfair
acts that they could have committed towards each other. For instance, according
to a narration which the great scholar of Hadîth Imâm Bayhakî reports on the
authority of Imâm Sha’bî, during Fâtima’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ illness, Abű
Bakr as-Siddîq came to the door. Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ told Fâtima that Abű
Bakr was at the door. Hadrat Fâtima asked Alî if he would like her to admit Abű
Bakr. “Yes, please do,” replied Alî. Admitted, the Khalîfa entered and he and
Fâtima mutually forgave each other for any injustice they could have done to
each other. Hence, Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ was pleased with Abű Bakr. It
is written in the book Kitâb-ul-wafâ, by
Imâm Mustaghfirî, as well as in Riyâd-un-nadara,
[by Ahmad bin Muhammad Tabarî-d. 694 (1294 A.D.)]: Abű Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
entered the presence of Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ and they mutually forgave
each other (for any mistakes they could have made against each other. Thus
Fâtima forgave him. Imâm Awzâî relates: Abű Bakr went to the door of Fâtima and
said, “I shall not leave this door unless (I know that) the daughter of the
Messenger of Allah has forgiven me.” Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, (who had come to
the door to meet Abű Bakr,) went back in and pleaded with Fâtima to forgive Abű
Bakr. So she forgave him. Hâfiz Abű Sa’d provides identical information in his
book Kitâb-ul-muwâfaqa. Fâtima
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ was interred at night. Therefore, Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
was unable to let the Khalîfa know of the interment. According to some other
reports, Abű Bakr attended the funeral and performed the (special prayer called
janâza) salât. According to a narration presented in the book entitled Fasl-ul-khitâb, during Fâtima’s ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anhâ’ illness, Abű Bakr came and asked for permission to enter. When
Hadrat Alî (went in and) told his blessed wife (Fâtima) the advent of the
Khalîfa, she said, “I will give him permission to enter if you give me permission
to do so.” “I do,” replied her blessed spouse. Upon Hadrat Fâtima’s permission,
Hadrat Abű Bakr entered and talked with her, asking for forgiveness and saying
that he had forgiven her for any unjust behaviour she thought she could have
committed towards him. So Hadrat Fâtima told the Khalîfa that she had forgiven
him. It was sometime between evening and night prayers when Hadrat Fâtima
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ passed away [in the eleventh year of the Hegira]. Hadrat
Abű Bakr, ’Uthmân, Abd-ur-Rahmân bin Awf, and Zubayr bin Awwâm were present.
They suggested
that
Abű Bakr should conduct the salât of janâza. So Abű Bakr conducted the prayer.
The burial took place at night.
When ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ became Khalîfa, he
dispensed the dates from (the orchard called) Fadak exactly as they would have
been dispensed in the time of the Messenger of Allah. Two years later he
transferred the management of the job to Alî and Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’.
Sometime later the two blessed people went to the Khalîfa with the application
to divide the orchard between them. Upon this ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
convened the Sahâba and appealed to them to answer his following question in
the name of Allah: “Did the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
say, ‘We, prophets, do not inherit property or leave property to
be inherited after us. Whatever we leave behind us is alms.’?” “Yes, he did. We heard him say so,” was their reply with one
accord, which they emphasized with an oath. Upon this, ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’ did not divide the orchard between the two blessed people and told them
to resume their former duty and continue to dispense the crops as they had been
doing. Later, the orchard was left under Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ charge. Then
it was passed down to his children and grandchildren, finally ending up in the
possession of Amîr Merwan. When ’Umar bin Abd-ul-’Azîz became Khalîfa, he said,
“I will not even touch the property which the Messenger of Allah would not give
his own daughter Fâtima.” It is understood from this statement that Fâtima
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ asked Rasűlullah to give her the orchard and that her blessed father refused to do
so. The hadîth-i-sherîfs on this subject
are written in Bukhârî. This is the end of the passage borrowed from Abdulhaqq Dahlawî’s
book.
It is stated as follows in the two hundred and
ninety-second page of the book Mir’ât-i-kâinât: “The wives and daughters of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam’ are higher than all the other women in the world ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anhunna’. According to Abdullah ibn Abbâs, if a person slanders or
maligns Rasűlullah’s wives, his tawba will not
beaccepted (by Allâhu ta’âlâ). If a person swears at Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’,
he must be killed (according to Islam’s penal code). For, to swear at her means
to deny the Qur’ân al-kerîm, which in turn is an act of disbelief according to a consensus
(of Islamic authorities).”
As for the âyat-i-kerîmas that
attribute inheritors to prophets:
Allâhu
ta’âlâ quotes Zakariyyâ’s (Zachariah) ‘alaihis-salâm’ invocation in the fifth
and sixth âyats of Maryam sűra. The sublime meaning of the âyat-i-kerîmas is: “Now I
fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me: But my wife is
barren: So give me an heir as from Thyself,-” “(One that) will (truly)
represent me, and represent the posterity of Ya’qűb (Jacob); ...”
(19-5, 6) These âyat-i-kerîmas are explicated as
follows in the Tafsîr of Baydâwî: “The
word ‘heir’ in the âyat-i-kerîma means ‘heir to
our religion and knowledge’. For, prophets ‘alaihim-us-salâm’ do not leave
property to be inherited after them.” It is stated as follows in the annotation
of Shaikhzâda: “To be an heir to prophets ‘alaihim-us-salâm’ means to promote
and serve one’s religion, which in turn is possible only by being a prophet or by having knowledge and a beautiful moral
quality or by occupying a high position that will be useful to the religion or
by possessing tayyib (unblemished and lawfully earned) property.” Zakariyyâ’s
‘alaihis-salâm’ first cousins (the sons of his paternal uncle were the worst
people among the Israelites. He was afraid that after his death they could
interpolate the true religion he had preached. The word ‘inherit’ in the
sixteenth âyat of Naml sűra, which purports, “... and
Sulaymân (Solomon) inherited from Dâwűd
(David),” is explained as ‘inherit his prophethood or knowledge or position
from him,’ in the Tafsîr of Baydâwî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’.
As is seen, Hadrat Abű Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ did not
expropriate the date orchard from Hadrat Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’, but he
left it in its former status, giving her whatever she needed from the
Bayt-ul-mâl. The goods that he gave Hadrat Alî were not in the status of
inheritance; they had already been transferred to the Bayt-ul-mâl; so he used
his authority as Khalîfa and gave them to him as gifts. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had not gifted the date
orchard to anyone. Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ did not claim that the orchard
had been gifted to her. Nor did she produce any witnesses to that effect. There
is not a single book where the matter is approached from that viewpoint. The
utterly clumsy falsification must be unique to the Persian booklet. There are hadîth-i-sherîfs, and even âyat-i-kerîmas
that lavish praises on Hadrat Alî, on Hadrat Fâtima and on Hadrat Hasan and
Hadrat Husayn. Hadrat Abű Bakr as-Siddîq sacrificed all his commercial goods,
his property, his homeland and his children
for
the sake of the Messenger of Allah; how could the ignoble deed of disignoring
all those hadîth-i-sherîfs ever be imagined to
go with such a high personality? Moreover, hundreds of hadîth-i-sherîfs
and the Qur’ân al-kerîm praise him and state his
merits. It was not necessary for Hadrat Fâtima to have been informed of the hadîth-i-sherîf concerning the matter of inheritance.
The Ashâb-i-kirâm let her know when the time came. Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ demanded
the date orchard because she thought it was halâl for her. When she knew that
it was not, she did not insist on her demand. It is not farz to let a person
know the acts of worship before their time comes. Furthermore, something
donated to a pious foundation cannot be inherited by anyone. Fâtima
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ admitted the Khalîfa’s statement immediately and
willingly. Since none of the Sahâbîs objected to (the genuineness of) the hadîth-i-sherîf, (which states that prophets do not
leave any property to be inherited after them,) a person who denies it becomes
a disbeliever. There is detailed information about the orchard called Fadak in
the fifth part of the book Documents of the Right
Word. Please read that part for information!
The following episode is presented in the four hundred and
ninetieth page of the book Manâqib-i-chihâr yâr-i-ghuzîn:
One day Abű Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ came to Rasűlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
place. He was about to enter, when Alî bin Abî Tâlib ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
arrived, too. Abű Bakr stepped backwards and said, “After you, Yâ Alî.” The
latter replied and the following long dialogue took place between them:
Alî – Yâ Abâ Bakr, you go in first for you are ahead of us
all in all goodnesses and acts of charity.
Abű Bakr – You go in first, Yâ Alî, for you are closer to
the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’.
Alî – How could I go ahead of you? I heard the Messenger
of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ say, “The sun has not risen on any one of my Ummat higher than Abű Bakr.”
Abű Bakr – How could I go ahead of you? On the day when Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ gave
his daughter Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhâ’ in marriage to you,
he stated, “I have given the best of women to the
best of men.”
Alî – I cannot go ahead of you, for Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
stated, “Let him who wants to see Ibrâhîm (Abraham) ‘alaihis-salâm’ look at Abű Bakr’s
face.”
Abű Bakr – I can not go ahead of you, for Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
stated, “Let him who wants to see Âdam’s
‘alaihis-salâm’ tenderness and Yűsuf’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ beautiful moral
qualities look at Alî!”
Alî – I can not enter before you. For, the Messenger of
Allah ‘alaihis-salâm’ asked, “Yâ Rabbî! Who
loves me most, and who is the best of my Sahâba?” Jenâb-i-Haqq answered, “Yâ Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’! He is Abű Bakr as-Siddîq.”
Abű Bakr – I can not go ahead of you. For, the Messenger
‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “So (good) is the person whom I
give knowledge that Allâhu ta’âlâ loves him, and so do I; I love him very much.” You have been the gate to the town of knowledge.
Alî – I can not go before you, for the Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’
stated, “There is a sign that says, ‘Abű Bakr,
the Habîbullah (the Darling of Allah),’ on the gates of Paradise.”
Abű Bakr – I cannot go before you. For, during the Holy
War of Hayber the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ handed the
flag to you and stated, “This flag is a gift from the
Melîk-i-ghâlib to Alî bin Abî Tâlib.”
Alî – How can I go before you? The Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’
said to you, “Yâ Abâ Bakr! You stand for my sight,
which sees, and for my heart, which knows.”
Abű Bakr – I can not go ahead of you. For, the Messenger
‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “On the Rising Day Alî will
come (to the place of assembly) on the back of an animal of Paradise. Jenâb-i-Haqq will say, ‘Yâ
Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’! How beautiful a father your father Ibrâhîm Halîl is; and how
beautiful a brother your brother Alî bin Abî Tâlib is.’ ”
Alî – I can not go before you. For, the Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’
stated, “On the Rising Day the angel named Ridwân,
who is the chief of the angels of Paradise, will enter Paradise, coming back
with the keys of Paradise. He will give them to me. Then Jebrâîl
‘alaihis-salâm’ will come and say, ‘Yâ Muhammad, give the keys of Paradise and
those of Hell to Abű Bakr. Let Abű Bakr send anyone he chooses to
Paradise and others to Hell.’ ”
Abű Bakr – I can not go ahead of you, for the Messenger
‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “Alî will be by my side on the
Rising Day. He will be with me near the Hawz and Kawthar. He will be with me on
the Sirât. He will be with me in Paradise. And he will be with me (at the happiest moment) as I see Allâhu
ta’âlâ.’ ”
Alî – I can not enter before you do, for the Messenger of
Allah ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “If the îmân held
by Abű Bakr were weighed against the total sum of the îmân held by all the
other Believers, his îmân would weigh heavier.”
Abű Bakr – How can I go before you? For, the Rasűl
‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “I am the city of knowledge.
And Alî is the gate?”
Alî – How can I ever walk ahead of you? For, the Rasűl
‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “I am the city of faithfulness.
And Abű Bakr is its gate.”
Abű Bakr – I can not go before you, for the Rasűl ‘alaihis-salâm’
stated, “On the Rising Day Alî will be made to
mount a beautiful horse. Those who see him will wonder: What prophet is that person? Allâhu ta’âlâ will say: This is
Alî bin Abî Tâlib.”
Alî – I can not go ahead of you, for the Rasűl
‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “I and Abű Bakr are from the
same soil. We shall be one again.”
Abű Bakr – I can not go before you, for the Rasűl ‘alaihis-salâm’
stated, “Allâhu ta’âlâ will say: O you,
Paradise! I shall adorn your four corners with four people. One of them is
Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, the highest of prophets. Another one is Alî, the highest of those
who fear Allâhu ta’âlâ. The third one is Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ, the highest of
women. And the fourth corner will be occupied by Hasan and Husayn, the highest
of pure people.”
Alî – How can I go ahead of you? The Rasűl ‘alaihis-salâm’
stated, “A voice from the eight Gardens of
Paradise calls as follows: O Abâ Bakr, come with those whom you love; and you
all, enter Paradise!”
Abű Bakr – I cannot go before you, for the Rasűl ‘alaihis-salâm’
stated, “I am like a tree. Fâtima is the trunk.
Alî is the
branches. Hasan and Husayn are the fruits.”
Alî – I can not go before you, for the Rasűl
‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “May Allâhu ta’âlâ forgive all the
faults of Abű Bakr. For, he gave his daughter Âisha to me; he helped me during
the Hijrat (Hegira, Migration to Medina); he bought Bilâl-i-Habashî, (who was a
slave formerly,) and emancipated him for me.” ... .
As the two darlings of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam’ were talking like this before the door, the Best of Mankind
was inside, listening. He interrupted Alî as he was talking and stated from
inside:
“O my brothers Abű Bakr and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’! Please do come
in! Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ has been here; he says that the angels on the earth
and in the seven skies have been listening to you and that you could not
describe your value in the view of Allâhu ta’âlâ were you to praise each other till the end of the world.” The two beloved companions gave an affectionate hug to each
other, and together they entered the presence of the Messenger of Allah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. The Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless both of you with his Rahma (Compassion) hundreds of times. May He bless your lovers also with His Rahma
hundreds of times; and may your enemies be accursed hundreds of times.” Hadrat Abű Bakr as-Siddîq said, “Yâ Rasűlallah (O Messenger of
Allah)! I shall not do shafâ’at (intercede) for the enemies of my brother Alî.”
Hadrat Alî said, “Yâ Rasűlallah! I shall not intercede for the enemies of my
brother Abű Bakr; and I shall behead them with my sword.” Abű Bakr stated, “I
shall not let your enemies pass the Sirât Bridge.”
19– The liar goes on, “The Sunnîs are hostile to the
Ahl-i-Bayt. For, you call the Shiites ‘Râfidî’ for flagellating themselves in
mourning for Hasan’s and Husayn’s martyrdoms on the Ashűra Day, the tenth of
Muharram, in the face of your own hullabaloos, which you all join regardless of
your educational backgrounds, as the khatîb recites about the (prophet Ibrâhîm’s) attempt to sacrifice (his
own son) Ismâ’îl, on the (pulpit called) minbar (in a mosque) on the ’Iyd of
Qurbân[1].”
---------------------------------
[1] Detailed information on the ’Iyd of Qurbân, as well as how to sacrifice (perform) Qurbân is available in the fourth chapter of the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss.
We celebrate the ’Iyd of Qurbân and perform the Khutba, –
which is performed on the ’Iyd of Qurbân as well as on Fridays-, because it is
a commandment of the Messenger of Allah. The (recital performed during the)
Khutba must be listened to silently. No one makes a hullabaloo or flagellates
himself during the performance. In Islam, to wail or to flagellate oneself in
mourning for catastrophes is an act of protest against the qadâ and qadar
foreordained by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Yes, it is permissible (in Islam) to weep over
the loss of one’s darlings. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ grieved very deeply over the loss
of his honorable and cherished wife Hadîja-t-ul-kubrâ ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ and
over the death of his very much beloved son Ibrâhîm, as well as when, during
the battle of Uhud, he saw his martyred uncle Hamza ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, whom
he had always praised. So deep and burning was the grief he felt that he wept
bitterly for a while before his Sahâba. Yet he never cried or wailed. Nor did
he ever go into mourning. In the time of Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ special importance was attached
to the tenth day of the blessed month of Muharram; Muslims would fast and
perform much worship on that day. However, that day was never held as a day of
mourning, nor any of the other days whereon the Muslims experienced much worse
misfortunes. Mourning exists in the Christian cult. Disbelievers practise it.
The Sunnî Muslims grieve and weep over (the prophet) Ismâ’îl ‘alaihis-salâm’ as well as over (the catastrophies that
befell) our masters Hasan and Husayn all the year round, not only once in a
long year. Every Friday, whenever the Sunnî Muslims hear the names of Hasan and
Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’, they feel profound grief and their eyes shed
blood. Yet, since mourning is something prohibited by the Messenger of Allah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, they do not go into mourning or exceed their
religious instructions.
Those who assert that the Sunnî Muslims are hostile to the
Ahl-i-Bayt have evil tongues that deserve to be withered. Farîdaddîn Attâr
‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a Sunnî scholar, wrote as follows about Imâm Ja’far
Sâdiq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, (one of the Ahl-i-Bayt,) in his book
Tadhkira-t-ul-Awliyâ:
Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq was a paragon in
the Islamic world and a testimony incarnate to the factuality of prophethood.
He was steadfast in all his deeds, and well-versed in all the branches of
knowledge. He was the fruit of the hearts of Awliyâ, and a beloved child of the
Master of Prophets. He was an assayer for Imâm Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, and an
heir to the Rasűl ‘alaihis-salâm’. Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq, a lover of Allâhu ta’âlâ and an ’ârif, (i.e.
person gifted with profound knowledge of Allâhu ta’âlâ,) was one of the
Ahl-i-Bayt. All the members of the Ahl-i-Bayt are the same. A statement that
belongs to one of them, belongs to all of them, too. His path is the very path
followed and guided by the Twelve Imâms ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’. My tongue and my
pen would fall quite short of praising him. For, he was a master of all
sciences, disciplines and techniques. He was the chief of all the Awliyâ. All
of them depended on him. People of other religions also would run to him, and
the Muslims would follow him. People of dhawk would be after him and lovers of Allâhu ta’âlâ would be in his path. He was ahead of
all the âbids, (i.e. dedicated worshippers), and the most blessed of all the
zâhids, (i.e. people who have freed their hearts from all sorts of worldly
concerns). He was a writer of facts, and a decoder of the secrets in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. There are some people who assert that
the Muslims of Ahl as-Sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at, (i.e. the Sunnî Muslims,) dislike
the Ahl-i-Bayt ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. It dismays me to see the
crass ignorance that such people display. For, Ahl as-Sunnat and Ahl-i-Bayt are
synonymous. Ahl as-Sunnat means the path guided by the Ahl-i-Bayt. So unsound a
delusion those people have clung to! Wouldn’t people who loved Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’ love his children as well? As a matter of fact, Muhammad bin
Idris Shâfi’î, an Imâm of the Ahl as-Sunnat, (and the leader of the Shâfi’î
Madhhab, which is one of the four authentic Madhhabs in matters pertaining to
Islamic practices and deeds of worship,) was rumoured to have been a Shiite on
account of his legendary love of the Ahl-i-Bayt. So widespread was the canard that
the authorities, convinced of his delinquency, had to imprison him. He
versified his plea, which can be paraphrased as follows: “If being a Shiite
means to love the offspring of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, let all people and
genies be witnesses to my acknowledgement that I am a Shiite herein. For I love
the Ahl-i-Bayt-i-Nabawî very much.”
Naturally, it is something commendable to love the
Ahl-i-Bayt. Yet it is a terribly sordid attempt of manipulation to assert that
love of the Ahl-i-Bayt should entail animosity against a group of the
Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. It is declared in hadîth-i-sherîfs that people who make that
assertion are bound for Hell.
Ahl as-Sunnat means (the path
adhered to by) Muslims who love and follow the Ahl-i-Bayt and all the
Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. For there is only one path
followed commonly by the Ahl-i-Bayt and by the Ashâb-i-kirâm: the path guided
by the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. Some people have
been following a wrong path invented by the enemies for the purpose of
demolishing Islam from within. They have been carrying on an animosity campaign
against a great majority of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum
ajma’în’. In order to deceive the Muslims, they say that they are lovers of the
Ahl-i-Bayt and that they have been following the path guided by the Ahl-i-Bayt.
Thus they sully those great people of Islam and the most beloved guides of the
Sunnî Muslims with their irreligiousness and heresy. May Allâhu ta’âlâ guide them back to the right
course! May He protect all Muslims from lapsing into that heresy that leads to
perdition! Âmîn.
The highest of
Awliyâ is Siddîq-i-ekber[1], next comes Fârűq
[2],
And next after Zi-n-nűrayn[3] is Alî Walîyullah.
The other Sahâba,
may all be auspicious to mention;
All the Ashâb-i-kirâm, I love for the sake of Allah.
’Ashara-i-mubashshara[4], Fâtima, Hasan and Husayn,
Were blessed with the good news of ‘Paradise’ by Allah.
None else can be
guaranteed Paradise; otherwise,
It’d be a claim to the unknown, which none knows but Allah.
And next after all
the Sahâba, of the entire Ummat,
All the Tâbi’în are most virtuous Awliyâillah.
---------------------------------
[1] Hadrat Abű Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’.
[2] ’Umar ul-Fârűq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’.
[3] ’Uthmân Zinnűrayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’.
[4] The ten Sahâbîs who were given the good news that Allâhu ta’âlâ had guaranteed them Paradise. These ten
Sahâbîs were Abű Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthmân, Alî, Talha, Zubayr bin Awwâm,
Abd-ur-Rahmân bin ’Awf, Sa’d ibn Abî Waqqâs, Sa’îd bin Zayd, Abű ’Ubayda bin
Jerrâh ‘ridwânullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’.