Allâhu ta’âlâ has mercy on all people in the world. He
sends useful things to everybody. As a kindness to those Believers who deserve
Hell (on account of the sins they have committed in the world), He will forgive
them and bless them with Paradise. He, alone, creates every living being, keeps
them always in existence, and protects all against fears and horrors. Trusting
ourselves to the honourable Name of such an almighty being as Allah, we begin
to write this book.
Praise and gratitude be to Allâhu ta’âlâ! Prayers and
salutations be to His most beloved Prophet, Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’! Benedictions be to the pure Ahl-i-Bayt
of that exalted Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’, and to each and every one of his
faithful Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’!
It is stated as follows in a hadîth-i-sherîf which is written in the abridged
version of Tadhkira Qurtubî: “Fitna will break out among my Sahâba.
For the sake of the sohbats they have had with me, Allâhu ta’âlâ will forgive those
who will partake in the fitna. People after them, however, will rekindle the
fitna by repeatedly blathering on the events; they will go to Hell on account
of their undue concern.” The great Islamic scholar
Imâm Rabbânî Ahmad Fârûqî Serhendî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, who passed away in
India in 1034 [1624 A.D.], sent letters to every country in order to teach the
creed of Ahl as-Sunnat and the true way of Islam, as well as the fact that
Tasawwuf was not something distinct from the Islamic faith. His letters, more
than five hundred, were compiled and printed in three volumes. The thirty-sixth
letter of the second volume enlarges on the fitna among the Sahâba.
It was during the time of the third Khalîfa Hadrat ’Uthmân
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ when a Jew of Yemen named Abdullah bin Saba’ fomented the
earliest fitna of separatism in Islam. People who had fallen victim to his
misguidance mingled with the
Sahâba.
Throughout history they have been supported by masons and Jews. From time to
time they have had recourse to violence, thus undermining Islam from within and
causing considerable bloodshed among Muslims. The tragedy runs counter to
Islam’s instructions on unity and brotherly affection.
In the course of time, enemies of the Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ broke into twelve sectarian groups, maintaining their
unison only in their systematic and cleverly planned activities to deceive and
divide Muslims. They allege that the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum
ajma’în’ were inimical towards one another, and cast all sorts of ignominious
aspersions on those great Islamic celebrities on the chimerical ground that
they refused to pay homage to Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. These
instigators of fitna and fesâd, who represent themselves as enlightened men of
religion or up-to-date writers, stigmatize the benevolent Sunnî religious
teachers as uneducated fuddy-duddies, trying thereby to derogate and blemish
those blessed teachers, who have been endeavouring to awaken the Muslims by
divulging and refuting their abominable lies and slanders. As the aspersions
cast by these abhorrent instigators will not detract from the high honour of
the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’, likewise, their attacks
will recoil on them, adding to the value and honour of those virtuous teachers.
In order to protect our Muslim brothers from believing the
sequinned lies of these subversive people, whose purpose is to separate
brothers from one another, we have translated the thirty-sixth letter from the
Fârisî into Turkish, (and thence into English,) and entitled it The Earliest Fitna in Islam. We are certain
that when the valuable younger generation read this letter with objectivity,
their pure souls and unsoiled consciences will help them see that the Ahl
as-Sunnat scholars are right.
May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect Muslims against divisions! May He unite us in the correct
Sunnî path, which we all like and approve of! May He protect us from believing
the lies of the enemies of Islam, and from falling into their traps! Âmîn.
The thirty-sixth letter of the second volume of the book
Maktûbât by Imâm Rabbânî Mujaddîd-i-alf-i-thânî Shaikh Ahmad Fârûqî
Serhendî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ proves the greatness of the Ashâb-i-kirâm and
quotes the remarks made about the Ashâb-i-kirâm both by the scholars of the
Madhhab of Ahl as-Sunnat and by other people in heretical groups. It explains
that the Shiite sect was the produce of the earliest fitna in Islam, that the
Sunnî group are not eccentric like the Shiites, and that they do not follow a
benighted and short-sighted course like the Khwârij (Khârijîs), either, and
lauds and praises the Ahl-i-Bayt of our Master, the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’.
In the name of Allah I begin to write this letter of mine.
Praise and gratitude be to Allâhu ta’âlâ! Prayers and salutations be to His
exalted Prophet! Benedictions be to the
Ahl-i-Bayt of that exalted Prophet, to all his Sahâba, and to all Muslims!
One of the greatest and most valuable gifts and blessings
of Allâhu ta’âlâ is for a person
to love the followers of the right path, to yearn to meet and talk with those
fortunate people, to hear the words of those great people, and to read their
books. The Mukhbir-i-sâdiq, i.e. Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, who always tells the
truth, stated, “Al-mer’u ma’a man ahabba,” which means, “If a person loves someone, he will be with him in
both this world and the next.” Hence, if a person loves great religious
persons, he will be with them and get a share from their spiritual closeness to
Allâhu ta’âlâ. According to the reports given by my valuable son Khwâja
Sharaf-ad-dîn Husayn, who is a man of choice wording and a good prospect for
spiritual promotions, you possess the utterly beautiful moral qualities
required for that great blessing. With all your miscellaneous occupations and
complicated cares, you do not forget about those great people. Beleaguered by
all sorts of worldly problems as you are, you do not miss that most valuable
blessing. Infinite praise and gratitude be to Allâhu
ta’âlâ for that greatest favour of His! Indeed, your happiness
and blessed attainments will reproduce happiness and attainments for many
another person. Your salvation will cause others’ salvation and attainment of
peace. As is reported, again, by my son, you have been reading this faqîr’s
(Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî’s) writings and cherishing my words. He said it would be
very useful if I wrote a few words to you. So I attempt to write a few words at
my son’s request.
Recently, most people in India have been discussing
subjects such as right of caliphate and making comments on the behaviours and attitudes of the
Sahâba. Quite a few people have been frankly saying and writing their personal
meagre heretical opinions and narrow views on this esoteric subject, which is
one of the most delicate branches of the Islamic sciences. They do not hesitate
to attach wrong meanings to âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs, or to try to hush up the true and rightful words of the Islamic
scholars, in order to prove that they are right. I have therefore considered it
requisite to reveal the truth by writing a couple of facts on the subject,
informing the Muslims about the true and rightful words of the scholars of Ahl
as-Sunnat and refuting the heresies of the aberrant groups of bid’at with the help of documentary proofs.
O my pure-souled and noble-natured brother! Scholars of
the Madhhab of Ahl as-Sunnat ‘rahimahumullâhu ta’âlâ unanimously state that it
is necessary to “hold the Shaikhayn superior and love
the two sons-in-law.” In other words, Hadrat Abû Bakr and
Hadrat ’Umar are superior to all the other Sahâbîs, and Hadrat ’Uthmân and
Hadrat Alî should be loved. Every Muslim in the right path called Ahl as-Sunnat
wa-l-jamâ’at is to hold the former two (Khalîfas) in higher esteem, feeling
warm affection for the latter two.
That Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar are the highest (of all the
Sahâba) is a fact on which all the Sahâba were unanimous. This unanimity of the
Sahâba was reported to us by the Tâbi’în-i-izâm. The greater ones of our
religious imâms, such as Imâm Shâfi’î, inform us that the unanimity was the
case. Hadrat Abul Hasan Ash’arî, one of our two religious leaders in credal
matters, states: “That Abû Bakr and ’Umar are the highest Muslims in the entire
Ummat is an absolute fact.” Imâm Zahabî writes that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’ was Khalîfa and was therefore holding the entire state power and
authority in his hands when he said to a large audience of the Sahâba, “Abû
Bakr and ’Umar are the highest of this Ummat,” and adds that their superiority
is a definite fact which has reached us through (an authentic way of narration
called) tawâtur. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ stated: “After our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, Abû Bakr is
the (second) highest human being. ’Umar is next after him. And next comes
someone else.” His son Muhammad bin Hanafiyya, who was
among
the audience, said, “You are the highest next after ’Umar!” Imâm Bukhârî
reports that Hadrat Alî’s reply was: “I am only one of the Muslims.” So high is
the number of the dependable and trustworthy people who acknowledge the
superiority of Abû Bakr and ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’, that it has become a
tawâtur, i.e. a narration which is wâjib (necessary, compulsory) to believe. He
who denies it must either be ignorant or strongly bigoted and obdurate.
Abd-ur-Razzaq bin Alî Lâhijî (d. 1051 [1642 A.D.]), an eminent Shiite scholar,
saw the incontrovertibly palpable truth and acknowledged that the two Imâms
were the highest, stating, “Since Alî acknowledged that Abû Bakr and ’Umar were
superior to him, I say so, too. I believe in the fact that both of them were
superior to him. If Hadrat Alî had not stated that they were higher, I would
not say so, either. I say as he did because I love Hadrat Alî. It would be
sinful not to agree with him and to still profess love of him.”
Because there were fitnas and tumults during the
caliphates of Hadrat ’Uthman and Hadrat Alî, the two blessed sons-in-law of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, the
people’s hearts were rather depressed and cold. A general feeling of hostility
and discord was prevalent among them. Therefore, the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat
stated that the two Khatanas (In-laws), or Sons-in-law, should be loved.
Thereby they anticipated any possible defamatory essay against Rasûlullah’s Sahâba and closed the remotest
loophole which might be exploited for fomenting grudge against any one of the
Khalîfas, who were the representatives of the Messenger of Allah.
As is seen, love of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is an essential
condition for being a Sunnî Muslim. He who dislikes Hadrat Alî is not in the
group of Ahl as-Sunnat. He is called a Khârijî (pl.
Khwârij). On the other hand, a person who is inordinate, excessive and
eccentric in the affection due to Hadrat Alî; who asserts that loving Hadrat
Alî requires swearing at Rasûlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ Sahâba; and who deviates from the path
guided by the Ashâb-i-kirâm, the Tâbi’în-i-izâm and the Salaf as-Salihîn by
vilifying the Ashâb-i-kirâm, is a heretic.
As is seen, this last group are overzealous in their affection for Hadrat Alî,
whereas the Khwârij bear grudge against Hadrat Alî, which obscures their
insight and prevents them from recognizing that Lion of Allah. It is the
group
of Ahl as-Sunnat who have followed the moderate course without allowing the
slightest digression towards either extremity. Truth is definitely in the
medial course, and not in either of the two eccentric directions. Either one of
the aberrations is both detestable and perilous. According to a narration
reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal ‘rahima hullâhu ta’âlâ’, Hadrat Alî quotes Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ as having
said to him: “Yâ Alî! You will be identical with
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. Jews have pursued an inimical policy against him, calumniating
his blessed mother Hadrat Maryam (Mary).
Christians, by contrast, have doted on him unduly, attributing preposterous
grades to him. That is, they have called him Son of God.”
Afterwards, Hadrat Alî explicated the hadîth-i-sherîf
as follows: “Two groups of people will perish because of me. One group will
overflow the measure of affection due towards me, overstating my faculties and
attributing to me merits that I do not really have. The other group, my
enemies, will slander me.” Hence, the Khwârij were compared to Jews, whereas
the intemperate adherents have symbolized Christians. Both groups are apart
from the right path. It is crass ignorance to assert that the Sunnî Muslims
dislike Hadrat Alî, or to associate love of Hadrat Alî with being a Shiite. One
thing should be known well: The heresy in this matter is based not on love of
Hadrat Alî, but on animosity against three Khalîfas of the Messenger of Allah.
What is wicked is to cast aspersions on the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Imâm-i-Shâfi’î
‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ states, as is versified in the following couplet:
If love of Muhammad’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ family involves being
A Shiite, I’m one, be it known, every genie’n human being!
In other words, Shiites say that to be a Shiite means to
love Muhammad’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ Âl (family), i.e. the Ahl-i-Bayt. If being a
Shiite really involves love of the Ahl-i-Bayt, then Shiites are people whom we
love and respect very much. What is wrong, however, is animosity against people
other than the Ahl-i-Bayt.
(Hadrat Alî and Hadrat Fâtima and their children are
called the Âl-i-Rasûl, or the Ahl-i-Bayt.)
Certainly, the Sunnî Muslims are the only people who love the
Ahl-i-Bayt of the Messenger of Allah properly. And certainly, again, they are
the only true followers of the Ahl-i-Bayt. If a
person
who professes love of the Ahl-i-Bayt and claims to be following them does not
nurse a grudge against the Sahâba and believes that the wars among the Sahâba
were based on benevolent reasons, he is a Sunnî
Muslim. This saves him from being a heretic. For, to hate the
Ahl-i-Bayt means to be a Khârijî. A
Sunnî Muslim both loves the Ahl-i-Bayt and respects the Sahâba and loves them
all. As is seen, being a person without a certain Madhhab is a concomitant of
enmity against the Sahâba. For, the Ahl-i-Bayt are Sahâbîs at the same time.
And, to be a Sunnî Muslim means to love all the Sahâba. A wise and reasonable
person simply does not hold enmity against the Sahâba above love of the
Ahl-i-Bayt. Because he loves Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, he loves all his Sahâba.
Some people allege that the group of Ahl as-Sunnat are
hostile towards the Ahl-i-Bayt. No degree of dismay felt at their extremely
wrong and utterly detestable allegation would be too much. Indeed, love of the
Ahl-i-Bayt is held by the Sunnî Muslims as the greatest source of hope for
dying with îmân, (i.e. as Believers). The scholars of Ahl
as-Sunnat say that dying as a Believer requires loving the Ahl-i-Bayt very
much. This faqîr’s (Imâm Rabbânî’s) father was a scholar. He was very profound
both in the zâhirî sciences and in the bâtinî ones. He would always inculcate
love of the Ahl-i-Bayt upon people. He would say that affection for them would
be very useful at the time of death, helping one to die as a Believer. Afterwards,
when my father was ill on his deathbed, I was by his side. He was spending his
final minutes in this life. He was about to drop his last tenuous links with
the world. I remembered him saying to love the Ahl-i-Bayt very much. I asked,
“How much is your love of them at this moment?” He was almost completely
unconscious when he breathed: “I have been bathing in the ocean of love of
Ahl-i-Bayt.” I made hamd-u-thenâ (praise and gratitude) to Allâhu ta’âlâ for my father’s answer. Love of the
Ahl-i-Bayt is capital for the Muslims of Ahl-i-Sunnat. Some people do not
realize this fact. Turning away from the correct and moderate love held by the
Sunnî Muslims, they follow an eccentric course. Disdainful of a manner of love
which is not excessive or inordinate, they stigmatize the Sunnî Muslims as
Khwârij. They do not understand that between excess in one direction and the
other is a medial way, a moderate and correct
way.
The scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat are the only people who have been blessed with
the honour of finding the correct and right way, the medial way between the two
wrong ways, one of which is unduly high and the other despicably low. May
Allâhu profusely reward the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat for the incessant and
relentless drudgery they went through for the sake of the research they carried
on to find this right way. That it was only the Sunnî Muslims who fought the
Khwârij, i.e. the enemies of Hadrat Alî and his progeny, is a fact which
Shiites also know well. There were no Shiites, –or their number was
infinitesimally small–, when the Sunnî Muslims ploughed a lonely furrow in
giving the enemies of Ahl-i-Bayt their deserts. By the way, do these people
call the Sunnî Muslims ‘Shiites’ on account of their love of Ahl-i-Bayt? And do
they think, therefore, that those people who dispersed the Khwârij and
frightened them away were Shiites? So surprising to say, sometimes they call
the Sunnî Muslims ‘Khwârij’. Perhaps they really think so, since the affection
which the Sunnî Muslims display towards the Ahl-i-Bayt is not aggressive and
excessive. And, conversely, they sometimes consider the Sunnî Muslims as
Shiites on account of the moderate love which they show towards the Ahl-i-Bayt
and which is the manner of affection proper towards those great people.
Consequently, and because they are vulgarly ignorant, when they hear the
expression ‘love of the Ahl-i-Bayt’ from the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat, they
conclude that those scholars side with them. On the other hand, when other
scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat warn against excessive affection and admonish that
the (other) three Khalîfas must be loved, this time they call those scholars
‘Khwârij’. Shame on them for the unjust and inappropriate labels they hang on
the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat. Because of their anomalous affection towards
Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, they say that love of Hadrat Alî necessitates
animosity against the three Khalîfas and against most of the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Why
should they be so unreasonable? How could that ever be called love?
Could the name of love ever allow for the folly of animosity against
the Khalîfas of the Messenger of Allah or defamation of his Sahâba. The only
reason for the hatred they feel against the Sunnî Muslims and for the ugly
aspersions they cast on them is the Sunnî Muslims’ complementing love of the
Ahl-i-Bayt with love of all the Sahâba, and their not maligning any one of the
Sahâba
although they know about the wars which took place among them. Because the
Sunnî Muslims realize the value and honour of the sohbat of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, they state
that each and every one of the Sahâba was a superior, valuable and pure Muslim
who had been purged from all sorts of malice, recalcitrance and jealousy. The
scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat do discriminate between the right and the wrong
parties in those wars. Yet they state that the mistakes were based not on the
wicked desires of the nafs, but on ra’y and ijtihâd. If the Sunnî Muslims also
were inimical and abusive towards most of the great Sahâba, these eccentric
people would be pleased with them and would no longer speak ill of them. On the
other hand, the Khwârij would sympathize with the Sunnî Muslims only if they,
too, were enemies of the Ahl-i-Bayt. Yâ Rabbî! After showing us the right way,
do not make our hearts slip away from it! Bless us also from Thine endless
treasures of Compassion! Thou art the only source of goodness.
As the greatest ones of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat
explain, the blessed Sahâba of our master the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam’ parted into three groups concerning the matters that caused
the so-called wars:
1– The Sahâbîs in the first group ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’anhum ajma’în’ observed the events and reached the ijtihâd that those who were
with Hadrat Alî were right.
2– According to the ijtihâd of the second group, the other
party were right.
3– The third group were hesitant. Their ijtihâd did not
show clearly which party was right.
It was wâjib for the blessed Sahâbîs in the first group to act in
accordance with their own ijtihâd and support Hadrat Alî. Likewise, it was
necessary for the second group to follow their own ijtihâd and support the
opposing party. And the third group was to support neither party. It would have
been wrong for them to support either party. Each of the three groups acted in
accordance with their own ijtihâd. All three of them did what was wâjib and
necessary for them to do. Then, how could we ever blame them for having done
so? And which one of them could we blame? Imâm Shâfi’î ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’
states: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has protected us from imbruing our hands with their
blood. So we should protect our tongues from interfering
with
them.” ’Umar bin Abd-ul’azîz also is reported to have made an identical
statement. That statement shows that we should not make comments on the events
among them, neither favourable nor unfavourable; we should not pass judgments,
for instance, on who was right and who was wrong. We should only speak in
praise of them. A hadîth-i-sherîf commands us to
do so. The hadîth-i-sherîf reads as follows: “Keep your tongues when my Sahâba are mentioned,”
which means, “When people talk about my Sahâba and the wars among them, protect
yourselves. Avoid expressing a predilection for some of them and blaming the
others.” We have to obey this commandment. However, according to the
understanding of most of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat, the Sahâbîs who fought
on Hadrat Alî’s side were right. The opposing party were erroneous. Yet they
cannot be blamed, since theirs was an error of ijtihâd. An error of ijtihâd is
not something open to criticism. Those (mujtahids) with erroneous ijtihâd, like
the mujtahids whose ijtihâd was right, cannot be blamed or vilified. Hadrat Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is reported to have made the following explanation amidst
the so-called wars: “Our brothers disagree with us. They are neither
disbelievers nor sinners. For, their ijtihâd is what they understand, which
would not make them disbelievers or sinners.” As is seen, the Sunnîs and the
Shiites concur in that the Sahâbîs who fought with Hadrat Alî were wrong, and
in that Hadrat Alî was right. They differ, however, inasmuch as the scholars of
Ahl as-Sunnat state that the erroneous party cannot be blamed because their
error originated from their understanding and points of view. They hold that we
should avoid criticizing and maligning those great people and that we should be
considerate of the right and honour of the Best of Mankind ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’alaihi wa sallam’. Indeed, our Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “Fear Allâhu ta’âlâ lest you
should fail to be considerate of my Sahâba’s rights. After me, do not speak ill
of them!” He repeated the same statement twice in order to emphasize
the importance of his commandment. It is stated in another hadîth-i-sherîf: “All my
Sahâba are like the celestial stars. You will attain hidâyat and happiness if
you follow any one of them!” There is many another hadîth-i-sherîf which commands that each and every
Sahâbî must be held great and respected. Therefore, we have to hold them
valuable and
superior.
As for the trivial mistakes ascribed to them; we should, at the most, believe
that there were benevolent intentions behind those mistakes. This is the Sunnî
credo.
Some people exceed the limits in this matter. They call
the Sahâbîs who fought with Hadrat Alî ‘disbelievers’ and utter about them such
ugly, abominable and vulgar expletives as one could not even imagine oneself
articulating. Their abusive language fouls their own tongues. If their attitude
is intended to show that Hadrat Alî was right and those who fought with him
were wrong, they might as well be moderate like the Sunnî Muslims, which would
perfectly serve their cause. This moderacy is at the same time compatible with
justice and reason. There cannot be a religion or a madhhab which is based on
vituperation or criticism of those great religious celebrities. These eccentric
people have adopted that vicious policy as a religion for themselves. They
believe that inimical and opprobrious attitude towards our Prophet’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
Sahâba is an act of worship. What kind of a religion and madhhab is it that its
principal credal tenet is to curse Rasûlullah’s Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în?
It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf: “Muslims will part into seventy-three groups. Seventy-two of
them will go to Hell on account of their heretical beliefs. Only one group will
attain salvation.” Each of the seventy-two groups deviated from the
Sunnî path by inventing various bid’ats. The basest and the worst of the
seventy-two heretical groups are those who have been waging an animosity
campaign against the Ashâb-i-kirâm. They are the most aberrant and the farthest
away from the Ahl as-Sunnat, (i.e. the Sunnî Muslims,) who are the
seventy-third group, the only group whose direction leads to salvation. What
foreign matter could be found in the pure name of right to associate with these
miscreants, who believe that the basis of their religion and madhhab is to
vituperate and curse the religious authorities? With time, this group broke
into twelve sub-groups. Contentious as they are among themselves, all twelve
sub-groups concur in insistently calling the Sahâba disbelievers. They say that
it is an act of worship to swear at the Khulafâ ar-râshidîn. However, they
avoid being called Râfidîs. They say that Râfidîs are other people. For they,
too, know about the hadîth-i-sherîfs foretelling
that Râfidîs will be tormented in the world to come. It would be great if they
avoided
the tenor as well as the vehicle of the word ‘Râfidî’ and desisted from their
inimical stance towards the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Hindus in India call themselves
Hindus, not disbelievers. They do not consider themselves to be disbelievers.
They say that disbelievers are those who live in the Dâr-ul-harb. They are
quite wrong. They are disbelievers, regardless of the country they live in. The
way they follow is kufr (disbelief).
Or, do these people identify themselves with Rasûlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ Ahl-i-Bayt? Do they think, in other words, that
the Ahl-i-Bayt also are hostile to Abû Bakr and ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’?
To think so would mean to consider the greatest ones of the Ahl-i-Bayt as
hypocrites. They assert that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ dissembled his real
feelings and intentions throughout his thirty-year-long friendship with the
other three Khalîfas, that he suppressed his grudge against them for the sake
of getting along well with them, holding them superior and showing deference to
them although they did not deserve it. Their assertion is extremely appalling.
If they loved the Ahl-i-Bayt because they loved Rasûlullah,
they would be inimical towards Rasûlullah’s
enemies and curse Rasûlullah’s enemies more bitterly
than they do the enemies of the Ahl-i-Bayt. However, they have never been seen
or heard to curse or even criticise Abû Jahl, who was Rasûlullah’s
arch enemy and who hurt and persecuted him so cruelly. On the other hand, they
cling to the heretical belief that Hadrat Abû Bakr, who was the most beloved
companion of the Messenger of Allah, was an enemy of the Ahl-i-Bayt. In an
unbridled fury, they hurl the most vulgar invectives at him. They cast on him
such aspersions as would run quite counter to his great honour. What kind of a
religion or madhhab is theirs? May Allah forfend! How could it ever be imagined
that Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar and all the Ashâb-i-kirâm were enemies of
Rasûlullah’s Ahl-i-Bayt ‘ridwânullâhi ’alaihim
ajma’în’? It would be all right if these unreasonable and blasphemous people
swore at the enemies of the Ahl-i-Bayt without mentioning the names of the
greatest Sahâbîs and thereby putting themselves into the awkward position of
maligning the greatest religious celebrities. If they did so, they would be no
different from the Sunnî Muslims (in belief). Indeed, the Sunnî Muslims also
know the enemies of the Ahl-i-Bayt as
their own enemies, blame them and curse them. The scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat
provide the
following
very elegant and subtle explanation on the matter: “We should not say that a
certain person is to go to Hell, even if he has gone into various kinds of kufr
(disbelief). He may make tawba and become a Muslim again (before death). Such
people should not be cursed in name. And we should not curse a certain
disbeliever by mentioning his name. Disbelievers must be cursed en masse. A
dead person can be cursed only if it is known for certain that he died without
îmân, (i.e. as a disbeliever).” Some of these wretched miscreants shamelessly
curse Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar and malign and pronounce maledictions on
the greater ones of the blessed Sahâba. May Allâhu
ta’âlâ bless these wretched people with guidance to the right path and
deliverance from that wrong and heretical path! Âmîn.
There are two main differences between the Ahl as-Sunnat
and these people on this matter:
1– According to the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat, all (the earliest) four
Khalîfas were rightly-guided. Indeed, it is declared in one of the hadîth-i-sherîfs foretelling the ghayb (unknown): “After me there will be a thirty-year caliphate.”
The ‘caliphate’ in the hadîth-i-sherîf is
‘caliphate in its full sense.’ The thirty-year period of caliphate ended by the
end of the caliphate of Hadrat Alî. This hadîth-i-sherîf
shows that all four Khalîfas became Khalîfas rightfully, and so is the case
with the order of their caliphates. Some non-Sunnî people assert that the
earliest three Khalîfas assumed office unjustly and by force. According to
them, Hadrat Alî was the only rightly-guided Khalîfa. They say that Hadrat
Alî’s tacit consent to the caliphates of his three predecessors was intended to
handle the matter lest he should cause a fitna. They believe that the blessed
Sahâba of our master, the Prophet, feigned
friendship with one another, that they handled one another hypocritically, and
that they pretended to be firendly with one another in order to get along well.
According to these self-appointed supporters of the chimerical cause, the
Sahâbîs who were of the opinion that Hadrat Alî should be (the first) Khalîfa
had to feign being friendly with the men of the three Khalîfas and dissembled
their predilections. Accordingly, the other party, in their turn, dissimulated
their hostility towards Hadrat Alî under feigned endearing smiles and
friendship. According to these people, all the Sahâba were double-faced liars
who pretended to be of the
opinion
quite the opposite of what they actually thought. According to these people,
the Sahâba are the worst of Muhammad’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ Ummat (Muslims), and Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ sohbat
(company) is the worst of all sohbats. For, according to these wretched
people’s reasoning, the Sahâba should have acquired the suppositional wicked habits
from the sohbats and lectures of the Messenger of Allah, which in its turn
means that they should have led a life of hypocrisy, animosity, jealousy and
grudge. The fact, however, is quite the other way round; The final âyat of
Fat-h sûra purports: “They are utterly
compassionate towards one another.” We trust ourselves to Allâhu
ta’âlâ’s protection against such heretical beliefs. If the so-called iniquities
were the case with the pioneers of this Ummat, could their posterior have an
iota of goodness? I wonder if these people have never heard of the âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs
telling about the superb quality of Rasûlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ sohbat and the goodness of his Ummat?
Or, do they deny them? It was the Ashâb-i-kirâm who conveyed the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs
to us. Defamation of the Ashâb-i-kirâm, therefore, means defamation of the
religion they conveyed to us. May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect
us from perpetrating such abhorrent calumniations and from holding such
heretical beliefs! Their allegations betray their insidious plans to annihilate
Islam. They are trying to undermine Islam under the cloak of affection towards Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
Ahl-i-Bayt. In the shadow of the feigned affection lurks the horrid intention
to extirpate Rasûlullah’s Islam. May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect Muslims from believing them! I
wish they at least spared some respect for the supporters of Hadrat Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ by not considering them as hypocritical people. Given the
assertion that the supporters of Hadrat Alî and his adversaries dissembled
their hostilities towards each other and handled each other with mendacious
friendliness for thirty years, which one of them should be given a share from
goodness thus left in abeyance? And which one of them should we trust? They
vilify and curse Hadrat Abû Hurayra ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. They do not realize
that by defaming him they defame and discredit half of Islam’s commandments and
prohibitions. Indeed, according to mujtahids, who were profound scholars,
Islam’s
commandments
and prohibitions were extracted from three thousand hadîth-i-sherîfs.
In other words, three thousand of the Islamic principles and rules were based
on hadîth-i-sherîfs. Fifteen hundred of those
(three thousand) hadîth-i-sherîfs were reported
and quoted on the authority of Abû Hurayra. Therefore, to malign him means to
cast a slur on half of the Islamic rules. As Imâm Bukhârî observes, more than
eight hundred of the Islamic scholars quoted hadîth-i-sherîfs
on the authority of Abû Hurayra. Most of those scholars were among the
Ashâb-i-kirâm or the Tâbi’în-i-izâm. For instance, Abdullah ibn Abbâs and
Abdullah ibn ’Umar and Jabir bin Abdullah and Enes bin Mâlik conveyed hadîth-i-sherîfs from Hadrat Abû Hurayra ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anhum’. On the other hand, these wretched people quote a statement blaming
Hadrat Abû Hurayra and assert that it is a hadîth-i-sherîf
reported on the authority of Hadrat Alî. It is their own fabrication. That the
statement is a concoction is a bare fact divulged by profound scholars. A hadîth-i-sherîf wherein our master, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, prays for
an increase in Abû Hurayra’s knowledge and intellectual capacity, is well-known
among the scholars of Hadîth-i-sherîf and is
written in the section captioned ‘Kitâb-ul-’ilm’ of the book Bukhârî-i-sherîf.
Abû Hurayra ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ relates the event as follows: We were sitting
with our master, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi
wa sallam’, when the blessed Messenger said: “Which
one of you will take off his garment and lay it on the ground? I shall say some
things. Then he must fold his garment up. He will never forget my utterances.”
I took my coat off and laid it on the ground. The Messenger of Allah, our master,
said what he wished to say. I put on my coat again and covered my chest. From
then on, I never forgot whatsoever I heard. It is a rank injustice to accuse
such a great religious authority as Hadrat Abû Hurayra as an enemy of Hadrat
Alî and to denigrate and vituperate that blessed person on account of that
false accusation. Their eccentricities must be consequent upon excessive
affection. It is an excess that verges on loss of îmân. Supposing we took for
granted all their allegations, agreed with their heresy, and believed that
Hadrat Alî had obeyed the other three Khalîfas unwillingly and got along with
them hypocriticially; then how would we explain away his widespread statements
in praise of the (earliest) two Khalîfas, (i.e. Hadrat
Abû
Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar)? How would these people advise us concerning those
statements? It is written, for instance, in all the books concerned with the
matter that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was Khalîfa and the State was
thoroughly in his hands when he acknowledged that the three Khalîfas previous
to him had been rightly-guided and canonically legal Khalîfas. How would they
interpret that state of affairs? As a matter of fact, a double-faced policy
could entail, at the most, self-abnegation from caliphate although one believed
that it was one’s right, or concealment of e.g. the fact that the other three
Khalîfas did not deserve the office. Yet it would be quite zany to hunt for
hypocrisy in the acknowledgement that the earlier three Khalîfas had been
rightful and that Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar were the highest Muslims,
which is merely the statement of a fact. Furthermore, there are sahîh and
authentic hadîth-i-sherîfs stating the
superiorities of the three Khalîfas and of many another Sahâbî, and those hadîth-i-sherîfs are universally known. Also, there
are hadîth-i-sherîfs which mention the names of
many Sahâbîs, giving the glad tidings that they will go to Paradise. What will
they say about those hadîth-i-sherîfs? For, no
justification could be found for ascribing hypocrisy to Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. Every Prophet has to state all facts exactly as they are.
Moreover, what will they say about the âyat-i-kerîmas
praising the Ashâb-i-kirâm? Hypocrisy in âyat-i-kerîmas
is something that can never be considered. May Allâhu
ta’âlâ give them reason! Every person with an average wisdom knows that
hypocrisy is a wicked habit. It is treachery. It is quite unfair to attribute
this iniquity to Hadrat Alî, who was the Lion of Allah. It would have been
human for him to have been so for a few hours or for a couple of days; yet it
is an execrable slander against the Lion of Allah to say that he lived with
that iniquity for thirty years. It is stated (by the Islamic scholars) that
insistence on venial sins will generate grave sins. Then, what would become of
a person who spent thirty years of his life span perpetrating that iniquity,
which is a sign of treachery and hypocrisy? How I wish that these wretched
people realized the gravity of their libellous allegation and desisted from
denying the superiority of the first two Khalîfas lest they should cause an
awkward situation in the name of Hadrat Alî. If they were conscious of the
wickedness of hypocrisy, which is a habit peculiar to munâfiqs, they would
avoid
the disastrous misstep which brings disgrace on Hadrat Alî. They would thus
choose the milder one of the two disastrous situations, weathering the worse
one. One more fact that needs to be emphasized at this point is that it is by
no means a disastrous situation for them to believe in that the first two
Khalîfas were the most superior. In other words, this belief will not belittle
Hadrat Alî at all. Nor will it divest him of his right of caliphate. His right
of caliphate, his very high grade in (the spiritual area called) Wilâyat, and
his power in (the spiritual branches such as) hidâyat and irshâd will all
remain intact. On the other hand, to say that he unwillingly pretended to be
friendly towards those who expropriated his right of priority to caliphate,
means to degrade and belittle the great Imâm. For, hypocrisy is a habit of
munâfiqs, liars and swindlers.
2– According to the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat ‘rahimahumullâhu
ta’âlâ’, the contentions and fights among the Ashâb-i-kirâm were based on
benevolent thoughts and useful reasons. None of them followed his nafs or did
anything for the sake of sheer resistance. In fact, the sohbat of the Messenger
of Allah had thoroughly purified the nafses of all the Ashâb-i-kirâm. So pure
were their hearts that they never felt any hostility, grudge or prejudice
against one another. Each and every one of them had attained the grade of a
mujtahid higher than all the other Islamic scholars. It is wâjib for every
mujtahid to act in accordance with his own ijtihâd. Naturally, different
mujtahids have different ijtihâds on some matters; in other words, they
disagree with one another on what is right and correct in some matters. When
their ijtihâds differ, so do their practices, since every one of them ought to
act in accordance with his own ijtihâd. Hence, the attitudinal clashes among
the Ashâb-i-kirâm were the fruits of their endeavours to bring truth and right
to light. Their endeavours show that they agreed on the same purpose. Their
differences and conflicts were not intended to satisfy the desires of the
nafs-i-ammâra. Some people stigmatize those who fought with Hadrat Alî as
‘disbelievers’. They vituperate those blessed people and utter violent
expletives against them. The fact, however, is that there were a few matters on
which the Ashâb-i-kirâm disagreed with Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and made statements contradictory with the
conclusions drawn by the Messenger of Allah. Neither
Allâhu ta’âlâ nor His Messenger castigated them
for
their arguments, which the events that took place in the aftermath sometimes
proved to be right and correct. They were not blamed at all. Nor were they
incriminated as the Wahy was revealed afterwards. Then, how can some people
ever be called disbelievers on account of their ijtihâd disagreeable with
Hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd? How can they ever be blamed for having reached an ijtihâd
contrary to Hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd? Those who fought against Hadrat Alî were not
only a few people whom these wretched miscreants continuously vilify. There
were thousands of other Islamic authorities among them.
[According to some information presented in (the history
book) Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ, the number of those who made war against Hadrat Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was thirty thousand in the event of Camel, and that their
number was a hundred and twenty thousand in the example of Siffîn. The number
of casualties in both events amounted to forty-five thousand. As we have
already detailed in the previous pages, a Jew named Abdullah bin Saba’ and his
collaborators sowed discord among the Ashâb-i-kirâm and caused the martyrdom of
thousands of Muslims. It is a fact written in the Qur’ân al-kerîm that Jewry is responsible
also for the martyrdom of a number of prophets.]
To call the greatest ones of the blessed Sahâba ‘disbelievers’, and to
use abusive language about them, is not an easy dare to take, especially if
those fortunate people have been blessed with the Glad Tidings that they will
go to Paradise. I wish these wretched people were aware of the perilous
consequences that their foul language would lead to. It is those blessed people
who conveyed nearly half of Islam’s teachings. If those people are reviled,
half of the religious knowledge will lose its dependability. How can those
people ever be maligned despite the fact that none of the Islamic scholars has
rejected any narration reported on the authority of any one of them? Hadrat Alî
also reported what he had heard from them. That the book entitled Sahîh-i-Bukhârî is the most authentic book on the
earth after the Qur’ân al-kerîm is a fact which
Shiites also know and acknowledge. This faqîr, –Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî means
himself–, heard the following acknowledgement from Ahmad Tabtî, an eminent
Shiite scholar: “After the Qur’ân al-kerîm, the
truest book on the earth is the book Bukhârî.” The book contains narrations
reported on the authority of those Sahâbîs who were opposed to Hadrat Alî
as
well as those reported on the authority of his supporters. The narrators’ being
on either side did not add to or detract from the value of the narrations. The
great scholar, (i.e. Imâm Muhammad bin Ismâ’îl Bukhârî,) wrote in his book
those narrations reported on the authority of Hadrat Mu’âwiya as well as those
reported from Hadrat Alî. If he had had any doubts as to the dependability of
Hadrat Mu’âwiya or the authenticity of the hadîth-i-sherîfs
he had narrated, he would not have let the narrations reported from him occupy
a place in his book. Likewise, all the scholars of Hadîth borrowed narrations
from both sides without any segregational considerations, since having fought
with Hadrat Alî was not an offense or a fault in their view.
Hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd is not necessarily always the right
one in such clashes of ijtihâd; nor should it be taken for granted that those
who reached an ijtihâd disagreeable with his were always wrong. It is true that
Hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd in the so-called wars was right. It is not a rare event
that the greater ones of the Tâbi’în and leaders of our Madhhabs, whenever they
had to make a choice between two antithetical ijtihâds, preferred the ijtihâd
disagreeable with Hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd, leaving aside Hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd. If
Hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd had been necessarily always right, other ijtihâds
disagreeable with his ijtihâd would not have been accepted. Qâdî Shurayh, an
eminent scholar among the Tâbi’în, was a mujtahid. He refused to make his
decision in accordance with Hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd and rejected the testimony of
Hadrat Alî’s son, Hadrat Hasan, saying that he would not accept a person’s
testimony in favour of his own father. All the other mujtahids have followed
Qâdî Shurayh’s example and rejected a person’s testimony for his father. There
is many another example wherein ijtihâds counter to Hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd were
taken as a basis. Reasonable people who read religious books will see that what
we say is quite right. Therefore we need not attempt any further
exemplifications. As is seen, it is not an offence to reach an ijtihâd
disagreeable with Hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd or not to act in accordance with his
ijtihâd. Those who do not follow his ijtihâd are not necessarily wicked or
blamable people.
Hadrat Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ was Rasûlullah’s
darling. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam’ loved her very much and held her high till his death. Rasûlullah lived in her room till
his
death, passed away on her lap, and was buried in her most fragrant room. Aside
from being so honourable, she was a profoundly learned mujtahid. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had
assigned her the task of teaching half of Islamic knowledge. Whenever the
Sahâba were confused about a religious matter or had difficulty solving a
religious problem, they would run to her, learn what they needed to, and be
back with the solution of their problem. It is not something a Muslim would do
to malign and vituperate against such an honourable Siddîqa, a virtuous
mujtahid, on account of her ijtihâd contrary to Hadrat Alî’s ijtihâd. It is
something which a Believer in the Messenger of Allah would shudderingly keep
shy of. Whereas Hadrat Alî was Rasûlullah’s
son-in-law, Hadrat Âisha was his zawja-i-mutahhara, (i.e. pure and blessed
wife,) darling, and most cherished lifelong companion. A few years ago this
faqîr, –Imâm Rabbânî means himself–, developed a habit of giving food to the
poor every week, intending that the thawâb (next-worldly rewards for the
charity) be given to the souls of the Ahl-i-abâ.
In other words, I would send the blessings that I would be given for the
charitable act to the soul of Rasûlullah, our
master, and also to the souls of Hadrat Alî, Hadrat Fâtima, Hadrat Hasan, and
Hadrat Husayn. One night I had a dream in which I made salâm to, (i.e. greeted
by saying “As-salâmu ’alaikum, Yâ Rasûlallah,”) the Messenger of Allah, our master.
He would not even pay attention to me. Turning his blessed looks away from me,
the Best of Mankind said, reproachingly, “I would
eat in Âisha’s home. Those who sent me food, would send it to Âisha’s home.”
When I woke up I knew that the blessed Messenger’s inattentive attitude towards
me was on account of my inattention towards Hadrat Âisha concerning the
dispensation of the thawâb for charity to Rasûlullah’s
blessed family. From then on I sent the thawâb for the weekly food-giving
charity not only to Hadrat Âisha, too, but also to all the other
zawjât-i-mutahhara ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhunna’. Indeed, all those people
were members of the Ahl-i-Bayt. Thusattained the honour of expecting help and
shafâ’at from all the Ahl-i-Bayt.
To hurt Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ through Hadrat Âisha
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhâ’ is more perilous than doing so through Hadrat Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. This fact is quite palpable to wise and reasonable
people.
As we have been emphasizing repeatedly, love of Hadrat Alî
and the reverence to be shown to him should be based on the love and reverence
we have for the Messenger of Allah. He must be loved and esteemed because he
was beloved to the Messenger of Allah and on account of his kinship and in-law
relationship with the Best of Mankind. If a person loves Hadrat Alî directly
and holds him in high esteem without associating it with love of the Messenger
of Allah, there is nothing we are to say to him. There is nothing we can
discuss with that person, for he is trying to demolish the religion and to
annihilate Islam. Turning away from the Messenger of Allah, he has been
pursuing quite a different course. He has turned his face to Hadrat Alî instead
of the Messenger of Allah, which is kufr (disbelief). Hadrat Alî does not like
such people. Their words and writings hurt him. Our love of the Ashâb-i-kirâm,
of the zawjât-i-tâhirât and of Rasûlullah’s in-laws is only consequent upon our love of Rasûlullah ‘alaihi wa ’alâ âlihi wa ashâbih-is-salawât’.
We hold them great and respect them only for the sake of Rasûlullah ‘alaihis-salâtu wa-s-salâm’. The hadîth-i-sherîf, “He who loves them does so because he loves me,” shows that what we say is true. By the same token, hostility
towards any one of them means hostility towards the Messenger of Allah. As a
matter of fact, another hadîth-i-sherîf reads as follows: “He who is hostile
to them is so because he is my enemy.” These two hadîth-i-sherîfs complement one another as
follows: “To love my Sahâba means to love me. And enmity against them is enmity
against me.”
Hadrat Talha and Hadrat Zubayr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’anhumâ’ were among the greatest Sahâbîs. They are two of the ten fortunate
people who were blessed with the Glad Tidings (that they would go to) Paradise.
It is quite erroneous to malign or criticize those two beloved Sahâbîs. Any
curse uttered against them or any aspersion cast on them will recoil on the
source of the curse or the aspersion. Talha was one of the six people whom
Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ named and said that one of them should be
designated as Khalîfa after him, and Zubayr was another. Khalîfa ’Umar
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ could not make a choice among the six people because he did
not know which one was the most superior. The two Sahâbîs, (i.e.
Talha and Zubayr,) stated their wish to be excused from candidature for
caliphate. One of them, Talha, was the kind of a
person
who had killed his own father on account of his failure to mind his manners
towards Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi
wa sallam’. Allâhu ta’âlâ praises him for his
respect for the Messenger of Allah in the Qur’ân
al-kerîm. As for the latter, Zubayr; Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had stated that his killer would go to Hell. A
person who curses or maligns him is not less ignominious than the person who
killed him.
Avoid speaking ill of great religious leaders and maligning great
Islamic celebrities! Do avoid it, indeed! And avoid it very much! Those people
spent their entire lives propagating Islam and supporting Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’, who is the highest of the entire creation, and sacrificed all
their property day and night and secretly and overtly for the promulgation of
the religion. For love of the Messenger of Allah they abandoned their kith and
kin, their children, their wives, their homes and countries, their streams,
fields and trees. They preferred Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ to all these things and to their own lives.
Leaving aside love of all these things and love of their own lives, they
adhered to love of the Messenger of Allah. They attained the honour of talking
with the Messenger of Allah and keeping him company. Owing to the barakat of
his sohbat, they were blessed with the superiorities of prophethood. They saw the
Wahy revealed by Allâhu ta’âlâ and attained the
honour of being with the angel. They witnessed wonders and miracles beyond the
laws of chemistry and physics. Things which others have only heard of were
shown to them with all their clarity. They were blessed with such closenesses
and superiorities as none of the later generations were given. Such were the
heights they were promoted to, and so unique was the love lavished on them,
that the blessings that would be given to others in return for mountains of gold
dispensed in the name of alms are said, (in authentic narrations,) to hardly
equal half the blessings which those most fortunate people attained by giving a
handful of barley. Allâhu ta’âlâ lauds and
praises them in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. He declares
that He is pleased with them and that they are pleased with Allah. The final
âyat of Fat-h sûra promotes them in honour. Allâhu
ta’âlâ states in that âyat-i-kerîma that
those who harbour a grudge against them are disbelievers. Therefore, hostility
against them should be bewared from with the same alarm and trepidation as we
would feel if we should lapse into
So unprecedented was the affection which attached those
blessed people to Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and so nonpareil were the honours
which they attained by enjoying his special love and attention (tawajjuh), that
it is quite preposterous to malign them or to dislike them on the pretext that
they fell out with one another as a result of differring ijtihâds on matters
whose solutions needed ijtihâd and that every group acted in accordance with
their own ijtihâd. In matters of that nature difference was more appropriate
than unity, and others’ ijtihâd was not to be imitated. It would have been
wrong, for instance, for Imâm Abû Yûsuf ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ to imitate the
ijtihâd of Imâm a’zam Abû Hanîfa ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’, (who had
educated him,) after he himself had attained the grade of ijtihâd. It was
compulsory for him to act in accordance with his own ijtihâd. Imâm Shâfi’î
‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ would not hold the views and conclusions of any of the
Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ preferrable to his own
views. He would refuse any ijtihâd that was counter to his own ijtihâd, even if
it belonged to Abû Bakr as-Siddîq or Hadrat Alî. He deemed it appropriate to
act in accordance with his own ijtihâd even when his ijtihâd was contradictory
with their ijtihâd. Since an ordinary (non-Sahâbî) mujtahid’s disagreeing with
the ijtihâds of the Sahâba is permissible and rightful, why should the Sahâba
be blamed for disagreeing with one another’s ijtihâd, and how can they ever be
maligned on account of their rightful practices?
The Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ sometimes had
ijtihâds contrary to the ijtihâd of Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. They acted in contradiction with Rasûlullah’s ijtihâd. Their contradictory ijtihâd was
not reproached in the Wahy that was revealed in the aftermath. None of them was
castigated at all on account of their differing in ijtihâd. They were not
prohibited from having ijtihâd contradictory with Rasûlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ ijtihâd. If Allâhu
ta’âlâ had not approved of the differences of ijtihâd among the
Ashâb-i-kirâm, certainly He would have prohibited them from such disagreements,
and the Sahâbîs with contradictory ijtihâd would have been intimidated with
torment (in the world to come). We all know about the proscription of talking
loud with Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam’ and
the
intimidation that those who do so will be tormented. The second âyat of Hujurât
sûra purports: “Ye who believe! Raise not your
voices above the voice of the Messenger of Allah, nor speak aloud to him in
talk, as ye may speak aloud to one another, ...” (49-2). It was
something He did not approve of; so He prohibited it on the spot. There was a
difference of ijtihâd among the Ashâb-i-kirâm concerning how to deal with the
prisoners of war captured during the Holy War of Badr. Hadrat ’Umar and Hadrat
Sa’d bin Mu’âdh proposed to kill the prisoners of war. Others were of the
opinion that they should be set free in return for a certain amount of monetary
payment. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam’ was among those who held the latter ijtihâd. Putting the latter ijtihâd
into practice, they started emancipating the captives; thereupon an âyat-i-kerîma was revealed and Hadrat ’Umar’s ijtihâd
was declared to have been correct. In many another similar event there were
ijtihâds at variance with one another.
[One of them is related as follows in the book Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ, by Ahmed Cevdet Paþa
‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’: In the sixth year of the Hegira the Messenger of Allah
and fourteen hundred Sahâbîs were enroute from Medîna to Mekka for the purpose
of paying a visit to the Kâ’ba-i-mu’azzama, when they received intelligence
that the unbelievers were intent upon denying the Muslims’ admission into
Mekka. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam’ called a halt at a place called Hudaybiya and said to Hadrat ’Umar: “Yâ ’Umar! Go to
Mekka! Tell them that we do not mean war and that we will make a visit of the
Kâ’ba and go back!” Sensing that the commandment was a
result of ijtihâd, Hadrat ’Umar proposed his own ijtihâd: “Yâ Rasûlallah! The
unbelievers of Qoureish know that I am their arch enemy. They will tear me to
pieces if I go there alone. ’Uthmân would be a more appropriate choice for the
mission. ’Uthmân has many kinsfolk there. They will protect him.” Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
wellcomed Hadrat ’Umar’s suggestion, let alone taking exception to his apparent
objection. So Hadrat ’Uthmân was sent to Mekka. There is many another example
showing Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam’ concessions to the ijtihâds of his Sahâba. He stated, for instance: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has placed the right word into ’Umar’s tongue.”]
In his final illness, Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
asked
for paper to write some pieces of advice for his Companions. The Ashâb-i-kirâm
‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’ did not agree on whether they should bring some paper. Some
of them said they should do so, while others were of the opinion that they
should not. Hadrat ’Umar-ul-Fârûq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was among the latter
group. He said, “The Book of Allah will suffice for us.” Some people attack him
on account of that event. They utter the most vulgar invectives unreservedly.
Indeed, they do not have the right to criticize. For, Hadrat ’Umar knew that
the Wahy (revelation of the Qur’ân al-kerîm) had
already come to an end, that Allâhu ta’âlâ had
already completed the declaration of His commandments, and that ijtihâd was the
only source for deriving new religious information. What our master, the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, wanted to do
was to write what he found by way of ijtihâd at that moment. The second âyat of
Hashr sûra purports: “...
Take warning, then, O ye
with eyes (to see)!” (59-2). This âyat-i-kerîma
commands those scholars who have attained the grade of ijtihâd to do ijtihâd.
All the Ashâb-i-kirâm were mujtahids. They, too, were quite capable of the
skill of ijtihâd needed for the pieces of information which the blessed Prophet meant to write at that moment. Another motive
which induced Hadrat ’Umar’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ apparently negative attitude
was his anxiety not to let our Prophet
“sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ bother himself with that toil at a time when
his agonies were already on the increase. Because he loved the Messenger of
Allah very much, he said that the Book of Allah would suffice for them, lest
they should tire the Messenger of Allah for something whose solution would be
possible with the Sahâba’s ijtihâd. He meant to say that the Qur’ân al-kerîm was a source sufficient for them to
derive the needed information by way of ijtihâd, since information based on
ijtihâd is derived by mujtahids from the Qur’ân
al-kerîm. It can be inferred from his literal expression, “The Book of
Allah will suffice for us,” that he must have sensed that the pieces of
information that the Honour of the Entire Creation intended to write were in
the category derived from the Qur’ân al-kerîm
and not from hadîth-i-sherîfs. Hence, the
extremely profound affection and the utterly self-sacrificial compassion which
Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ felt for Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ deterred him from acceding to the
bringing of paper, for it would have
entailed
an additional exertion for the Best of Mankind to attempt the business of
writing at the most troublesome and painful moments of his final illness. As a
matter of fact, Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi
wa sallam’ momentary wish to write something emanated from the exquisitely
profuse feeling of compassion inherent in his blessed nature which always
prompted him to do favours for his Sahâba and to be useful for them. What he
was going to write was not one of Islam’s essential teachings. His purpose was
to save his Sahâba from the toil of ijtihâd. If the commandment, “Bring me paper,” had been a definite one, he
would have repeated his commandment, making sure that his wishes be written.
The difference of ijtihâd among his Sahâba would not have made him revoke his
order.
Question: Hadrat ’Umar
also said, “I wonder if he is talking subconsciously (because of fever)? Try
and find out if it is so.” What does that mean?
Answer: Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ may
have considered that the Messenger of Allah was unconscious of what he was
saying due to the pangs of illness. As a matter of fact, the Prophet’s saying, “I will
write,” contributes to that probability. Indeed, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was ummî
(illiterate). He had not been seen towrite a single word. Another factor which
occasioned Hadrat ’Umar’s considering that likelihood was the Prophet’s completing his order with the causative
clause, “... lest you should deviate from the right
path after me.” For, Allâhu ta’âlâ had
already declared that the teaching of Islam had been completed, that His
blessings had culminated in perfection, and that He had been pleased with that
state of affairs. How could deviation from the right path have been likely
despite the consummate circumstances, and how could a brief piece of writing
have been expected to protect a community from degeneration to which they are
considered so prone? How could an aberration which an entire book written in
twenty-three years is supposed to have fallen short of preventing have been
prevented with a paragraph scribbled in haste amidst the increasing pains of
illness? Realizing all these considerations and reasonings in a moment, Hadrat
’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ saw that the Prophet’s
order, “Bring me paper,” was a human
mistake which inadvertently slipped out of his blessed mouth. In order to
be
sure, he suggested to ask the Prophet again.
When the talks became somewhat louder, Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ warned: “Stand up!
Do not make noise! It is not nice to make noise in the presence of the Prophet.” He did not say anything else. Nor did he
repeat asking for a pen (and paper).
If the Sahâba’s disagreeing with Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ in
matters requiring ijtihâd had resulted from the sensuous recalcitrance of the
nafs or from lack of respect, they would have become renegades –may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from such a
disaster! They would have gone out of Islam. For any disrespectful or
quarrelsome behaviour towards Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ is kufr (disbelief). Their
disagreements were consequent upon their obedience to the commandment in the
second âyat of Hashr sûra. Indeed, it is not right for a person who has
attained the grade of ijtihâd to leave aside his own ijtihâd and act in
accordance with someone else’s ijtihâd in matters dependent on ijtihâd. Islam
forbids to do so. It is true, however, that ijtihâd is not permissible in
matters which are declared clearly in the Qur’ân al-kerîm or in hadîth-i-sherîfs. Everybody has to obey those overt commandments. It is wâjib to
believe them and not to disagree with them.
None of the Ashâb-i-kirâm was fond of ostentation or judged by
appearance. What they all were interested in was purification of the heart.
They looked at the inner essence and meaning and were always mindful of (the
Islamic manners called) adab. They would never adhere to superficialities or
words. Their primary concern was to obey Rasûlullah’s
commandments and to avoid the mildest peccadilloes that might have hurt the
Messenger of Allah. They would and did sacrifice their parents, their children
and their families for the Messenger of Allah. So strong was the belief they
held in him, so sincere and genuine was the adherence that attached them to
him, so heartfelt was the affection that they felt towards him, and so profound
was the respect for him by which their entire existence was pervaded, that his
blessed spittle was never seen to reach the ground (before being caught by one
of those most faithful admirers); nor were his nails clipped or hair cut. They
would compete with one another to seize at least one small sample of those
blessed pieces disposed of from his luminous body, and to keep it as the most
valuable, blessed and fruitful souvenir. If
a
statement made by one of those pure people and explored recently should contain
an expression that can be interpreted as an irreverence towards the Messenger
of Allah in today’s world of lies and deceits with which even the areas of
meanings and semantics have been contaminated, the expression must be given a
benevolent meaning and good meanings conveyed by the entire statement must be
taken into consideration, rather than the semantic distortions that every
individual word should have gone through in process of time.
Question: Inasmuch as
mistakes are said to be likely in religious teachings obtained by way of
ijtihâd, can all the religious information provided by Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa
sallam’ be said to be correct?
Answer: When the religious teachings which were
found by way of ijtihâd in the time of Rasûlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ were inconsistent with one another, the correct
one would be revealed by Allâhu ta’âlâ. For it was not permissible for prophets
to do something wrong. When there were contradictory ijtihâds concerning a
certain matter, Allâhu ta’âlâ would declare
which one was correct, and thus the correct one would be distinguished from the
incorrect ones. When various differring ijtihâds were reached on a certain
matter in the time of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam’, the angel in charge would descend with the wahy revealing
the correct answer. Thus the correct ijtihâd would be acted in accordance with
and what was done thereupon would be right and correct. Hence, every fact
taught by Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam’ was certainly true and everything he did was definitely correct. A
slightest mistake in his teachings was quite out of the question. In fact,
whereas the direct and overt religious teachings are correct because they were
revealed by the angel in charge, the religious teachings inferred by way of
ijtihâd are equally correct since they were verified by the revelation realized
through the angel. Some matters were left to scholars’ ijtihâd instead of being
revealed directly and clearly; this divine policy should have been applied as a
kindness to scholars and so that they would attain the blessings created in the
nature of ijtihâd. The religious teachings which were inferred by way of
ijtihâd caused mujtahids to be promoted to higher grades. Not so is the case
with the ijtihâds done after Rasûlullah’s
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ passing away; religious teachings
found
by way of those ijtihâds are not guaranteed. They cannot be said to be
definitely correct teachings. Therefore, it is not compulsory to believe that
they are correct, although it is permissible to act in accordance with them. It
is not kufr (disbelief) to deny their correctness. However, if the ijtihâds
reached by all mujtahids indicate identical results, which is called ijmâ’
(consensus, unanimity), it is compulsory to believe in the correctness of the
teachings found by such unanimous ijtihâds.
We will beautify the conclusive part of our letter by
writing the superiorities of the Ahl-i-Bayt ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum
ajma’în’ of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’:
It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf quoted on the authority of Yûsuf bin Abdulberr: “He who loves Alî will have loved me (by doing so). He who is inimical towards
Alî will have been inimical towards me (by being so). He who hurts Alî will have hurt me. And he who hurts me will have
hurt Allâhu ta’âlâ.”
[Some people exploit this hadîth-i-sherîf
as an attestation to stigmatize those who fought Hadrat Alî as disbelievers.
The fact, however, was that the parties who fought each other were not inimical
towards each other. Their hearts were not angry with each other although they
hurt each other physically. Amidst the fights Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
called the other party “Our brothers”. And Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
wrote, “My master,” about Hadrat Alî. It is written as follows in the hundred
and forty-ninth (149) page of the seventh chapter of the 1331-Istanbul edition
of the book Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ: When Hadrat Hasan ceded the caliphate (to Hadrat
Mu’âwiya), which the greater ones of the Sahâba such as Sa’d bin Abî Waqqâs
accepted, the government of Hadrat Mu’âwiya was canonically lawful. Hadrat
Mu’âwiya seized the power by the use of force although he was one of the
Sahâba. Yet the time and the circumstances had made it inevitable. People were
acting in defiance of the Khalîfa’s authority. Force and power were necessary,
which meant the commencement of the era of sovereignty. Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’ was rightful and eligible for the position. As is seen, even the book
Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ, which these exploiters rely on as a basis for their argument,
writes that Hadrat Mu’âwiya was one of the Sahâba and attaches the phrase of
blessing ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ to his
name.
The following account is given in its hundred and fifty-first (151) page:
Things had taken a turn for the worse and the administration of the Muslims’
matters and businesses required the use of force and power now. And Hadrat
Mu’âwiya was considered eligible for the responsibility. Whereas formerly the
Khalîfa’s orders had been sufficient for the execution of Islamic principles, a
sovereign power was necessary from then on. Since the main objective was the
maintenance of Islam, all the Sahâba present at that time paid homage to
Mu’âwiya ‘ridwânullâhi ’alaihim ajma’în’. It is written as follows in its
hundred and fifty-seventh (157) page: Hadrat Mu’âwiya was a Sahâbî and had been
honoured with Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’alaihi wa sallam’ laudatory remarks. He was among the notables of Qoureish. On
account of his exceptional competence with which he successfully enforced
Islam, he was called the ‘Khalîfa-i-Rasûlullah’.]
It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Tirmuzî and Hâkim ‘rahimahumullah’: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has given me the names of four people He loves. He
commands that I should love all four of them. They are Alî, Abû Zer, Mikdâd,
and Salmân.”
A hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Tabarânî, by Hâkim and by Abdullah ibn Mes’ûd quotes Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ as
having stated: “It is an act of worship to look at Alî.” According to a hadîth-i-sherîf which (the books) Bukhârî and Muslim report on the authority of
Hadrat Berâ, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ lifted Hadrat Hasan, placed him
on his blessed shoulder, and invoked: “Yâ Rabbî! I love
this one. (I beg Thee that) Thou, too, love him!”
According to a hadîth-i-sherîf which Bukhârî reports on the authority of Hadrat Abû Bakr, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
mounted the minbar with Hadrat Hasan ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ in his arms. He
was turning his blessed looks now to us, then to Hasan. He stated, “This son of mine is a Sayyid. Owing to him Allâhu ta’âlâ will conciliate
between two armies of Muslims.”
According to another hadîth-i-sherîf, which Tirmuzî reports on the authority of Usâma bin Zayd, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had
had Hasan and Husayn on his lap, each sitting on one of his blessed knees. He
stated: “These two are
my sons, and they are my daughter’s sons. Yâ Rabbî! I love these
two. (I beg of Thee that) Thou, too,
shouldst love them, and love also those who love them!”
According to a hadîth-i-sherîf which Tirmuzî reports on the authority of Enes bin Mâlik, when Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was
asked which one(s) of the Ahl-i-Bayt ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ he
loved most, “Hasan and Husayn,” was his answer.
A hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Musawwir bin Muharram reads as follows: “Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ is a part from me. He who hurts her will have hurt me.”
A hadîth-i-sherîf which Hâkim reports on the authority of Abû Hurayra reads as
follows: “I love Fâtima more than (I love) Alî, and Alî is more valuable than
Fâtima to me.”
Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ relates: The Sahâba would bring
their presents (to the Messenger of Allah) whenever he was in my home. They
would try to win his love by doing so. According to another report which Hadrat
Âisha, again, reports, the blessed wives of the Messenger of Allah had parted
into two groups. I was in the first group with Hafsa and Safiyya and Sawda. The
other blessed wives, with Umm-i-Salama in the lead, made the other group.
Sending Umm-i-Salama as their spokeswoman to the Messenger, the other group
voiced their wish that he should order the Sahâba, “When any one of you wishes
to give me a present, let him bring it to that home of mine where I happen to
be at the moment.” When Umm-i-Salama conveyed the wish, the Best of Mankind
stated: “Do not hurt me! The angel brings me
wahy (chapters of the Qur’ân al-kerîm) only when I am in Âisha’s home.” Upon this, Umm-i-Salama said, “Yâ Rasûlallah (O You, Messenger
of Allah)! I trust myself to Allah to protect me from hurting you. Never
again!” The same group of blessed wives repeated their attempt, delegating
Hadrat Fâtima this time. “O my beloved daughter! Will
you not love someone whom I love,” asked the
Honour of Creation. When Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhâ’ replied, “Yes, I
will,” the blessed Prophet
concluded: “Then, love her!”
Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ relates: I envied no other wife of the Messenger of Allah as strongly as I did Khadîja ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhâ’, although I had never seen her. Rasûlullah ‘sall-
Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam’ would mention her name very frequently. Whenever he killed a
sheep, he would send some of the meat as a present to Khadîja’s kinsfolk. When
he mentioned Khadîja’s name, I would say, “Is Khadîja the only woman in the
world?” Thereupon the blessed Prophet would
praise her, saying, “She was so good, and so forth.
I had children from her.”
A hadîth-i-sherîf reported on the authority of Abdullah ibn Abbâs reads: “Abbâs is from me. And I am from him.”
It is stated as follows in a hadîth-i-sherîf which Daylamî reports on the
authority of Abû Sa’îd: “Allâhu ta’âlâ will inflict
very bitter torment on those who hurt me by traducing my progeny and
descendants.”
A hadîth-i-sherîf which Hâkim reports on the authority of Abû Hurayra ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anh’ reads as follows: “The best one(s)
among you is (are) the one(s) who will do kindness to my Ahl-i-Bayt after me.”
Ibn Asâkir quotes the following hadîth-i-sherîf on the authority of Hadrat
Alî: “If a person hurts my Ahl-i-Bayt, the torment he will suffer
on account of it on the Last Day will be enough for him.”
Ibn Adî and Daylamî quote the following hadîth-i-sherîf on the authority of Hadrat
Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’: “A person who loves
my Ahl-i-Bayt and my Sahâba very much will pass the bridge of Sirât most easily.”
[This is the end of the translation of Imâm Rabbânî’s
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’ letter.]
The great scholar Sayyid Abdulhakîm Arwâsî ‘rahmatullâhi
’aleyh’ provides the following explanations in his booklet entitled Ashâb-i-kirâm (‘Sahâba the Blessed’): Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
Ahl-i-Bayt fall into three groups. One of the groups consists of his kinsfolk,
i.e. those related to him by blood. His paternal aunts are in this group. His
blessed and pure wives make the second group. In the third group are those
female servants who always stayed with his blessed wives and served them by
combing their hair, cooking for them, cleaning their rooms, doing the laundry
and other housework. Bilâl, Salmân and Suhayb, who were responsible for outdoor
services such as calling the adhân (azân), were among the people who ate and
drank in the blessed home (of the Prophet).
Hadrat Fâtima and all her children till the end of the world are
also among the Ahl-i-Bayt. It is necessary to love them even if they are
disobedient Muslims. To love them, to serve them with one’s heart, body and
property, and to behave respectfully towards them will cause one to die with
îmân, (i.e. as a Believer). There used to be a court of justice allocated for
Sayyids in the Syrian city of Hamâ. During the reigns of the Abbasid Khalîfas
in Egypt Hadrat Hasan’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ descendants were called Sherîfs and Hadrat Husayn’s ‘radiy-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anh’ descendants were called Sayyids, and a decree was enacted that the former should wear a white
turban and the latter should wear a green turban. Children born from both
blessed families would be registered in the presence of a judge and two
witnesses. In the time of Sultân Abdulmejîd Khân ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’
the law courts were abrogated by the masonic vizier Reshîd Pâsha. People
without a known genealogy and without a certain Madhhab began to be called
Sayyids. Sham Persian Sayyids spread far and wide. It is stated as follows in
the book Fatâw-al-hadîthiyya: “During the Sadr-i-awwal, all the members of the Ahl-i-Bayt were
called Sherîfs. For instance, expressions like ‘Sherîf-i-Abbâsî’ and
Sherîf-i-Zaynalî were being used. The Fâtimî sultans were in the Shiite sect.
They called only the descendants of Hasan and Husayn ‘Sayyids’. Eshref Sha’bân
bin Husayn, one of the Turcoman sultans in Egypt, decreed in 773 [1371 A.D.]
that the Sayyids wear a green turban so that they be distinguished from the
Sherîfs. These regularizations, far-flung as they soon became, were of
customary nature and had no canonical significance.” Detailed information in
this respect is available from the book Mir’ât-i-kâinât, as well as from the Turkish version of Mawâhib-i-ladunniyya or from the
third chapter of the seventh part of its revision rendered by Zerkânî.
ADDITION: Some non-Sunnî impostors
have been trying to mislead the Muslims in our country (Turkey). Baffled in
their attempts to find at least some clues in the books written by Islamic
scholars that they can distort into documentary evidence and adduce as grounds
for their vilification of Hadrat Mu’âwiya and the other Sahâbîs who fought
Hadrat Alî, they repair to a lower level of falsification by magnifying the
tragic stories which the Abbasid historians concocted with considerations such
as adulation, worldly gains and positional
furtherance.
Also, changing the writings in the Turkish book Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ,
they try to use them as false evidence for their treacherous cause. For the
purpose of divulging the slanders and lies which these traitors employ in their
strategy to sow discord among the Muslims in our country and to set brothers
against one another, we deem it relevant to borrow some excerpts from the book
Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ and bring them to our dear readers’ attention:
It is written as follows in the hundred and seventh (107)
page of the book Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ: “Hadrat Hasan ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ had entered into a series of
short-lived marriages. The girls he had married would fall in love with him
even sooner than the end of the fleeting marriages. Hadrat Hasan’s last wife,
Ja’da, apprehensive that he would divorce her, too, poisoned him.” As is seen,
Hadrat Hasan was poisoned by his wife because of jealousy. Contrary to the
allegations of those lâ madhhabî people, Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’
had no knowledge, let alone a part, concerning the felony.
The hundred and ninety-third (193) page contains the
following observation: “Hadrat Mu’âwiya became ill in the sixtieth year of the
Hijrat. He sent for his son Yazîd and gave him a long sermon of advice. The
gist of the admonitory part of his advice was: Inhabitants of Kûfa may provoke
Hadrat Husayn to march against you. If you are victorious over him, forgive
him! Be kind towards him! He is very close to us. He has great rights over us,
and he is Rasûlullah’s grandson.” These words of
Mu’âwiya’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ are a most clear indication of the
affection and respect he felt towards the Ahl-i-Bayt.
When Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s illness became heavier, he stated:
“Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam’ put a shirt on me. I have kept it ever since in order to be blessed
with its barakat. One day I put pieces cut off from his blessed nails and hair
into a bottle, which, also, I have kept up until now. When I am dead, put the
shirt on me, and place the nail-clippings and the pieces of hair on my eyes and
on my mouth. Perhaps Jenâb-i-Haqq will forgive me for the sake of them.”
The following account is given in its hundred and ninety-fourth (194)
page: Hadrat Mu’âwiya was tall, white-complexioned, stately, extremely patient,
and sweet-tempered. His soft demanour was proverbial. One day a man entered his
presence
and insulted him in an unbearably rude manner. Hadrat Mu’âwiya was silent. When
the other people in his presence asked if he would never run out of patience,
he said, “We will not react to people’s insults unless they mean harm to our
sultanate.”
According to a short passage in its hundred and
ninety-fifth (195) page, Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ warned: “Do not malign
Mu’âwiya’s administration! Indeed, if you lose him you will see heads being cut
off and falling down.”
The following information is given in the book Mir’ât-i-kâinât: Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’ and his father Abû Sufyân embraced Islam in the presence of Rasûlullah on the day when Mekka was conquered.
They had firm îmân. Hadrat Mu’âwiya was one of Rasûlullah’s secretaries. Rasûlullah asked a blessing over him several times, invoking, “Yâ Rabbî! Keep this person in the right path and make him a means
for other people’s guidance to the right path!” And
once the blessed Prophet invoked
this blessing over him: “Yâ Rabbî! Teach Mu’âwiya
knowledge and calculation! Protect him from torment! Yâ Rabbî! Make him
dominant over countries!” And at another time he
gave him this advice: “O Mu’âwiya! Do kindness when
you dominate over countries!” Afterwards Hadrat Mu’âwiya
said that he had been awaiting the day when he would become Khalîfa since he
had heard the blessed Prophet’s
invocation. One day Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was riding a beast of burden with
Hadrat Mu’âwiya sitting behind him, when the Best of Mankind asked, “Yâ Mu’âwiya! What part of your body is closer to me?” When the latter replied that his abdomen was closer, Rasûlullah invoked: “Yâ Rabbî! Fill this with knowledge and with mild temper!” So richly gifted was Hadrat Mu’âwiya with forgiveness and
clemency that a book of two huge volumes was written in praise of him. Four
great geniuses have been raised in Arabia. Mu’âwiya is the first one of them.
Whenever Hadrat ’Umar looked at Mu’âwiya he would say, “Among the Arabian
rulers, this person is the one as majestic and as powerful as Persian
sovereigns.” So great was his magnanimity that he gave Hadrat Hasan eighty
thousand gold coins when the latter said he was badly in debt. [The event is a
clear indication of his special sympathy for the Ahl-i-Bayt and the services he
rendered to them.]
Hadrat ’Umar was the first conqueror of the city of
Jerusalem, and Hadrat Mu’âwiya was the second. Hadrat Mu’âwiya enlarged the
Islamic lands to Tunis in Africa, to Bukhâra in Asia, and from Yemen to
Istanbul, establishing full control over these vast countries. He was a
stately, luminous-faced, handsome, good-tempered, congenial, right-minded,
respectable and honourable state president. Always in clean, new, tidy and
smart apparel, and fond of riding choice horses, he led a life of great splendor.
However, owing to the barakat inherent in Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ sohbat, –since he was
one of the Sahâba–, he had been immunized against aberration from Islam.
According to a narration reported in the four hundred and
seventeenth (417) page of the book Madârij-un-nubuwwa, written in the Fârisî language by Hadrat Abdulhaqq Dahlawî, and
also in the hundred and eighty-first (181) page of the first volume of the
Turkish version of Mawâhib-i-ladunniyya, Abû Sufyân bin Harb displayed great heroism in the Holy War of
Tâif. One of his eyes went out of its socket. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “Yâ Abâ Sufyân! Make a choice! If you wish, I will pray for you and
your eye will be replaced. Otherwise, Allâhu ta’âlâ will give you an eye in Paradise, if you prefer this second choice.” Abû Sufyân replied, “Yâ Rasûlallah! I prefer that I be given an
eye in Paradise,” dumping the eye which he was holding on his palm onto the
ground. Hadrat Abû Sufyân performed many acts of heroism in the Holy War of
Yermûk, too, where he lost his second eye. He attained martyrdom in the same
event.
The following account is given in the three hundred and
fourteenth (314) page of Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ: After the conquest of Mekka, Abû Sufyân and his son Mu’âwiya
joined the Messenger of Allah and migrated to Medîna. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allahu ’alaihi wa sallam’
appointed Abû Sufyân as governor of Najrân, and made Hadrat Mu’âwiya a scribe
of wahy.
It is written as follows in the four hundred and seventy-sixth
(476) page of Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ: Three thousand Muslims attained martyrdom in the
Holy War of Yermûk. There were many blessed Sahâbîs among them. Abû Sufyân
became totally blind when an arrow hit his second eye ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum
ajma’în’.
According to information provided in the six hundred and eighty-fourth
(684) page of the second volume of the book
Medârij-un-nubuwwa, by Abdulhaqq Dahlawî, Yazîd
bin abî Sufyân, governor of Damascus, designated his brother Mu’âwiya as his
successor upon the approach of his own death. Hadrat ’Umar, the time’s Khalîfa,
ratified Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s governorship. He retained his position as governor
of Damascus for the next four years, i.e. until the death of Hadrat ’Umar, and
the following sixteen years, i.e. throughout the caliphates of Hadrat ’Uthmân,
Hadrat Alî, and Hadrat Hasan. In the forty-first year of the Hegira, when
Hadrat Hasan ceded the caliphate, he became Khalîfa rightfully. By the end of
his twentieth year in the office of caliphate, he passed away of facial
paralysis at the age of seventy-eight. He was one of those who held the opinion
that the murderers who had martyred Hadrat ’Uthmân should be arrested and
punished immediately. Hadrat Alî, by contrast, considered that a hasty approach
towards their punishment could aggravate the already turbulent matters of
caliphate. Upon this he dismissed Hadrat Mu’âwiya from governorship. A hadîth-i-sherîf which Imâm Suyûtî quotes from Imâm
Ahmad’s book of Musnad reads: “Yâ Rabbî! Teach
Mu’âwiya how to write and how to calculate, and protect him from torment!”
The facts which we have written so far bespeak the oddity
of the course followed by those people who vilify Rasûlullah’s two Sahâbîs, Abû Sufyân and his
son Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’, over whom valuable Islamic books
such as Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ say the blessing, ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, and praisingly
state that they tried to serve Islam till they took their last breath.
Miracles bestowed on Ahmed[1] were beyond calculation in
numbers,
Three thousand of them did the Sahâbâ tally at one time.
Miracles are proofs for a person’s prophethood,
Like the sun’s heralding every new daytime.
Once seen, a miracle will suffice for confirmation,
Muhammad himself was with infinite miracles a paradigm.
For his trueness Qur’ân alone would suffice, no doubt,
Peerless, indeed, it is, in its belles-lettres and in rhyme.
So much so, none was able to imitate, genies and humans alike,
“It really is Word of Allah,” all had to admit in rhyme.
---------------------------------
[1] The Messenger of Allah.