This letter, written to Mirzâ Fathullah Hakîm, explains
that, of the seventy-three groups of Muslims, the group of Ahl as-Sunnat are
the only Muslims who will attain salvation (from
Hell):
May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless you with the fortune of walking along the path of Sharî’at-i
Mustafâwiyya ‘alâ sâhibissalâtu wassalâm’! Persian line in English:
This matters, nothing else!
A hadîth foretells that Muslims will fragment into seventy-three
groups. Each of these seventy-three groups claims to obey the Sharî’at. Each
group says that it is the one that will be saved from Hell. It is declared in
the fifty-third âyat of Mu’minûn Sûra and in the thirty-second âyat of Rûm
Sûra: “... Each party rejoices in that which is
with itself.” However, among these various groups, the sign, the
symptom of the one that will be saved is given by our Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ as follows: “Those
who are in this group are those who follow the way which I and my Sahâba
follow.” After mentioning himself, the owner of the Sharî’at did not
need to mention the Sahâba ‘ridwânullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’; yet his
mentioning them may come to mean: “My way is the way which my Sahâba follow.
The way to salvation is the only way which my Sahâba follow.” As a matter of
fact, it is declared in the eightieth âyat of Nisâ Sûra:
“He who obeys my Messenger has certainly obeyed Allâhu
ta’âlâ.” To disobey the Messenger is to disobey Allâhu ta’âlâ.
Disobeying him is disobeying Allâhu ta’âlâ. Declaring: “They want to differentiate between the way of Allâhu ta’âlâ and the way of
His Messenger. They
say, ‘We believe some of what you say but we do not believe
others.’ They want to open a different way between the two. Certainly they are
disbelievers,” about those who presume that obeying Allâhu ta’âlâ is different from obeying His
Messenger, in the hundred and fiftieth âyat of Nisâ Sûra, He informs us that
they are disbelievers. He who says that he follows the Prophet
‘alaihissalâtu wassalâm’ though he does not follow the way of the Sahâba
‘ridwânullahi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’ is wrong. He has not followed him
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’; he has disobeyed him. He who has taken such a
way will not be saved in the Hereafter. In the eighteenth âyat of Mujâdala
Sûra, “They think they are doing something right.
Be it known that they are liars, disbelievers,” He shows how such
people are.
Those who follow the way of the Sahâba ‘alaihimurridwân’
are no doubt the group of the Ahl as-Sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at. May Allâhu ta’âlâ give plenty of rewards to the
superiors of this group, who worked incessantly without falling tired! The
group that will be saved from Hell is only this one. For, he who speaks ill of
our Prophet’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam’ Sahâba ‘alaihimurridwân’ is certainly deprived of following them. Such
is the case for the sect of Shiite and the group of Khârijî.
[There are twelve groups of Shiites. Each group has parted
into sub-groups. Some of them lead a life without an ablution, without a ghusl.
Few of them perform namâz. They all hold non-Sunnî beliefs. They are not
Alawîs. Alawî means a person who loves and
follows the Ahl-i Bayt. Imâm-i Alî and his children from Hadrat Fâtima are
called the Ahl-i Bayt. The honour of loving the Ahl-i Bayt has fallen to the lot of the
Ahl as-Sunnat, who have said that loving and following them will cause one to
die with îmân. Then, the real Alawîs are the Ahl as-Sunnat, not the Shi’îs.
Therefore, a person who wants to be an Alawî has to be Sunnî. Today, zindîqs,
and people who have no relationship with Islam appropriate the name of Alawî,
plagiarizing it from the Ahl as-Sunnat. Under the shade of this beautiful name,
they try to mislead the youth from Rasûlullah’s way. Our book entitled Documents of the
Right Word provides detailed information on
this subject.]
The Mu’tazila group appeared
later. Wâsil bin Atâ, its founder, used to be a disciple of Hadrat Hasan-i
Basrî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’; because he dissented from Hasan-i
Basrî’s
way by saying that there was a third mode between îmân and kufr, Hasan-i Basrî
said, “I’tazala annâ,” about him, which means, “He has dissented from us.” All
the other groups appeared later.
To slander the Sahâba means to slander Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. As
declared: “He who disrespects the Sahâba does not have îmân in Allâhu ta’âlâ’s
Messenger.” Indeed, to slander them means to slander their owner, their master
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us against lapsing into such a dirty creed. It is the
Sahâba who conveyed to us the Sharî’at, which originated from the Qur’ân and
from hadîths. When they are slandered, the thing which they conveyed too loses
its value. The Sharî’at was not conveyed to us by a few certain persons among
the Sahâba. Each of them has a service, a share in the blessed work. They are
all equal in trueness, in justice and in (the authenticity of) their teaching.
When any one of the Sahâba ‘alaihimurridwân’ is slandered, the Islamic dîn has been
slandered and cursed. May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us all from lapsing into such a loathsome situation!
If those who vituperate against the Sahâba say, “We still
follow the Sahâba. It is not necessary to follow them all. In fact, it is not
possible, for their words do not agree with each other. Their ways are
different,” We will answer them as follows:
Following some of the Sahâba requires not denying any of them. When
some of them are disliked, the others have not been followed. Amîr [Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’], for instance, respected the other three Khalîfas, deemed
them great and knew that they were worth obeying. He obeyed them willingly and
accepted them as Khalîfas. Unless the other three Khalîfas are loved, it will
be a lie, a slander to say that one follows Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’anhum’. In fact, it will mean to dislike Hadrat Alî and to refute his words.
It would be a stupid and ignorant word to say about Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’, who is Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Lion, that he handled them and that he only
smiled at them. What wisdom could admit that Allah’s Lion, despite his great
knowledge and bravery, concealed his enmity against the three Khalîfas,
pretended to be friends with them and established a superficial friendship with
them for a full period of thirty years. Even the lowest Muslim could not
stomach such hypocrisy. We should recognize the ugliness of
such
words which belittle Hadrat Amîr to such an extent and which misrepresent him
as impotent, deceitful and hypocritical. Even if we could suppose for a moment
that Hadrat Amîr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was so —may Allah protect us from such a
supposition— what would they say about the fact that our Master the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ praised these
three Khalîfas, lauded them and esteemed them throughout his life? Would they
say that our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam’ was hypocritical, too? Never! It is impossible. It is wâjib for the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ to tell the
truth. He who says that he was deceiving them becomes a zindiq and becomes
irreligious. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the
sixty-seventh âyat of Mâida Sûra: “O My dear
Messenger! Proclaim what was sent down to you from your Allah! If you do not
communicate this message correctly, you will not have done your duty as a Prophet! Allâhu ta’âlâ will protect
you against those who mean enmity towards you.” The disbelievers had
been saying that Hadrat Muhammad ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had been
communicating whatever suited his purpose and not communicating whatever did
not suit his purpose of the Qur’ân that had been revealed to him. Upon that,
this âyat was revealed to declare that he had been telling the truth. Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ praised the
three Khalîfas and held them above all others until he honoured the Hereafter
with his presence. This means to say that it cannot be erroneous or wrong to
praise them or to hold them superior.
It is necessary to follow all of the Sahâba in the tenets
to be believed, for there is no difference among them in the facts to be
believed. There may be a difference in the furû’, that is, in practices.
A person who speaks ill of one of the Sahâba ‘ridwânullâhi ta’âlâ
’alaihim ajma’în’ has blemished all of them. For, the îmân, the belief held by
all of them was the same. He who slanders one of them has followed none of
them. He has said that they disagreed with one another and that there was no
unity among them. To slander one of them means to deny what he said. Let us say
once more that all the Sahâba communicated the Sharî’at. Each of them was just
and right. There is something in the Sharî’at conveyed by each and every one of
them. The Qur’ân al-kerîm is a collection of
âyats; and each and every one
of
the Sahâba conveyed to us at least one or two of those âyats. He who dislikes
some of them will have disliked the one who communicated the Sharî’at. As is
seen, that person will have acted in contradiction with all of the Sharî’at.
Can such a person be saved from Hell? Allâhu ta’âlâ declares
in the eighty-fifth âyat of Baqara Sûra: “Do you
believe some of the Qur’ân and disbelieve some of it! The punishment of those
who do so will be abasement and humiliation in the world. And in the Hereafter
they will be hurled down into the most vehement torment.”
The Qur’ân was collected by Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anh’. In fact, it was collected by Abû Bakr-i Siddîq and ’Umar Fârûq
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’. The Qur’ân that was collected by Hadrat Amîr was other
than this one. As it can be understood, to slander these great people means in
effect to slander the Qur’ân. May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect all Muslims from lapsing into such a disastrous situation!
One of the mujtahids of the Shiite sect was asked, “The Qur’ân was collected by
Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. What would you say about the Qur’ân
collected by him?” He answered, “I do not see any use in finding fault with the
Qur’ân, for slandering the Qur’ân causes the dîn to be demolished.”
Certainly, a wise person cannot say that all the Sahâba
‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’ agreed on a wrong decision on the day
when our Master the Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ died. In fact, on that day thirty-three
thousand of the Sahâba unanimously made Hadrat Abû Bakr-i Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anhum’ Khalîfa willingly. It is impossible for thirty-three thousand Sahâbîs
to agree on a mistake. As a matter of fact, our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’
had declared: “My Ummat never agrees on a wrong
decision.” The reason why Hadrat Amîr was first
sorry was because he was not called to those talks. He himself acknowledged
that this was so and said, “I was sorry because I was called to the talks late.
But I know well that Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is superior to us all.” There
was a reason why he was called late. That is, he was then among the Ahl-i Bayt;
he was busy consoling them.
The disagreements among the Sahâbîs ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihim
ajma’în’ of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam’ were not because of the desires of the nafs or for evil thoughts, for
their blessed nafses had been purged and become quite
pure.
They had gotten rid of being ammâra and attained itmînan (to believe and
understand the truth). Their only desire was to obey the Sharî’at. Their disagreements
were based on a difference of ijtihâd. Their intention was to find what was
right. Allâhu ta’âlâ will give one grade of
thawâb to those who erred, too. There are at least two grades of thawâb for
those who were right. We should not hurt any of those great people with our
tongues! We should mention each of them with good terms. Hadrat Imâm-i Shâfi’î
‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, who was one of the greatest savants of the Ahl
as-sunnat, said, “Allâhu ta’âlâ did not smear our hands with their blood. So let
us not smear our tongues!” Again, he said, “After Rasûlullah,
the Sahâba pondered very much. Finding no one on earth superior to Abû Bakr-i
Siddîq, they designated him as Khalîfa. They accepted to serve under him.” This
statement of Imâm-i Shâfi’î also shows that Hadrat Alî was never hypocritical
and that he willingly accepted Abû Bakr-i Siddîq as Khalîfa.
Mayân Shaikh Abulkhayr’s son, Mayân Sayyid, is a
descendant of great and noble people. Also, he was in your service in the
Dakkan expedition. It is hoped that he will be blessed with your help and kind
treatment. Mawlânâ Muhammad ’Ârif is also a student of knowledge and a
descendant of the great. His father is dead. He was a khodja. He came to you in
order to receive his stipend. It is hoped that Your Highness will help him.
Wassalâm wa-l-ikrâm!
[Islamic scholars have written very many books in order to
prove that the Shiites have deviated from the right path and that especially
the most unbridled and the most excessive of them have altogether dissented
from Islam and have been striving to demolish Islam. The titles of some of them
together with their authors have been given below. On behalf of religious
brotherhood and humanity, I pray to Allâhu ta’âlâ that our brothers in Islam who say that they are Alawîs will read
these books carefully and will observe the difference between the Ahl as-Sunnat
and these people and choose the right way by using their wisdom, conscience and
reason and not believe the lies and slanders of the ignorant separatists. Thereby
they will attain happiness in this world and in the Hereafter by holding fast
to the way of safety and salvation.
Of the books written by Islamic savants in order to advise
the Shiites, here are a few:
1— The book Ibtâl-ul-Manhaj-il
bâtil was written by Fadl bin Ruzbahân. It refutes the book Minhâj-ul-karâma by
Ibn-ul-Mutahhir, one of the Shiite savants, and rebuts its falsifications by
means of documents. He wrote the book in Isfahan in 852 [1448 A.D.]
2— The book Nuzhat-ul-ithnâ
ashariyya, written by Mirzâ Ahmad bin
Abdurrahîm-i Hindî, gives information about Shiites. He passed away in 1255
[A.D. 1839].
3— The book Nawâqid was written by Mirzâ Mahdûm. The book An-nawâqid lil-Rawâfid was written by
Sayyid Muhammad bin Abdurrasûl Barzanjî, who was drowned in the sea in 1103
[1711 A.D.].
4— The book Muhtasar-i Nawâqid
is an abridged version of the book Nawâqid. The abridgement was made by Muhammad
bin Abdurrasûl-i Barzanjî.
5— The book Sayf-ul-bâtir
li-riqab-ushshî’t-i warrâfida-til-kawâfir was
written by Shaikh Alî bin Ahmad Hitî in Istanbul in 1025 A.H.
6— The book Ajwiba-tul
Irâqiyya Alal’as’ilatil-Îrâniyyawas written by
Shihâbuddîn Sayyid Mahmûd bin Abdullah Âlûsî, a Shâfi’î scholar in Baghdâd
(d.1270 [1854 A.D.]
7— The book Ajwiba-tul Irâqiyya
Alal’as’ilatil-Lâhûriyyawas written by Âlûsî. Also,
Haydarî wrote a book with the same title.
8— The book Nafahât-ul-qudsiyya
fî mabâhis-il-imâmiyya fî-radd-ish-shî’a, written by
Âlûsî, refutes the Shiites.
9— The book Nahj-us-salâma also was written byShihâbuddîn Âlûsî.
10— The book Sârim-ul-hadîd was written by Muhammad Amîn bin Alî Baghdâdî. It confutes the
slanders of Ibni Abil-Hadîd.
11— The book Raddu-alal-imâmiyya
was written by Alî bin Muhammad Suwaydî Baghdâdî. He was
in the Shâfi’î Madhhab. He passed away in Damascus in 1237 [1822 A.D.].
12— The book Hâdîqa-tus-sarâir was written by Abdullah bin Muhammad Bitûshî. He was a Shâfi’î of
Baghdâd, and passed away in Basra in 1211 [1797 A.D.].
13— The book Tuhfa-i ithnâ asharîyya fî
radd-ir-rawâfid was written in Persian by Shâh Abdul’âzîz-i Dahlawî.
He
passed
away in 1239 [1824 A.D.]. Its Arabic translation wasabridged by Shukrî Âlûsî
and printed with the title Mukhtasar-i Tuhfa in
Baghdad, and the abridged version was reproduced in Istanbul in 1976.
14— The book Minha-tul-ilâhiyya
mukhtasar-i Tuhfa-i ithnâ ashariyya was written by
Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsî. It was printed in Cairo in 1373 A.H.
15— Imâm-i Rabbânî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’ explains
the superiorities of the Sahâba very well with documentary proofs in his book Maktûbât.
16— The book Hujaj-i qat’iyya was written in Arabic by Abdullah-i Suwaydî. It was printed
together with the Arabic book An-Nâhiya
an’ta’n-i-Amîr-ul-mu’minîn Mu’âwiya in Istanbul in
1981.
17— In the books Milal-Nihal by Shihristânî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’ and in its Turkish,
English, French and Latin versions, Shiism is explained in detail and answers
are given.
18— The Turkish book Tazkiya-i
Ahl-i Bayt gives beautiful answers to the
Shiites. It was written by ’Uthmân Bey, who was the Shaikh of Topkapý
Mevlevîhânesi, and it was printed in Istanbul in 1295 A.H. Along with Hujaj-i Qat’iyya, it was printed in
the Latin alphabet within the Turkish book Hak Sözün Vesîkalarý in
Istanbul.[1]
19— Hadrat Imâm-i Rabbânî’s ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’
book Radd-i-Rawâfid is in Persian and
its Turkish version has been printed in the Latin alphabet within the book
Hak Sözün Vesîkalarý in Istanbul. (Please see footnote.)
20— The great savant Ibni Hajar-i Haytamî ‘rahmatullâhi
ta’âlâ ’aleyh’ proves that Shiites are wrong with âyats and hadîths in his book
Savâ’iq-ul-muhriqa.
21— Ibni Hajar, again, proves very well that Hadrat
Mu’âviyya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ cannot be spoken ill of in his book Tathîr-ul-janân wallisân an Mu’âwiyya-tabni-Abî Sufyân.
22— Ibni Taymiyya, in his book Minhâjus-sunna-tinnabawiyya fî naqdi kalâm-ish-shî’as
wa-l-qadariyya,
---------------------------------
[1] This book was translated into English in
1992. The English version, entitled Documents of the Right Word, is
available from Hakîkat Kitâbevi, Darüþþefeka Cad. 57/A P.K. 35 34262 Fâtih-Ýstanbul-Türkiye.
refutes the book Minhâj-ul-karâma by Ibnil-Mutahhîr, one of the Shiite savants, with sound
documents.
23— Ibni Taymiyya, again, explains the superiorities of
the Sahâba, with sound documents in his book Fadâil-i
Abû Bakr wa ’Umar.
24— In the translation of Mavâhib-i ladunniyya and in Mir’ât-i kâinât the glory of the
Sahâba is explained.
25— The Turkish pamphlet captioned Sahâba-t-al kirâm by Sayyid
Abdulhakîm-i Arwâsî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’ was printed in Istanbul.[1]
26— The book Nûr-ul-Hudâ, written by Karakashzâda ’Umar bin Muhammad Bursawî Halwatî in 1005
A.H. [1597 A.D.], confutes the Shiites and Baktâshîs. It was printed in
Istanbul in 1286 A.H. He passed away in Edirne in 1047 [1638 A.D.].
27— Manâqib-i Chihâr yâr-i ghuzîn,
which is in Turkish, explains the superiorities of the
Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum ajma’în’ very well. It was written by Sayyid Ayyûb
bin Siddîq Urmawî. It was reprinted various times. The edition of 1264 A.H. is
so beautiful.
28— Shiism is explained and the advice which Islamic
savants gave to them are explained in full length in the Turkish books Ashâb-i kirâm, Hak Yolun Vesîkalarý, Herkese Lâzým Olan Îmân, and Fâideli Bilgiler, which have been edited various times in Istanbul. [Of these three
books, the second one, Hak Sözün Vesîkalarý, was
rendered into English in 1992. The English version, entitled Documents of the Right Word, consists
of 480 pages and is vastly informative and competently corroborative.]
29— It is written in the books Berîqa and Hadîqa that those who believe in transmigration and those who hold the
belief that Allah entered a certain person’s body are disbelievers.
30— Yûsuf Nabhânî, in the final part of his book Shawâhid-ul-haqq, gives very
beautiful responses with documents to the Shiites.
31— Sayyid Ahmad Dahlân ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ vehemently
refutes the Shiites in his book Al-fat-hul-mubîn. This book of
---------------------------------
[1] The book you have been reading is its English version.
his was printed as a complementary at the end of Hujaj-i qat’iyya
by Suwaydî. (Please see item 18.)
32— Shah Waliyullah-i Dahlawî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’
refutes the Shiites with strong documents and praises Hadrat Mu’âwiyya very
highly in his book Izâlat-ul-hafâ an khilâfat-ul-khulafâ.
The book, in Persian, was printed in Pakistan in 1392
[1972 A.D.] together with its Urdu translation. It consists of two volumes.]
Muhammad Ma’thûm Fârûqî Mujaddidî, a Walî-yi kâmil and one
of the greatest scholars of India, states as follows in a passage of his
twenty-ninth letter:
Allâhu ta’âlâ asked Mûsâ (Moses) ‘alaihis-salâm’: “Yâ Mûsâ! What deed have you performed for Me?”
When Hadrat Mûsâ replied, “Yâ Rabbî! I have performed namâz, fasted, paid
zakât, and mentioned Thine Name very often for Thee,”
Allâhu ta’âlâ declared: “Performing namâz is
burhân (proof, evidence, document) for
you. Fasting is a shield that will protect you from Hell. Zakât will give you
welcome shade in the sweltering heat of the day of mahsher (assembling
of people for judgement in the world to come). And
dhikr (mentioning, remembering the name of Allâhu ta’âlâ) will be a nûr (light)
for you in the darkness of that day. What have you done for Me?”
Mûsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ said, “Yâ Rabbî! What is the deed which is for Thee?” Allâhu ta’âlâ declared: “Have
you loved for My sake a slave of Mine whom I love? And have you looked on My
enemies as your enemies as well?” Then Mûsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ realized
that the deed which Allâhu ta’âlâ loved was to
love His beloved ones and to hate His enemies. As is seen, it is a symptom of
love to love those who are beloved to the beloved one and to feel enmity
towards his enemies. This love is not something within the lover’s willpower;
nor is the concomitant animus. They are spontaneous. Other acts of worship, by
contrast, necessitate wish and intention. People loved by the beloved one
appear beautiful to the lover. And his enemies seem ugly. Everyone knows that
the same rule applies to all the cases of worldly love. If a person says that
he loves another person, he will not be believed if he does not feel hostility
towards that person’s enemies. On the contrary, his claim will be interpreted
as hypocrisy. Shaikh-ul-islâm Abdullah Ansârî relates: “One day Abû-l-Husayn
bin Sem’ûn hurt my
teacher Muhammad Husrî. Since that day I have never felt any sympathy for him. If a person hurts your master and you do not feel hurt, too, you are lower than a dog.” Allâhu ta’âlâ declares as follows in the Mumtahina sûra: “Ibrâhîm (Abraham) ‘alaihis-salâm’ and his Sahâba (Companions) said to the polytheists: We are far from you and your idols. We do not believe you. There will be enmity between you and us until we see that you believe in Allah, who is one. That beautiful attitude of theirs should be an example for you (to follow).” Another âyat-i-kerîma, which comes later, purports: “Therein is a beautiful example for those who have belief in Allâhu ta’âlâ and in the Last Day.” As these âyat-i-kerîmas indicate, that enmity is essential for being a true Believer, and it annihilates one’s îmân (belief) to feel sympathy for enemies of Allâhu ta’âlâ. That means to say that antipathy should be felt towards the enemies of the beloved one. This subtle maxim, however, is what the Râfidîs delude themselves with. They say that “Loving Hadrat Alî necessitates animosity against the Ashâb-i-kirâm.” They do not seem to realize that the enmity stipulated should be against the enemies of the beloved one, not against the friends. People who had attained the honour of Rasûlullah’s sohbat loved one another very much. They were inimical not towards one another, but towards unbelievers. The twenty-ninth âyat-i-kerîma of the Fat-h sûra purports: “...; and those who are with him are strong against unbelievers, (but) compassionate against one another. ...” (48-29). This âyat-i-kerîma corroborates our argument.