No one in the world has escaped being libeled, somehow, by
wicked people. Heretics called Mu’tazila vilified even prophets ‘alaihim-us-salawâtu wa-t-taslîmât’ and
angels. Across the vilifications, however, people of wisdom and reason diagnose
the vilified people’s purity and nobility. A clear evidence proving the
superiorities of the Shaikhayn is the fact that their obstinately jealous and
prejudiced adversaries have been reiterating the same stereotyped sophisms for
centuries.
One of their vilifications is based on Hadrat Abû Bakr’s
refusal to give Hadrat Fâtima an inheritance from her father ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’.
Hadrat Abû Bakr’s refusal to give her an inheritance was merely
intended to obey the injunction implied in the hadîth-i-sherîf,
“We prophets do not leave an inheritance behind us.
No one inherits property from us.” It is stated in the Qur’ân al-kerîm that prophets such as Dâwûd (David),
Suleymân
(Solomon),
Yahyâ (John) and Zakariyyâ (Zachariah) ‘alaihim-us-salâm’ used the word
‘inheritance’ in their statements. Naturally, our Prophet
was the person who understood the meanings of the Qur’ân
al-kerîm best. Realizing that the word ‘inheritance’ used in the âyat-i-kerîmas meant ‘inheritance of knowledge and
caliphate’, and not ‘inheritance of property’, our Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ uttered the hadîth-i-sherîf
quoted above. The hadîth-i-sherîf is a
clarification of the Qur’ân al-kerîm (in this
matter). As Abû Dâwûd narrates, Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had date orchards at Benî Nadîr, at Hayber, and
at Fadak. He would dispense the income from the first one to civil servants,
and the income from Fadak to the poor. He would divide the income from the one
at Hayber into three, giving two-thirds to Muslims, and the remaining one-third
to his Ahl-i-Bayt, i.e. his family. In case any amount remained, he would
dispense it to the poor ones of the Muhâjirs. When Hadrat Abû Bakr became
Khalîfa, he did not change this policy of the Messenger of Allah. When Hadrat
’Umar became Khalîfa, he sent for Hadrat Alî and Hadrat Abbâs, and asked them,
when they arrived, if they had heard the hadîth-i-sherîf
which we have quoted above, swearing them to telling the truth. They replied
that they had. Hadrat Fâtima only wanted to be blessed[1] by
taking possession of property which was impeccably halâl (canonically lawful)
because it was given by Islam; she was somewhat upset when she was not given
property of inheritance although she had heard the hadîth-i-sherîf;
it was only human after all. Nor did Hadrat Alî change the policy perpetuated
by the Shaikhayn; and he did not give the orchards to his children when he
assumed caliphate. ’Umar bin ’Abdul’azîz also followed their example.
Siddîq (Hadrat Abû Bakr) ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ had a
thief’s left hand cut off. They criticize him for that chastisement which they
alledge to be incompatible with Islam. The event is related at length in the
book Muwatta. The thief’s right hand and
foot had already been mutilated. It was for his left hand’s turn to be cut off.
Hadrat Abû Bakr’s example is followed in the Madhhabs of Mâlikî and Shâfi’î.
The Madhhabs of Hanafî and Hanbalî, on the other hand, follow a report coming
through
---------------------------------
[1] The expression which is used in the
original text is ‘to get barakat’. ‘Barakat’ means ‘abundance caused by
blessedness’.
Hadrat Alî; accordingly, if a person’s one hand and one foot have
already been mutilated, he is imprisoned instead of another one of his limbs
being cut off.
Another reason for which they blame Hadrat Abû Bakr
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was his not having implemented qisâs (retaliation)
for Mâlik bin Nuwayra.
Khâlid bin Walîd inferred from Mâlik’s choice of words
that he had become a renegade (from Islam). So he had him killed. Because
Hadrat Abû Bakr’s ijtihâd indicated that Hadrat Khâlid was telling the truth,
he did not implement qisâs on Hadrat Khâlid. We wonder what justification those
people will suggest for Hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ not having
implemented qisâs on Hadrat ’Uthmân’s murderers, since they see no
justification in Hadrat Abû Bakr’s attitude?
They claim that “It had been neither openly commanded nor
implied beforehand that Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ should be
(the first) Khalîfa. If it had been so, he would not have been elected Khalîfa
(later) by way of ijtihâd, for ijtihâd would have been unnecessary.” Seven
overlapping preambles would be illuminative in answering their argument:
1) There were several manners in which the Wahy[1] came to Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. Some of the âyats
(warning about the vehemence and imminence) of torment (in Hell) came with
sounds like those of bells. Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-sallâm’ would appear in human
guise and say the âyats to the blessed Prophet. Occasionally, wahy would happen during (the Prophet’s) dreams. Firâsat (insight) also
was sometimes a manner of wahy. Most of those kinds of wahy does not exist in
the Qur’ân al-kerîm. It is not
permissible to question its reasons. We should not ask, for instance, why most
of the instructions pertaining to namâz do not explicitly take place in the Qur’ân al-kerîm, whereas everything about
fasting is described clearly. Likewise, it cannot be questioned why a certain
commandment was revealed in a dream instead of simply being declared in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. Likewise, we are not
supposed to interrogate why Hadrat Abû Bakr’s caliphate was not foretold in the
Qur’ân al-kerîm instead of being
implied in a prophetic dream.
---------------------------------
[1] The Qur’ân al-kerîm; revelation
of the Qur’ân
al-kerîm; messages which Allâhu ta’âlâ sent to His Messenger in âyats.
2) Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ announced some of the
commandments and prohibitions clearly. On the other hand, he implied some of
them by saying, for instance, “May Allah’s compassion be on anyone who performs
that act,” or by imprecating, “May he who commits that act be accursed in the
view of Allâhu ta’âlâ.” This policy also is something unquestionable. For
instance, it cannot be asked why the Shaikhayn’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’
caliphates were implied in a manner of dream-telling and not as a direct
commandment, saying, for instance, “Make Abû Bakr and ’Umar Khalîfas after me.”
3) Some commandments were implied in narrations of
futureevents. Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ coming back and the Dajjâl’s appearing were
foretold, and the Dajjâl’s iniquities were stated. These narrations imply
certain commandments, e.g. “Obey Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’ when he comes
back,” and proscriptions, such as, “Do not follow the Dajjâl when he appears!”
Another method of commanding or prohibiting certain acts was to say, for
instance, “I have seen those people who do this and that in Paradise,” or, “I
have seen people who do so in Hell.” Commandments and prohibitions are
sometimes stated clearly in âyats, and sometimes by way of presuppositions
imported in âyats. For instance, the statement, “So and so has manumitted
Ahmad,” imports the presupposition (iqtidâ) that Ahmad was his slave. To say,
“I have designated this person as your commander,” means that you should obey
that person’s orders, which is a presupposition imported in the statement. By
the same token, Allâhu ta’âlâ declared openly that He would appoint (some people as) Khalîfas
over this Ummat (Muslims). And He revelad in (the blessed Prophet’s) dreams that the Shaikhayn would
be (the earliest) Khalîfas. Likewise, by giving Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’ the
Glad Tidings that He would send unto humanity a prophet whose dispensation would be the finality of Divine Messengership, Allâhu ta’âlâ implied that all people
should obey His final Prophet. “Adhere to my path and, after me, to the path in which the
Khulafâ-ar-râshîdîn (the earliest four Khalîfas; namely,
Hadrat Abû Bakr, Hadrat ’Umar, Hadrat ’Uthmân, and Hadrat Alî) will be guiding you,” is a hadîth-i-sherîf which commands to obey the
Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’. That they would assume caliphate was a
presupposition imported in this hadîth-i-sherîf.
4) That it was implied that the Shaikhayn would assume
caliphate is symptomatic of the fact that they were rightly-guided and true
Khalîfas. It is identical with Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ happy prophecy about the
advent of the final Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam.’
5) Two unclear pieces of information provided in the nass
are united to indicate a clear fact. For instance, the hadîth-i-sherîf, “After me pay homage to Abû Bakr and ’Umar,” does not clearly foretell the Shaikhayn’s caliphates although
it contains their very names. However, the hadîth-i-sherîf, “After me, adhere to the path in which
the Khulafâ-ar-râshidîn will be guiding you,”
complements it into a clear indication of their future caliphates. When the two
hadîth-i-sherîfs are combined,
it becomes an established fact that the Shaikhayn were (rightly-guided)
Khalîfas. Why the fact was divided into two complementary utterances is a
prophetic mystery the ultimate divine benefits of which are known only to the
owner of the utterances.
6) (The documentary sources of Islam called) the Edilla-i-shar’iyya are four. The
third of these four sources is Ijmâ’, (which means consensus of the Sahâba on a religious matter).
Realization of ijmâ’ requires existence of a delîl, i.e. a document, based on the Book, (i.e. the Qur’ân al-kerîm,) or the Sunnat, (i.e. hadîth-i-sherîfs). The Ashâb-i-kirâm reached (a consensus called) ijmâ’ by
reminding the delîls to one another. They designated Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anh’ as Khalîfa as a result of that ijmâ’. Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’anh’ statement, “We know that he is the most eligible for the office,” attests
this fact.
7) The terms istikhlâf, (i.e.
leaving someone as one’s successor,) and sarîh nass,
which are used by Imâm Nawâwî and other scholars, have various meanings. If the
head of the (Islamic) state convenes the prominent statesmen, towards his
death, and tells them to pay homage to a certain person (after his death), he
has done istikhlâf by way of sarîh nass. Otherwise, it is (only) istikhlâf to
say that that person is eligible for being Khalîfa. This way of (indirect)
designation does not stipulate conditions such as closeness of (the present
Khalîfa’s) death and (his) convening the prominent state authorities. It is a
way of informing, rather than a commandment. If a certain person has been
recommended by way of istikhlâf, this implicit
priority
he has gained does not place any restrictions on someone else’s assuming office
as (the new) Khalîfa. Istikhlâf is sometimes quite unclear. It can be clarified
only by way of the presupposition imported in the (previous Khalîfa’s)
statement. Or, it becomes clear when two different (implicit) statements are
collocated. Different scholars of Fiqh may derive different meanings from the
presupposition imported in a certain statement.
We can now rest our conclusive answer on the informational background
supplied by the above seven introductory paragraphs: According to Imâm Shâfi’î
‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, who was the chief of the Madhhab with which Imâm Nawawî
was affiliated, –in fact, Imâm Shâfi’î was the chief of all the scholars of
Hadîth, as well as those of Fiqh–, the hadîth-i-sherîf,
“If I am not here when you come back, ask (your
questions to) Abû Bakr,” was a clear
indication of the fact that Abû Bakr was to be (the first) Khalîfa. Imâm
Shâfi’î was a scholar with profound knowledge, a keen perception, and an
utterly solid reasoning. He was one of the documentary signs which Allâhu ta’âlâ specially created. He states that that hadîth-i-sherîf, an apparent order given to a certain
woman as it was, was in actual fact an implication which must inevitably be
construed as an information foretelling that Hadrat Abû Bakr was to be Khalîfa.
As Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
uttered that hadîth-i-sherîf, he did not show
any signs of regret or displeasure. This state shows that the event foretold
was to be justified and canonically lawful. Other hadîth-i-sherîfs
uttered at various places indicate Hadrat Abû Bakr’s caliphate more directly.
Collectively, they make up a (certain religious fact which is termed) tawâtur. Imâm Nawawî’s argument, “If there were a
nass, (i.e. a clear narration,) they would quote it and act accordingly. They
did not quote a nass,” is quite out of place. On the contrary, they did quote various
nasses, i.e. clear narrations. For
instance, they said that when a person is designated as an imâm (to conduct the
public prayers of namâz for Rasûlullah’s place),
he is to be Khalîfa (after the Messenger of Allah). Because it was an
established fact known by all the Ashâb-i-kirâm, they considered it unnecessary
to search for and quote other nasses. Besides, bereaved of the Messenger of
Allah, they were totally overwhelmed with grief and despair; worse still,
intelligence had arrived that the Arabs had turned
renegade
and were marching towards Medîna. The caliphate election had to be done as soon
as possible. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ summarizes the event as follows:
“When Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
became ill, he ordered us to tell Abû Bakr to conduct the salâts. Afterwards,
we (remembered this event and) thought the matter over upon Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’
passing away. We elected Abû Bakr as Khalîfa, since he was a person whom the
Messenger of Allah had made our leader in salât (namâz), which was Islam’s flag
and the archstone of all acts of piety.”
Question: Hadrat Abû Bakr
pointed to Hadrat ’Umar and Abû ’Ubayda ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’
and said, “Pay homage to one of these two people.” Doesn’t this attitude of his
show that there was not a nass to indicate that he was to be Khalîfa? Isn’t it
harâm to prefer someone else despite the nass?
Answer: That behaviour of Hadrat
Abû Bakr’s was a clever and polite technique applied to make others acknowledge
the existence of a nass which indicated his caliphate. It was intended to
announce what he knew through others’ tongues.
That Hadrat Abû Bakr is the highest member of this Ummat
is a fact stated by most of the Islamic scholars. Another fact which is
unanimously stated (by the Islamic scholars) is that after Hadrat ’Uthmân,
Hadrat Alî is the (fourth) highest. There were also scholars who stated that
Hadrat Alî was higher than Hadrat ’Uthmân, and that he was even higher than the
Shaikhayn.
According to a report narrated on the authority of Nizâl bin Sabra in
the page containing the entry ‘Abdullah bin Abî Quhâfa’ in the book Istî’âb, Hadrat Alî stated, “After our Prophet, the most auspicious Muslim among this Ummat
is Abû Bakr. Next after him comes ’Umar.” This statement of Hadrat Alî’s was
also quoted by Muhammad bin Hanafiyya, one of Hadrat Alî’s sons; by
’Abd-i-Khayr; and by Abû Juhayfa. Another quotation from Hadrat Alî reads as
follows: “The Messenger of Allah was in the lead. Then Abû Bakr took over from
him. Hadrat ’Umar was the third. Thereafter came fitna (chaos, turmoil,
mischief, sedition).” Abd-i-Khayr quotes Hadrat Alî as having said: “May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless Abû Bakr with His Compassion, for
he was first to bring this Ummat together.” Abdullah bin Ja’far Tayyâr
observed: “Abû Bakr became Khalîfa over us. He was utterly useful and extremely
merciful.” Mesrûq
observed:
“It is a symptom of Ahl as-Sunnat to love Abû Bakr and ’Umar and to believe in
their superiority.” This is the end of the passage we have borrowed from Istî’âb. Ibn Hajar Makkî observed: “Those
(scholars) who stress Hadrat Alî’s superiority mean that he was superior in
some respects, which is by no means fadl-i-kullî (overall superiority).” This
partial superiority provides him excellence over people other than the three
Khalîfas (previous to him).
The Ashâb-i-kirâm and the Tâbi’în had various different
merits. Most of the Tâbi’în were not mujtahids. Ijmâ’ means ‘consensus of mujtahids’. If
there is an ijmâ’ on a certain matter, it is not permissible to follow the
muqallids’ words in that matter. There are various ijtihâds on matters which
have not been settled by way of ijmâ’. The differences of ijtihâds are
eliminated by way of discussion and consultation, and thereby an ijmâ’
(consensus) is reached. All the decisions which the Salaf as-Sâlihîn reached by
way of ijmâ’ were of this sort. Salmân Fârisî’s statement, “There was
correctness as well as error in the caliphate of Abû Bakr,” means, “There were
various ijtihâds as to the superiorities of Abû Bakr, and he was elected by way
of ijmâ’.” Abû Juhayfa observed: “My ijtihâd indicated that Hadrat Alî was
superior to all. However, when Hadrat Alî mounted the minbar and acknowledged
that Abû Bakr was the most superior member of this Ummat and that ’Umar was
next after him, my ijtihâd became null and void.” Also, Imâm Mâlik’s remark, “I
cannot hold anyone superior to a part from the Prophet,” signifies fadl-i-juz’î (partial superiority; superiority in
some respects). So is the case with all the remarks made by the minority who
held Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ superior.
Question: Don’t the
utterances made by the scholars of Kalâm concerning the superiority of Abû Bakr
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ seem to be pure guesswork rather than statements of
definite facts?
Answer: True. There were scholars who surmised
his superiority as well as those who were certain as to their statements.
However, even those who only surmised opted to believe in the affirmative, and
none of them took a negative approach to the matter. That indicates that the
superiority of Abû Bakr is an ineluctable fact. Abul Hasan Ash’arî, the leader
of the instructors of the Sunnî path, states the superiority of Abû
Bakr
definitely. Others’ asserting that Hadrat Abû Bakr was elected Khalîfa in
consequence of ijtihad based on guesswork could not eclipse this certain fact.
There are two groups of Ashâ’ira, i.e.
scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat. In the first group are those scholars who always defeated
their opponents in the discussions. Those people did not busy themselves very
much in the science of Hadîth. Abû Bakr Bâqillânî and Imâm Râdî (ar-Râzî) and
Qâdî Baydâwî and Qâdî ’Adûd and Sa’duddîn Teftâzânî are a few of them. The
second group are the scholars of Hadîth. Those scholars kept away from
discussions. Nor did they delve into depths. Ajûrî and Bayhakî are two of those
scholars. We muqallids (imitators, non-scholars, ordinary Muslims) subsist on
the remnants of the meals of those two groups of scholars. We feed ourselves by
licking the dishes of those great scholars. If the arguments presented by those
who hold that the superiority of Hadrat Abû Bakr is based on guesswork are
studied with due attention, it will be seen that they are based on the
apparently contradictory narrations coming from the Salaf as-Sâlihîn (the early
Islamic scholars). However, as we have explained, those narrations are not
actually contradictory. Some of those people, on the other hand, assess the
superiority by a criterion based on the consensus reached on the caliphate
election. Yet it is another fact we have already explained that many another
criterion was taken into consideration concerning superiority. Earliness in
embracing Islam, for instance, was one of the favourable qualifications. As is
inferred from the words of the Salaf as-Sâlihîn, the caliphate election was
posterior to the determination of superiorities. Superiority is a condition
indispensable in Khilâfat-i-nubuwwat,
i.e. in being the Prophet’s Khalîfa. The tenure
of office essential in that level of caliphate is thirty years. Caliphates in
the aftermath do not stipulate superiority. The book Sharh Mawâqif provides a splendid explication of this matter.
Here are the conclusive remarks presented in the book:
“Superiority is not something measurable by accurate gradations. Nor
is it confined within mental areas of cognition. For instance, a certain person
cannot be held superior because apparently he has more thawâb, (i.e. he has
done more pious acts than other people have done and therefore deserves more
rewards in the Hereafter). It can be assessed, to some extent,
on
the basis of the majority of reports. On the other hand, it has by no means any
affinity with teachings of Fiqh, in which a Muslim can utilize his zann-i-ghâlib (preferrable guesswork) as a last
resort in his religious concerns. It is a matter of knowledge, which in turn
requires certainty and positive judgment. Contradictory nasses are not
productive of definite knowledge. Nor is the profusion of the symptoms
suggesting the abundance of merits and bleessings (thawâb) viable in accurate
mensuration. For, thawâb is a gift from Allâhu ta’âlâ. He may not give any
thawâb to a person for his acts of worship. For another person’s worship, in
contrast, He may give very much thawâb. Having been elected as Khalîfa, even if
it is definite itself, is not a definite indication of superiority. At the
most, it causes surmise. Then, how could it ever be confidently held that it is
not sahîh (valid, canonically lawful) to elect someone inferior as Khalîfa
despite the existence of a superior one? Besides, it is a fact conveyed to us
by the Salaf as-Sâlihîn that the order of superiority (among the earliest four
Khalîfas) is (coincidental with the order of their caliphates, i.e. it is as
follows): Hadrat Abû Bakr was the highest; Hadrat ’Umar was the second highest;
Hadrat ’Uthmân was the third highest; and Hadrat Alî was the fourth highest. As
a requirement of the good opinion we have for the Salaf as-Sâlihîn, we say that
‘They would not have communicated to us something they had not known for
certain. It is wâjib (incumbent) on us Muslims to follow the Salaf as-Sâlihîn. Allâhu ta’âlâ knows all truth.’
“Âmidî [Sayf-ud-dîn Alî bin Muhammad] provides the following
explanation: When someone is said to be superior to another person, it may be
meant either that the former is knowledgeable and the latter is ignorant or
that the former is more knowledgeable than the latter, (although he, too, is a
knowledgeable person). None of these two sorts of superiority could have been
the case among the Ashâb-i-kirâm. In fact, each and every one of them had
special merits in addition to the merits which all of them commonly possessed.
A certain merit can be more valuable than (the sum of) various other merits.
Therefore, a person who has the greatest number of merits cannot be said to be
the most superior.” This is the end of the excerpt we have borrowed from Sharh
Mawâqif. [Âmid is the former name of a city (in Southeastern Turkey) which is
now called Diyâr-i-Bakr. According to information given within the
chapter
dealing with various kinds of testimony in the book Durr-ul-mukhtâr,
and also in the book Fawâid-ul-behiyya,
the Salaf as-Salihîn are the scholars of
the first two (Islamic) centuries, who are commended in a hadîth-i-sherîf. Those blessed people are also called
the Sadr-ul-awwal.]
Ijmâ’ is one of the four (Islamic)
documentary sources. When there is not a single report contradictory to the
ijmâ’, it is definite ijmâ’. When there is a contradictory report, even if it
is (one of those kinds of reports called) shâz (weakly supported) or nâdir
(rare), the ijmâ’ in this case is suppositional, not definite. According to the
scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat, the caliphate of Hadrat ’Uthman was rightly-guided.
The scholars are unanimous in that. Yet there is not a consensus on that Hadrat
’Uthmân was superior to Hadrat Alî. As is seen, certainty of caliphate does not
cause certainty of superiority. Nor does uncertainty concerning a person’s
superirotiy cause uncertainty concerning his caliphate. Actual superiority is
to be loved very much by Allâhu ta’âlâ, which can be learned only from wahy. Being praised very much does
not indicate (additional) superiority. Indeed, all the Ashâb-i-kirâm
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ were praised very much.
Question: The hadîth-i-sherîfs indicating that Hadrat Abû
Bakr would be Khalîfa are identical with prophecies about Allâhu ta’âlâ’s
future creations. They do not indicate an exclusive right. Even if we were to
admit that they indicated a right, it would only be a permission. In fact, if
there were two candidates equal in superiority, any one of them would assume
office (as Khalîfa); however, that person may have been somewhat below the
other one in superiority. The hadîth-i-sherîf, “After me, pay homage to Abû Bakr and
’Umar,” means, “Pay homage to them because Allâhu ta’âlâ decrees their caliphate!”
For, it is wâjib to obey the Khalîfa even if he is not superior. Likewise, the hadîth-i-sherîf, “I shall rise from grave together with Abû Bakr and ’Umar,” informs about a future coincidence. Reports of this sort do not
indicate superiority. Other hadîth-i-sherîfs and dreams also inform about future events.
Answer: Irâda-i-teshrî’î is dependent upon
Irâda-i-tekwînî. Allâhu ta’âlâ knew in the
eternal past that He would create certain people at certain times. He knew also
what would be useful for those people. He willed to create those people in
their
times.
He determined the harâms, the halâls, and His commandments. In other words, He
decreed them. He creates them when their time comes. He willed in the eternal
past that the Shaikhayn would be Khalîfas. He informed His Messenger about that
decree of His. And the Messenger of Allah, in his turn, informed the Muslims
about the ‘Irâda-i-tekwînî’ by saying, “After me,” and about the ‘Irâda-i-teshrî’î’ by saying, “Pay homage!” So was the case with Allâhu ta’âlâ’s
decreeing in the eternal past that He would create Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ and that it would be farz to believe
him. That it is farz to believe the Messenger of Allah and it is wâjib to obey
the Khalîfas indicates a special merit reserved for them. No other merit can be
superior to that special merit. There are more than fifty evidences indicating
the caliphates of the Shaikhayn. And most of them are clearly stated evidences.
Question: Hadrat ’Umar
and Hadrat ’Uthmân banned the kinds of hajj called Mut’a and Qirân.[1] The Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ were opposed to that banning. What would you say about
that?
Answer: It is a fact stated by the
scholars of the four Madhhabs that Hadrat ’Umar was not against Mut’a hajj. He
merely said that Meccans would earn more thawâb if they performed Ifrâd hajj.
The four Madhhabs differ in many of the acts of worship within hajj. The
differences among them are based on ijtihâd. Differences of ijtihâd are not
bid’ats. The Ashâb-i-kirâm described with all the minute details how Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
performed hajj. There is not an iota of difference among their descriptions.
However, their speculations on the blessed Messenger’s purposes for some of his
performances varied. According to the Shâfi’î and Mâlikî Madhhabs, Rasûlullah’s hajj was Ifrâd. Hadrat ’Umar and Hadrat ’Uthmân
also reported so.
Question: The (kind of
temporary cohabitation termed) mut’a nikâh was widely practiced in the time of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa
sallam’. Hadrat ’Umar banned it when he became Khalîfa. Didn’t that mean to
cancel an act of Sunnat?
Answer: The Ashâb-i-kirâm were at
variance among
---------------------------------
[1] A Muslim who performs Mut’a hajj is called
a Mutamatti’ hadji, and one who performs Qirân hajj is a Qârîn hadji. Please
see the seventh chapter of the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss.
themselves on the actual purport of the hadîth-i-sherîfs concerning the matter.
Hadrat ’Umar put an end to the discussions. A consensus (ijmâ’) was reached. It
can be inferred from this event also that Hadrat ’Umar was a true Khalîfa of
the Messenger of Allah. The hadîth-i-sherîf informing that the mut’a nikâh was made harâm (forbidden) is
written in the books Bukhârî and Muslim and Muwatta. This fact was reported
also by Hadrat Alî.
Question: Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
asked for a pen and paper towards his death. Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’anh’ objected to the Prophet’s order
on the pretext that “He must be in a mental disturbance caused by illness to
say so. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us.”
Answer: After the revelation of the âyat-i-kerîma commanding consultation, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ usually
consulted with his Sahâba before making important decisions. The wahy that was
revealed in the aftermath of the discussions was more often than not in favour
of the Sahâba’s arguments. The salât of janâza for Abdullah bin ’Ubayy was
performed at the end of such consultations. Hadrat ’Umar’s comment was in the
same category. Approving of Hadrat ’Umar’s comment, Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ desisted from his demand. He never repeated his
demand from Thursday till the following Monday. He would have repeated his
order within the intervening days if he had wished to do so. If there had been
something to be recorded, he would necessarily have repeated his demand. This
event is an animated document indicative of the value and honour of Hadrat
’Umar in the view of the Messenger of Allah. He could not be blamed for having
said, “Ask him (again). I am afraid he must have said so in a state of delirium
(due to his fever),” to prevent others’ attempt to fetch a pen and paper.
Indeed, he would have meant, “The Prophet will
not talk wildly (under normal conditions). He will always tell the truth. Ask
him again for confirmation.” Nevertheless, there is not an authentic report
ascribing the utterance of the words, “... he must have said so in a state of
delirium,” to Hadrat ’Umar. What is even more farcical is the preposterous
allegation that “The Messenger of Allah was going to write an order designating
Hadrat Alî as his Khalîfa. That was why Hadrat ’Umar prevented others from
getting a pen and paper.” It is a squalid attempt of divination on
past people’s
inner intentions. Had it been necessary to write the would-be Khalîfa’s name,
Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ also would have done so. In fact, it
was during that period of illness when the blessed Messenger said to
HadratÂisha: “Send for your father Abû Bakr! I
shall write (out a document) for him,
for I am afraid that someone may come forward with the claim that he is more
eligible than Abû Bakr for caliphate. It is Abû Bakr, alone, whom Allâhu ta’âlâ and the
Believers will approve.” This hadîth-i-sherîf
is written in Muslim. Thereafter the
blessed Prophet ordered, “Leave (here, and let) me (be) by myself!” That
prophetic order shows that he wished the Refîq-i-a’lâ
(to be with Allâhu ta’âlâ).
Question: Hadrat ’Uthmân
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ appointed his kinsmen to important positions. Is it
something justifiable?
Answer: So did Hadrat Alî. Those great people
cannot be criticized for such practices. Likewise, Hadrat Alî did not apply
qisâs (retaliation) on Hadrat ’Uthmân’s murderers. He did not show deference to
Abû Mûsa-l-Ash’ârî and Abû Mes’ûd Ansârî. He failed to prevent bloodshed among
Muslims. He did not join the Holy War of Tabuk. These facts do not detract from
Hadrat Alî’s great honour. On the contrary, Hadrat ’Uthmân’s kindness towards
his kinsmen was something Islam advised. By doing so, he attained the thawâb
promised for Sila-i-rahm. Besides, he
did all his kindnesses from his personal property. He could be held culpable if
he had given presents from the Bayt-ul-mâl. Dispensing one’s rightful deserts
from the Bayt-ul-mâl to Muslims instead of making personal use of them, is pure
meritorious, let alone blameworthy, conduct. Hadrat ’Uthmân’s kinsmen made
jihâd. They demonstrated very much heroism. He rewarded them by giving them
their dues, as he rewarded the other mujâhids. The Islamic expansions over Asia
and Africa in the time of Hadrat ’Uthmân were due to his profuse kindnesses. As
a matter of fact, the Messenger of Allah also would give more ganîmat to the
Qoureishîs than to other people. And to the Hâshimîs (Hashimites) he would give
even more. Hadrat ’Umar’s statement, “I am afraid ’Uthmân will appoint the Benî
Umayya to positions over the Muslims,” was intended to offer his opinion as to
the futility of (Hadrat ’Uthmân’s) probable future preference, rather than his
disapproval of Hadrat ’Uthmân’s policies. A mujtahid cannot be
blamed
for acting upon his own ijtihâd. And it is the Khalîfa’s prerogative to appoint
any person he chooses to a position as he wishes. In fact, it is his duty. He
preferred his kinsmen, considering that they would be more loyal to him. That
policy of his proved gainful. Their wrongdoings, on the other hand, were not
committed on his instructions. The Khalîfa does not have to know someone’s
future activities. His slowness in the qisâs (retaliation) to be inflicted on
Walîd bin ’Uqba was intended to take time for a healthier investigation of the
complaints. When the people of Kûfa reported that Walîd was guilty of wine
consumption, he ordered Hadrat Alî to inflict the flogging termed hadd on him.
And Hadrat Alî did as he was ordered (by the Khalîfa). By burning the copy of
the Qur’ân al-kerîm prepared by Abdullah bin
Mes’ûd, he united all the Muslims around the copy of the Qur’ân al-kerîm prepared by the Shaikhayn
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’. His attitude was not intended to insult Abdullah
bin Mes’ûd. On the contrary, it was a great service rendered to Islam. As for
the banishment of Abû Zer from Medîna; it was because he had violated the ijmâ’;
therefore it was not an arbitrary banishment.
Question: Hadrat ’Uthmân
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ paid no attention to Muhammad bin Abû Bakr’s cries.
Answer: Muhammad bin Abû Bakr was
not a faultless person; nor was he innocent at all. It was the Khalîfa’s duty
to chastise him. That the letter containing the order, “Kill both of them,” was
not written by Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, and that it was an
act of duplicity contrived by some ignoble tribesmen, is written in a history
book by Yâfi’î.
Question: Hadrat ’Uthmân
did not inflict qisâs on Abdullah bin ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum
ajma’în’.
Answer: The Khalîfa appeased the
murdered person’s inheritors by giving them plenty of property. This precaution
forestalled an imminent fitna. The event was a typical example of
administrative finesse.
Question: Hadrat ’Uthmân
made fields and farms.
Answer: Yes, he did. And he made
them not as his own property, but as pastures and habitats for the animals
belonging to the Bayt-ul-mâl. This policy was a great service to the Bayt-ul-mâl.
There is no evidence to imply that Hadrat Alî had to do with
the
martyrdom of Hadrat ’Uthmân. Nor is there an iota of likelihood as to that.
Because the murderers were numerous and dominant, Hadrat Alî could not perform
the qisâs immediately. Moreover, Hadrat ’Uthmân’s inheritors did not demand
qisâs. Nor was the assassin known by name. As a matter of fact, the murderers
were rebellious against Hadrat ’Uthmân, and, (strategically,) obedient to Hadrat
Alî.
The election that brought Hadrat Alî to office as (the
new) Khalîfa was canonically lawful. Most of the notables who had a say in the
matter paid homage to him. Talha and Zubayr were not against his caliphate.
Their only demand was the performance of the qisâs (as early as possible). It
is stated as follows in the book Istî’âb: “Hadrat Alî was paid homage to on the very day when Hadrat
’Uthmân had been martyred. The Muhâjirs and the Ansâr paid homage to him.
Hadrat Mu’âwiya and the Damascenes refused homage to him. Allâhu ta’âlâ declared that He would
forgive them.”
According to the group of Imâmiyya, it is permissible to announce the
practices of an innocent (sinless) imâm (religious leader, khalîfa) in the name
of the Prophet’s practices. This belief
induced them to concoct quite a number of false hadîths. Daylamî and Khatîb
(Baghdâdî) and ibn Asâkîr saw that the scholars before them had compiled all
the hadîths that were in the categories termed Sahih and Hasan. So they
compiled the hadîths called Da’îf, (or Za’îf). That the hadîths written in the
books Bukhârî and Muslim are true ones is acknowledged
unanimously by all the dependable religious authorities.
The statement, “Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ passed away on Hadrat Alî’s
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ lap and made his last will to Hadrat Alî,” is
untrue. The utterance, “Make war against people with whom Hadrat Alî makes
war,” is not a hadîth-i-sherîf.
None of the âyat-i-kerîmas which the
group of Imâmiyya claim were revealed for Hadrat Alî contains the name of
Hadrat Alî; nor is there any clue to show that they were revealed for him. On
the other hand, there are clear signs symptomatic of the fact that the âyat
telling the event in the cave and some other âyats were revealed for Hadrat Abû
Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. This fact is acknowledged in Shiite books as
well. The âyat of Tathîr concerns not Hadrat Alî, but the Zawjât at-tâhirât
(the blessed wives of the Messenger of Allah). So does
the
âyat of Mubâhala. The âyat-i-kerîma which
purports, “I want you to love my kinsfolk,”
concerns not (only) Hadrat Alî, but (also) all the Prophet’s
believing kinsfolk.
The hadîth-i-sherîf which was uttered at a place called Ghadîr-i-Hum commands to love his (the
blessed Prophet’s) Ahl-i-Bayt. That hadîth-i-sherîf does not contain the final
words that state, “He is the Khalîfa after me,” or “He is your walî (guardian)
after me,” or any other words to that effect. They are concoctions. There are
hundreds of hadîths fabricated in that manner. The Islamic scholars have
divulged the liars responsible for such misleading accretions.
Question: It is stated in
a hadîth-i-sherîf: “On the Rising Day, many people whom I know will be made to move
away from my Pond (Kawthar). When I call them back, saying, ‘My Sahâbâ,’ a voice will be heard
to say: You do not know what they did after you.” Doesn’t this hadîth-i-sherîf foretell that most of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’anhum ajma’în’ will deviate from the right path?
Answer: The blessed Prophet
warned during the valedictory khutba which he made at his final hajj: “Do not turn renegade after me! And do not decapitate one
another!” This hadîth-i-sherîf
indicates that those who did not make war against the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ and those who did not fight the Muslims are not within the
scope of the (previous) hadîth-i-sherîf. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ blessed the
Shaikhayn and most of the Ashâb-i-kirâm with the Glad Tidings that they would
go to Paradise. This Glad Tidings shows that they will die with îmân (as
Believers), go into Paradise, and dwell near Rasûlullah’s
Pond in company with the Best of Mankind. Furthermore, the fifty-fourth âyat of
Mâida sûra purports:
“Ye who believe! If any from among you turns back from his
faith, soon will Allâhu ta’âlâ
produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,–
...” (5-54) This âyat-i-kerîma
indicates that Allâhu ta’âlâ loves those who
make a stand against people who become renegades. It was during the caliphate
of Hadrat Abû Bakr that the threatened situation materialized. To have a bad
opinion of those blessed people who have been listed by their well-known names
and epithets among the people of Paradise, and worse still, to malign them,
means to expose oneself to the greatest disaster. That the Muslims who joined
the Holy War of Badr are people
of
Paradise is one of the plain Islamic declarations. It is abysmal ignorance to
speak ill of those fortunate people.
Question: Isn’t the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Allâhu ta’âlâ will send twelve Khalîfas. All of them are from the
tribe of Qoureish,” indicative of the Twelve Imâms
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în?
Answer: At first sight, that the argument
pressed by the group of Imâmiyya is a sound one seems to be a fair inference
from that hadîth-i-sherîf. However, hadîth-i-sherîfs, like âyat-i-kerîmas,
elucidate one another. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf
quoted on the authority of Abdullah ibn Mes’ûd: “The
Islamic mill will run for thirty-five years. Thereafter, there will be people
who will perish. And those who will come afterwards will promote Islam for
seventy years.” What we – Shâh Waliyyullah Dahlawî means himself–
understand from the hadîth-i-sherîf is this: The
beginning of the so-called thirty-five-year period is the second year of the
Hijrat, which is at the same time the beginning of the earliest movement of
jihâd. In the thirty-fifth year Hadrat ’Uthmân was martyred and disunion among
Muslims broke out. Jihâd and the spreading of Islam came to a standstill.
Muslims slaughtered one another in the wars of Camel and Siffîn. Allâhu ta’âlâ reorganized the caliphate and thereupon
jihâd was resumed. It was maintained till the collapse of the Benî Umayya
[Umayyad, Emevî] dynasty. Turmoil prevailed again as the Abbâsî [Abbasid] state
was being established. Many Muslims lost their lives during the commotions.
Then Allâhu ta’âlâ reorganized the caliphate
once again. The newly established order lasted until Hulâghû burned and
destroyed Baghdâd. A hadîth-i-sherîf quoted on
the authority of Sa’d ibn Abî Waqqâs reads as follows: “I pray to my Allah to maintain my Ummat’s power till the end
of half a day.” When asked what was meant by “half a day,” Sa’d
replied that it was five hundred years. This hadîth-i-sherîf
covers the lifespan of the Abbasid state, [i.e. five hundred and twenty-four
years]. The hadîth-i-sherîf previous to it
signifies the Khilâfat-i-nubuwwat,
stating that it is a thirty-five-year period, and calling the Khalîfas who will
assume office thereafter Melîk-i-’adûd,
i.e. Sultân. So, the hadîth-i-sherîf (quoted in the question) implies that
the total number of the Khalîfas within the two periods is twelve. It is quite
wrong to confuse the twelve Khalîfas in the hadîth-i-sherîf
with the Twelve Imâms. For, the
word
used in the hadîth-i-sherîf is Khilâfat (caliphate), not Imâmat. That most of the Twelve Imâms were not
Khalîfas is a plain fact which is acknowledged even by the Shiites. It is
stated in the hadîth-i-sherîf that the twelve
Khalîfas are Qoureishîs, which indicates that not all of them are Hâshimîs. The
group of Imâmiyya do not claim that the Twelve Imâms spread Islam and conquered
lands. On the contrary, they say, “Islam was covered up after the death of the
Messenger of Allah. The imâms, preoccupied with (the dissimulation called) teqiyya, failed to guide the people. Hadrat Alî
could not say what he knew.” Whereas the hadîth-i-sherîf
foretells a slackening of Islamic principles after the Twelve Imâms, the
Imâmiyya group claim that after the completion of the Twelve Imâms Îsâ (Jesus)
‘alaihis-salâm’ will descend from heaven and promulgate Islam. According to our
understanding, the twelve Khalîfas (mentioned in the hadîth-i-sherîf)
are the earliest four Khalîfas, who are called Khulafâ-i-râshidîn,
and after them, Hadrat Mu’âwiya and ’Abdulmelik and his four sons, and ’Umar
bin ’Abdul’azîz, and Walîd, who was ’Abdulmelik’s grandson. Abdullah bin Zubayr
should be outside of the group of twelve Khalîfas. For, the hadîth-i-sherîf quoted on the authority of Hadrat
’Umar has proved to have been prescient of the fact that Abdullah bin Zubayr’s
appearing as a Khalîfa would be one of the disasters to befall this Ummat
(Muslims), inasmuch as his assuming office caused bloodshed in the blessed city
of Mekka, which in its turn was sacrilege towards Kâ’ba-i-mu’azzama. Since
Yazîd and the other Umayyad Khalîfas did not render services to Islam, they are
not included among the twelve Khalîfas.
Question: Hadrat Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ had many kerâmats. Aren’t they symptomatic of his
superiority?
Answer: Shihâbuddîn Suhrawardî
‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ stated: “Few kerâmats were witnessed on the
Ashâb-i-kirâm. More kerâmats were seen on the Shaikhayn than on Hadrat Alî.”
[Most of those kerâmats are related in Yûsuf Nebhânî’s book Jâmi’u kerâmât-il-Awliyâ.]
Question: What would you
say about the hadîth-i-sherîf, “I am the city of knowledge. Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ is its gate”?
Answer: This hadîth-i-sherîf is a definite sign of
superiority. However, there is many another similar hadîth-i-sherîf. A few examples are: “Acquire one-fourth of knowledge from Humeyrâ!” “After me, pay homage to Abû Bakr and
’Umar!” “If ibn Umm-i-Abd is pleased
with a person, I am pleased with him, too!” Humeyrâ is the epithet which Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ gave
to Hadrat Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. It is a widely known fact that
Hadrat Alî had superior religious lore and that he was ahead of most of the
Sahâba in the science of Genealogy. All these superior qualities, however, fall
short of making him superior to the Shaikhayn.
It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that Muhammad Bâqir and
Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum’, two of the descendants of
Hadrat Alî, were perfect, in knowledge, in wara’, and in worship. Kuleynî
writes that Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq was hostile to men of Tasawwuf.
The group of Zaydiyya also are hostile to the orders of
Tasawwuf. Abdullah Ansârî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of the greatest Awliyâ,
states: “I have seen one thousand and two hundred Walîs. Only two of them,
namely Sa’dûn and Ibrâhîm, were Sayyids.” And none of those only two Walîs is
widely known. There were Sayyids among the Awliyâ of the later centuries. Yet
those people received fayz from murshids who were not Sayyids.
The Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs command openly to obey Islam. None of the spiritual states
experienced in the orders of Tasawwuf is stated in them. Therefore, superiority
is assessed not by Tasawwuf, but by the degree of one’s services to Islam.
Question: People who
adapt themselves to prophets ‘alaihim-us-salawât-u-wa-t-taslîmât’ attain Fanâ,
Baqâ and other ma’rifats, as well as other valuable spiritual perfections such
as Wahdat-i-wujûd. They are given kerâmats. On the other hand, every Muslim
practices the five Islamic principles. Great scholars like Imâm Ghazâlî and
Celaleddîn Rûmî ‘rahimahumullâhu ta’âlâ’ state that Tawhîd-i-wujûdî is utterly
valuable. Then, shouldn’t Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ be superior
since he is the source of the orders of Tasawwuf?
Answer: A person who says, “The five Islamic
principles will not cause one to become closer to Allâhu ta’âlâ. They will only
help
people to form good habits and to get along well with one another,” is a zindiq. His real purpose is to demolish Islam.
Islam guides one to love of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Allâhu
ta’âlâ dislikes people who do not obey Islam. He will torment them. If a
person asserts that orders of Tasawwuf are easier guides to love of Allâhu ta’âlâ, we ask him to prove his assertion.
Islam is the basis of the orders of Tasawwuf. A person who does not obey Islam
cannot be a Walî. We have explained in detail earlier in the text that the
Shaikhayn were ahead of all in obeying Islam as well as in causing others to
obey Islam. To try to purify the heart by way of dhikr and murâqaba is to obey
Islam. Islam’s four sources are: The Book (Qur’ân al-kerîm), the Sunnat (hadîth-i-sherîfs,), the Ijmâ’i Salaf (consensus
of the scholars of the first two Islamic centuries), and the Qiyâs-i-fuqahâ (the
onerous work carried on by the scholars of Fiqh in order to derive rules,
commandments and prohibitions from the Qur’ân
al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs by way of ijtihâd; rules and principles so derived). The Qur’ân al-kerîm contains five groups
of teachings:
1– It teaches how to infer the existence and the unity of Allâhu ta’âlâ by observing the creation.
[Scientific knowledge is in this group.]
2– Observing the annals of history, it reveals the fact
that Believers and people who obeyed Islam always led a happy life, whereas
unbelievers lived in excruciation in the world.
3– Stating the blessings and torments in the Hereafter, it
encourages people to join the Believers.
4– It teaches how to live for attaining happiness in this
world and in the next.
5– It shows ways of getting along with polytheists, with
hypocrites, with Jews and Christians, and with the aberrant Muslims in the
seventy-two heretical groups.
There are about ten thousand hadîth-i-sherîfs, the repeated ones excluded.
With the repeated ones added, their number exceeds one million. All those hadîth-i-sherîfs contain twelve groups of teachings:
1– (They teach) how to adhere to the Kitâbullah (the Qur’ân al-kerîm) and the Sunnat (hadîth-i-sherîfs).
2– Islam’s five principles, dhikrs and Ihsân, i.e.
knowledge pertaining to heart. Ihsân is the target of Tasawwuf.
3– Mu’âmalât. Trade intended for a living, teachings of
art and agriculture and social rights are all within this group.
4– Good moral qualities are stated and commended.
5– Manumission of slaves.
6– Meritorious deeds and the superior merits of the
Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’.
7– History of prophets and other important people.
8– Important events that will take place until the end of
the world.
9– Facts about the Last Day. Hashr, Neshr, Paradise and
Hell.
10– Life of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’.
11– Reading and explaining the Qur’ân al-kerîm.
12– Angels, shaytâns, medicine and various other sciences.
Qiyâs is employed in the
ahkâm-i-shar’iyya, i.e. in the commandments and prohibitions. The knowledge of
Tawhîd-i-wujûdî does not exist among all the teachings which we have cited.
Islam consists of the beliefs and
practices of the Ashâb-i-kirâm and of the Tâbi’în-i-izâm, [i.e. Muslims who saw
the Ashâb-i-kirâm]. Religious teachings which did not exist in those people’s
times and which were invented afterwards, are not Islam. The hadîth-i-sherîf, “Follow the path which I and my Sahâba guide,” indicates this fact. It is obvious that the knowledge of
Wahdat-i-wujûd is not in the first group of teachings. Nor did that knowledge
exist in the time the Sayyid-ut-tâifa Junayd-i-Baghdâdî. So is the case with
the aberrant groups like Mu’tazîla, Imâmiyya, Zaydiyya, and Ismâ’îliyya. Those heretical groups also appeared after the Salaf as-Sâlihîn.
As for the pieces of spiritual knowledge called fayz,
which emanated from Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ blessed heart, flowed
into the hearts of the Ashâb-i-kirâm and the Tâbi’în, and reached our time by
flowing from one heart into another; they are perfectly Islamic. Ihsân was the term attached to them.
[Later, they were called Tasawwuf.]
When the Islamic practices are done with ikhlâs and pure
intentions, they are valuable. If they are done for the purpose of satisfying
one’s sensuous desires, (the desires of the nafs,) or
for fame, they will cause one to get away from Allâhu ta’âlâ; they
will lead one into Hell.
Question: Don’t the words
of the great men of Tasawwuf indicate that the knowledge of Tasawwuf is
superior?
Answer: Islam has listed the deeds
that will make you closer to Allâhu ta’âlâ, [and which will make you attain His love and approval]. A
selection must be made from among them in accordance with each person’s time
and the situations and conditions he is in. The superior men of Tasawwuf have
assigned their disciples such duties as will best suit them in their guidance.
Hence, their picking out one or two of the various fruitful duties does not
indicate that the ones not preferred are useless. What they stress concerning
each useful practice, however, is purity of intentions. According to Imâm
Ghazâlî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, ikhlâs is the essence of everypractice. Âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs command to serve Islam. A person who denies the merits of jihâd
and learning is a zindiq.
Question: Shaikh
Muhyiddîn Arabî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ states: “Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’anh’ was created from the remnants of the clay that was used for the creation
of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi
wa sallam’. That was why he was made a next-worldly brother to Rasûlullah.” Can there be another merit
superior to that?
Answer: That the Shaikhayn were higher (than
Hadrat Alî) is inferable from Islam’s teachings. The sources to be consulted to
in this respect are the Adilla-i-sher’iyya,
i.e. the Book, the Sunnat, the Ijmâ’, and the Qiyâs. The hearts and the
(spiritual explorations called) kashf of the great men of Tasawwuf cannot be
documentary sources for shar’î (canonical) matters. None of the Islamic
principles is based on (these spiritual states termed) kashf. Shaikh Muhyiddîn
Arabî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ makes a list of the things that will bring a
person closer to Allâhu ta’âlâ. He states that the grade of Siddîqiyyat, the
highest one, belongs to Hadrat Abû Bakr, the grade of Muhaddithiyyat, (the
second highest,) belongs to Hadrat ’Umar, and the grade of Uhuwwat belongs to
Hadrat Alî. He writes also that the grade of Hawâriyyat belongs to Zubayr and
the grade of Amânat belongs to Abû ’Ubayda. He cites many another grade. None
of those grades is of the capacity to represent fadl-i-kullî by itself. At
several places of the book Futûhât not only the grades of
Wilâyat
belonging to the Ashâb-i-kirâm but also their grades which make them similar to
prophets are stated. It is written in detail (in the book) that those grades
have been perpetuated after Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, except for the fact that they are not prophets.
The kind of superiority which we understand from the term ‘superiority’ is the
latter kind of superiority, i.e. that which makes them similar to prophets. And
betterness in that similarity is what makes the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anhuma’ superior. This superiority is called fadl-i-kullî,
which is explained at several places of the book Futûhât.
It is observed in the final part of the sixty-ninth chapter of the book that Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ is
compared to Ibrâhîm (Abraham) ‘alaihis-salâm’ in the recitation of “Allâhumma salli ’alâ ...,” although he is higher
than the latter, its subtle reasons are explained throughout its pages, and the
superiority of the grade of Siddîqiyyat is described at full length.
Allâhu ta’âlâ chooses some of His very much beloved slaves
and sends them His special fayz. First He creates those slaves of His in a
nature eligible and fit for the special pieces of fayz He is going to send
them. By the same token, He created the earthen substances in Hadrat Alî’s body
in a nature capable of receiving the fayz of nubuwwat like the earthen
substances in the construction of the physical existence of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa
sallam’. Yet that superiority is not fadl-i-kullî. It is fadl-i-juz’î. It
represents the superiorities peculiar to the grade of Wilâyat. It does not
represent a similarity in prophethood.
Question: Great men of
Tasawwuf profess that they have had dreams denoting Hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anh’ superiority. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf: “A Believer’s dream is one of the
components of prophethood.” Doesn’t that indicate the
superiority of Hadrat Alî?
Answer: There is not a single Islamic principle
revealed in a dream. Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “Hamd (praise
and gratitude) be to
Allâhu ta’âlâ, He has reinforced me with Abû
Bakr and ’Umar.” It is stated in another hadîth-i-sherîf:
“Abû Bakr and ’Umar are like my eyes and ears.”
Such are the indications of fadl-i-kullî. Prophets’ ‘alaihimussalawâtu
wattaslîmât’ Khalîfas must be like them. According to this faqîr, (i.e. in my
understanding,) the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ are like the
light-radiating
layer
around the sun. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is like the moon which receives
and reflects the lights radiated. Whereas the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’
radiate the lights of the path of Nubuwwat,
Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ radiates the lights of the path of Wilâyat. It is for this reason that our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “If I were to choose a halîl [friend] for myself, I would choose Abû Bakr,” and “If a prophet were to come after me, ’Umar would certainly be a prophet,” and “Alî is from me. And I am from him.” This faqîr,
[i.e. Hadrat Shâh Waliyyullah Dahlawî,] asked Rasûlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ spiritual entity during a (spiritual
meditation termed) murâqaba: What is the reason for the Shaikhayn’s
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ superiority over Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’anh’ despite his superiority in the honour of genealogy and in the sobriety of
his judgments as well as his leadership of the orders of Tasawwuf? He blessed
my soul with the following answer: “Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ has two blessed faces: One which is
zâhir [visible, outward]; another one which is bâtin [invisible, inward]. His
face which is zâhir administers justice among people, provides brotherhood, and
shows the right path. In the performance of this duty, the Shaikhayn
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ are like his hands and feet. Through his other
face, which is bâtin, he gives fayz to hearts. The Shaikhayn cooperate with him
in this duty as well!” ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’.
Source of fayz and meanings were the lectures of
Abdulhaqîm; Home of divine closeness was the company of Abdulhaqîm. Asylum for
the wretched, medicine for all illnesses was Abdulhaqîm. A treasure of irfân, a
light of Subhân, a key to Qur’ân was Abdulhaqîm!
The book Maktûbât by ’Urwa-t-ul-wuthqâ Muhammad Ma’thûm Fârûqî is in the Fârisî
language and consists of three volumes. There are two hundred and thirty-nine
(239) letters in the first volume, one hundred and fifty-eight (158) letters in
the second volume, and two hundred and fifty-five (255) letters in the third
volume. The following are the English translations of six of those six hundred
and fifty-two (652) letters.