Misbah-uz-Zulam Roots of the Karbala’ Tragedy

 

Author: Sayyid Imdad Imam

Translated by: Sayyid Athar Husayn S. H. Rizvi

Publisher: Ansariyan Publications

First Edition: 1388 – 1430 – 2009

ISBN: 978-964-219-103-1

 

In The Name of Allah The Beneficent, The Merciful

Praise be to Allah the Lord of the worlds. And benedictions upon His beloved, Muhammad and his purified Progeny

I humbly state that this book, Misbah-uz-Zulam, is written with the sole intention of research and it is not intended to hurt anyone’s feeling. Through its perusal, unprejudiced people will easily understand the causes of the tragedy of Karbala’ and it will also throw light on numerous other matters, which are yet unknown to the vast majority of Muslims.

I rely on Allah and He is sufficient for me, the best of the masters and the best protector.

The Author

 

 

When the Holy Prophet (S) arrived, a part of the Arab land was under Iran’s rule and a part under the Byzantine government. The remaining areas were ruled by tribal Chiefs (Shaykhs). Mecca and Medina were similarly under the rule of their respective Shaykhs. The Sheikhdom of Mecca was in the family of the Holy Prophet (S), who were called Bani Hashim; but their other relatives, Bani Umayyah, were having more power and wealth. There was no love lost between Bani Umayyah and Bani Hashim. Yet there had been no major bloodshed either before or after the arrival of the Holy Prophet (S).

The ways of life of these two tribes were not similar. Normally the Bani Hashim were faithful, brave, kind, generous and sincere, whereas the Bani Umayyah were remote from all these attributes. Though both belonged to Quraish tribe, their behavior was very different from one another. If a comparison between to people each from the said two clans is made, the difference will be quite obvious. For this purpose let’s take up the case of Abdul Muttalib from Bani Hashim and Abu Sufyan from Bani Umayyah. All knew about the courage, faithfulness, kindness, truthfulness, foresight, generosity and thoughtfulness of Abdul Muttalib.

 

On the other hand, Abu Sufyan had nothing to do with these virtues. He was a selfish, evil, greedy, a malicious drunkard and a mischievous fellow. Besides many other virtues, the generosity of Abdul Muttalib was so great that he was prepared to fulfill the need of the needy before the latter could even describe it fully. It had also happened that this chief of Bani Hashim was once about to leave for Syria with trade goods, when at the last moment a needy fellow came to his door and asked for a big amount in charity. Abdul Muttalib at once complied with his request and could not undertake his trade journey due to lack of funds.

Even the greatest enemy of Abdul Muttalib is unable to show that he had on any occasion grabbed anyone’s wealth or had ever fled from the battlefield or behaved badly and unjustly with anyone or wished evil of anybody or drank wine or committed adultery etc. Undoubtedly, such evil deeds can never be committed by a man from whose loins, the two divine radiances, viz. the radiance of Muhammad (S) and the radiance of Ali (a.s.) were to be transferred to the loins of Abdullah and Abu Talib (r.a.). Doubtlessly, Abu Sufyan did not posses these graces.

Obviously, this book is not aimed to abuse anyone, otherwise, many sour affairs would have to be recalled; then if Abu Sufyan is to be compared with Abdul Muttalib it will be asked: Can a dead lamp be compared with the bright sun?

 

Similarly, if a comparison is made between Muawiyah and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and of Imam Husayn (a.s.) with the son of Muawiyah, the distance between the behaviors of Bani Hashim and Bani Umayyah will become all the more obvious, even to the unaware. Lastly, if a comparison is made between Marwan bin Hakam, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Walid bin Abdul Malik, Sulaiman bin Abdul Malik, Hisham bin Abdul Malik and Walid bin Yazeed bin Abdul Malik and people like Imam Zainul Aabideen, Imam Muhammad Baqir, Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) and other members of the holy family of the Prophet, the difference between good and evil will become crystal clear.

In Bani Umayyah tribe, a man named Marwan looks like the head of all mischief- makers of the world. Then Hakam bin Aas, Walid bin Uqbah etc. were also outstanding examples of the character of Bani Umayyah. The truth is that almost all the people in this tribe, with the sole exception of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, are such that to call them humans is like killing humanity.

 

 

Three religions were prevalent in Arabia at the time of the arrival of the Holy Prophet (S). One was the religion of polytheistic Arabs, who worshipped idols in the worst way. Another was the religion of Christianity, which was in a very bad condition as it had ceased to be a divine religion and the third was the religion of Prophet Moosa (a.s.) (i.e. religion of the Jews) which had also deteriorated like Christianity. In short, the entire land of Arabia had gone completely astray. In these circumstances, it was a demand of Divine Mercy that the Holy Prophet (S) should be appointed by Allah.

But the religion of Muhammad (S) could not spread and grow easily and many calamities befell the Holy Prophet (S) in Mecca. Bani Umayyah people were bent on opposing God. They could not kill the Holy Prophet (S) so long as Abu Talib (r.a.) was alive. But after the death of this kind and caring uncle, the idol-worshippers made all preparations to kill the Holy Prophet (S). Among the apostates of Mecca, the greatest enemies of the Prophet were these very Bani Umayyah.

At last, after suffering many troubles, he left Mecca and migrated to Medina. The people of Medina gave him a warm welcome and accepted the Divine religion in large numbers. Against all hopes, Islam gained roots and flourished in Medina and the people of the native Mecca remained deprived of this blessing. Strange are the affairs of Allah! How strange that a deadly enemy like Abu Jahl was from the native place of Mecca! The Holy Prophet (S) did get refuge and peace in Medina and many Medinites also became Muslims with a sincere heart, but this flourishing of Islam became extremely intolerable for Bani Umayyah and other unbelievers of Mecca.

So Bani Umayyah did everything to harm both the Holy Prophet (S) and the religion of Allah. Abu Sufyan advanced to Medina many times, accompanied with an army, and also fought the Muslims of Medina in several battles, but always failed. Almighty Allah did not allow His religion to be destroyed.

Finally, Abu Sufyan and other apostates of Mecca became tired and sat put at home. The Battle of Hunayn shook the Bani Umayyah severely and made the devil powerless. We should remember that it took ten years for the Prophet to weaken Bani Umayyah and it was only his military acumen and intelligence, which controlled such a rebellious tribe. But alas and again alas! After a little while, Bani Umayyah not only regained their lost strength but also gradually became the rulers of all the territories of Islam and it was as a result this, that one of their rulers caused the massacre, which is now remembered as the Tragedy of Karbala’.1

It is recorded in history, how Bani Umayyah became powerful once again and I have recounted those events in my book Kashful Haqaiq Vol. 1 and will again mention them wherever necessary in this book. But before I narrate the events of Karbala’, it is necessary to explain the religious conditions of the Muslims of those days so that the events of Karbala’ may also be understood easily. This is essential, because without knowing this, no one can understand the truth about Karbala’.

For instance, one could ask in astonishment: “My God! What is this? When Husayn (a.s.) was the grandson of the Holy Prophet (S), how and why did the Muslims killed him so mercilessly?” But when this questioner knows the facts, his bewilderment will go away and the Karbala’ incident will appear to him natural according to the law of cause and effect. This is a world where every happening must have a cause.

____________________

1.Refer to books of History

2.This book is now out of stock and perhaps not available anywhere.

 

 

 

Verily, during the days of the Holy Prophet (S), the rituals and dealings of the followers of Islam must have been like that of the Prophet. For example, if he prayed with folded hands, all Muslims must also be doing likewise. The rituals of Hajj and Zakat etc. also should be on this line, because in those days, the Prophet himself must have led them in these matters. Likewise, in the matter of social interaction, Muslims must have been doing as they saw the Prophet do. No doubt, this continued till the end of the life of the Prophet. But when he fell on the deathbed, two great differences arose between him and his followers.

One is called “The story of the paper” (Qissa Qirtas) and another “Opposition to join Usamah’s army” (Takhalluf Jaish Usamah). What happened in the first, according to the author of Sharh Mawaqif,1 was when the moment of departure neared, the Holy Prophet (S) asked those around him: “Bring to me paper, so that I may write down some such things whereby you may not go astray after my passing away.”2

Umar was not pleased with this. So he said: “This man is overpowered by illness. We have the Book of Allah, and it is sufficient for us.” And in Sahih Bukhari, it is written: Due to this dispute, voices rose high, which made the Prophet very unhappy. So he said: “Get up and go away from me. This quarrelling is not good before me.”

In short, the Holy Prophet (S) could not leave any written order after him. A thoughtful look at this story makes it clear that at that moment the Prophet was in perfect senses and wanted to write something. It was never so that due to illness he had begun to utter senseless things.

No, at that time also, he was so conscious and alert that he knew that he was a prophet and was of the opinion that because of his rank, it was not becoming for his followers to raise their voices in his presence. It is not known what he wanted to write. But it must have been something related to religion and was also very serious and important.

The very words of the Prophet indicate that he wanted to do something to save his followers (Ummah) from misguidance. Shias say that he wanted to issue a written order appointing Ali (a.s.) as his successor while Sunnis say he wanted to make Abu Bakr his successor.

But alas! When nothing could be put in writing, there was no other way except to make guesses. If the guess of Ahlul Sunnat is correct, Umar did very much against not only Abu Bakr but also against the entire Ummah, because, had Abu Bakr been appointed as the Caliph in writing, no Muslim could have ever disputed it and there would not have been any tussle about Caliphate in the Muslim world and all the Muslims would have followed one and the same way.

Shias say that the Prophet intended to appoint Ali (a.s.) as his successor in writing and it was so because, only a few months earlier, the Holy Prophet (S) had orally made Ali (a.s.) his successor at a place called Ghadeer Khumm.3 The author intends to give details of Ghadeer Khumm in the following pages, which will show that the claim of Shias does not appear baseless.

Anyway, whatever the fact may be, it does not appear that Umar did anything against the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. If Umar was certain that the Prophet was about to make Abu Bakr his Caliph in writing, he would have, instead of preventing the Prophet from such a writing, all the more tried for the conclusion of such a written document, because such writing would surely have resulted in what had happened at the gathering of Saqifah Bani Saada with the support of Umar. But as a matter of fact, Umar too was certain that the Prophet wanted to make Ali his successor in writing.

Ahmad bin Abi Tahir has, in Tarikh Baghdad, quoted a narration of Ibn Abbas that Umar himself had said that the Prophet wanted to mention the name of Ali clearly during his last illness, but that “I prevented it.” That is why he objected. It will be seen henceforth that Umar had always tried to keep His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) away from Caliphate. All know that Umar kept Ali away from Caliphate during his (Umar’s) lifetime very successfully and even after his death, Umar, with his unparalleled political diplomacy, did not allow Ali to succeed as a Caliph. There is no doubt that non-realization of the Prophet’s intention was a great misfortune for the Muslim Ummah, sorrow for Islam and followers of Islam.

“Surely we belong to Allah and to Him we shall return.”4

Had that writing come into effect, Islam would have remained safe from thousands of mischief-makers and would not have suffered any of the calamities, which it is facing

_______________________________

1.He is one of the great Sunni scholars.

2.Ref. Sahih Muslim, Kitabul Wasaya and Sahih Bukhari, Chapter I of Kitabul Ilm (Pg. 18)

and Mishkat after Babul Karamaat.

3.Refer to books of History.

4.Surah Baqarah, 2:185.

 

 

 

Another event, which occurred at the time of the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) and due to which the Prophet’s intention remained unfulfilled is the problem with Usamah’s army. The Prophet wanted to send an army against the apostates under Usamah’s command, insisting for this so much, that he said: “Anyone who fails to join Usamah’s army, will be cursed.”1

No doubt, had the Holy Prophet (S) lived for a few more days, the said army of Usamah would have confronted the enemies of Islam. But some great companions and so also other Muslims of the time opposed the order totally and therefore the army could not proceed to the apostates and the Prophet did not succeed in his plan. How astonishing that those Muslims preferred to be cursed and sit at home!

What kind of faith is it that the Holy Prophet (S) orders something, but he is disobeyed? Doubtlessly, this disobedience had some special reasons. Apparently, it so appears that had Usamah proceeded with the Islamic army, the gathering, which was held at Saqifah Bani Saada, could not have been held and the matter of Caliphate would have taken and different shape.

In short, only these two events, which occurred near the time of the Prophet’s death, project a picture of serious difference between the intention of the Prophet and the attitude of his followers. No other event of difference seems to have happened at that time, but after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S), a very serious disunity came up among Muslims as is even now apparent from the differences in the matter of prayers and social dealings etc.

The first difference to rise among Muslims after the Holy Prophet’s departure was about Caliphate. Dispute arose between the Emigrants (Muhajir) of Mecca and the Helpers (Ansar) of Medina. The Helpers said: “Appoint a chief from among you and one from us.” But Abu Bakr told the Helpers: Did you not hear the words of the Holy Prophet (S)? He had said: “My successor will be a man of Quraish.” This silenced the Helpers.

Then Umar intended to make Abu Bakr the Caliph, but Abu Bakr said Umar should be the Caliph. Umar did not agree to it and hastened to hold the hand of Abu Bakr and announced his allegiance to him.2Along with this, all those who were present in Saqifah began to give allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Thus, the affair of Caliphate had been decided at Saqifah. But Bani Hashim were not there at all. So the Saqifah people were in serious apprehension regarding Bani Hashim. But as Ali (a.s.) did not appear to intend any serious act [the reason of it seems to be that the Holy Prophet (S) had, in his last moments, asked Ali not to rise against his opponents, so that Islam which was then in its initial stage might not be harmed] Bani Hashim too, like Ali (a.s.) remained calm.

Despite this, the people of Saqifah thought it essential to obtain allegiance from Ali (a.s.). So Umar went to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and took the latter to Abu Bakr. There, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) said to Abu Bakr: “You obtained the right from Helpers telling them that, as per the Holy Prophet’s words, the Caliph should be a man of Quraish. Now I demand from you what you obtained from the Helpers, because besides being a Quraishi, I am also a Hashimi and a brother as well as the son-in-law of the Holy Prophet (S) etc.”3 What could the people of Caliphate reply?

Anyhow, when Ali (a.s.) was asked to pay allegiance, he did not comply. Ahlul Sunnat say that Ali (a.s.) paid the allegiance after the death of Lady Fatima (s.a.)4 but Shias deny this claim totally. After looking into all the aspects of Ali (a.s.); moral, monetary and social etc. it appears to me that even after the demise of Lady Fatima (s.a.) Ali (a.s.) did not pay any kind of allegiance to Abu Bakr, because Ali was very truthful and sincere. Had he paid any kind of allegiance he would not have, in his sermon of Shiqshiqya5, shown so much disgust against the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and thereafter, nor would he have shown so much grief.

It is obvious that had Muawiyah, after paying allegiance to anybody, made such a speech against that fellow, it would not have been considered contrary to his nature, because he was quite able and ready to do anything when needed. In a way though Muawiyah was fully trained by the first Caliph yet, when necessary, he would deliver two thousand orations against his teacher very easily in self-interest.

Similar seems to be the attitude of Talha and Zubair, as they themselves have actually shown. That is to say they paid allegiance to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and then broke it and rose against the Caliph. But the nature of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was never of this type. It was never possible for him to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr and then getting opportunity, condemn his Caliphate so bitterly as seen in the said sermon. Whoever has looked carefully at the character of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) can very well say that he was very straight-forward and that he could never give allegiance to Abu Bakr and then on another occasion, oppose him in bitter words.

Hence deep thought over this matter shows that even after the demise of the Lady of Paradise, Lady Fatima (s.a.), Ali did not give allegiance to Abu Bakr. Here, I am not concerned with the question of whether the Caliphate was enacted rightly or not. What is intended here is to see what was the effect of this Caliphate on the holy progeny of the Holy Prophet (S)? The immediate effect was that rulership was taken away from Bani Hashim as a result of which, the status which the holy progeny enjoyed during the time of the Holy Prophet (S) remained no more.

In my view, the active beginning of the apparent downfall of the status of the holy progeny commenced from this point. We will be able to show gradually that this disrespect to the holy progeny increased so much that after the insults at Karbala’, the ladies of the holy family were paraded with utter disrespect in the bazaars of Damascus very mercilessly.

Thereafter too, the holy blood continued to be shed and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) descendants (Sadaats) were readily killed. Here, I don’t want to inquire whether or not the Sadaats deserved such treatment. But there is no doubt that the worst behavior was meted out to the holy progeny as can be seen in books of biography and history.

___________________

 

1.Refer Milal Wan Nihal by Allamah Shahristani. Also see the last part of Sharhe Mawaqif, Chapter Tanzeelal Kitab (Pg. 746) printed at Naval Kishor Press, Lucknow.

2.Ref. Sahih Bukhari, Kitabul Muharibeen and Fathul Bari etc.

3.Ref. Rauzatul Ahbab, Vol. II, Pg. 33-34

4.Ref. Sahih Muslim, Pg. 125.

5.Sermon no. 3 of Nahjul Balagha.

 

 

It should be remembered that though the insulting of the holy progeny began from the Caliphate affair, it preceded in action with the words of “We have the book of Allah with us” (Hasbona Kitabullah) of Umar. It was because the effect of these words created problems, which were never even imagined before and which confronted Islam thereafter.

Of course, the Holy Prophet (S) had already said before his demise that, “I am leaving behind me two weighty things; if you cling to them, you will never deviate from the right path and these two are the Quran and my household.” Yet strangely, these words could not create even one-tenth of effect of what Umar’s words of, “We have the book of Allah with us” (Hasbona Kitabullah) did.

No doubt, these words of the Prophet, which are authentic, both in the view of Shias and Sunnis viz. “I leave among you…(Innee Taarikun…)1 are the words of the one about whom Allah Himself says:

“Nor does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed.”2

So all his words were in accordance with divine revelation. Knowledgeable people very well know that it is about this tradition that Shah Abdul Aziz, in his Tohfa, writes: “Verily, the command of the Holy Prophet (S) indeed was such that the nation (Ummah) of Muhammad must cling to these two things viz. Quran and Ahlul Bayt.”3 But the author will now show to what extent did the Ummah do so.

Here, I don’t want to examine whether the words were proper or not, but theaim of this book is to look at the effect of these words of Umar. Apparently, it seems that had the clinging to the holy Ahlul Bayt also been considered as absolutely necessary along with the clinging to the holy book, the history of Islam would certainly have taken a very different turn from both, the religious and political angle. But these three or four words of Umar created a new Islamic world, which still exists in full form.

Though the words of the Prophet give a stern warning, Umar’s words did not allow the Prophet’s words to be acted upon and its scope remained limited to oration (without being acted upon). Had the words of the Prophet been acted upon, neither the event of Saqifah would have taken place nor Bani Hashim would have had to suffer various oppressions, nor would have its respect decreased among the Ummah nor any sects against the beliefs of Bani Hashim would have appeared. So also no events would have ever taken place, which concluded in the martyrdoms of Ali, Hasan, Husayn (a.s.) and many other family members and friends of the Holy Prophet (S).

Apparently, it seems the words of, “We have the book of Allah with us” (Hasbona Kitabullah) freed the common Sunni Muslims from clinging to the holy family of the Holy Prophet (S) and even though, the tradition of Two Heavy Things is, according to the words of the author of Tohfa, a popular tradition among both Sunnis and Shias; Sunnis did not act upon it either in the past nor are they doing so today. This tradition has remained almost like a dead letter in books and nothing more than that. So it is known to all the knowledgeable people that none, except the Bani Hashim and their friends ever cling to Muhammad’s Progeny. If for Sunnis, Muhammad’s Progeny means Lady Fatima, Imam Ali, Imams Hasan and Husayn (a.s.), I could not find from any book what Sunni do about clinging to these four persons.

 

The Holy Prophet (S) was not yet buried when Saqifah was held with a great hue and cry. No right-thinking person can call it ‘clinging to the Progeny’. Rather, this event appears to be a direct consequence of Umar’s words. Immediately thereafter, was the hue and cry about taking allegiance from Ali (a.s.), rushing of people to the house of Lady Fatima to burn it down, ugly actions regarding the Fadak property and disrespectful addresses to Ali and Fatima (s.a.) etc. They are all such barbarous deeds, which to a truthful man, look very far from ‘clinging to the holy progeny’!

Similarly, all actions taken during the Caliphates of the three Caliphs (according to followers of the three Caliphs) have nothing to do with the clinging to the Ahlul Bayt. What clinging to Ali was done at the time of the collection of Quran by the first Caliph? How did the second Caliph cling to Progeny in his personal exertions (Ijtihaadaat)? How did the third Caliph follow the Progeny? How did Muslims cling to Imam Hasan’s Imamate? What kind of clinging was observed in the affairs of Muawiyah, when he was the Caliph of the time? How did his successor, Yazeed follow the said tradition? Likewise, what was the manner of following of this tradition upto the time of Imam Askari (a.s.) in obedience of the command of the Holy Prophet (S)? What is apparent is that no one ever cared even to remember the subject of clinging to the holy family.

 

All the actions after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S) have nothing to do with the command of the Holy Prophet (S) at all. What was done was that the members of the holy family were unjustly imprisoned and their blood was mercilessly shed in different periods. In spite of the Ahlul Bayt’s being fully knowledgeable and wise, the non-Imamiyah scholars remained aloof from the orders of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt and are still doing so, details of which will come up hereafter.

O lovers of truth! Can these deeds be called ‘clinging to Progeny’? The fact is that the subject of clinging (Tamassuk) has been only a dead letter in the eyes of non-Imamiyah Muslims. Books show that the non-Imamiyah Muslim have, ever since the first Caliphate until today, clung to the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” This is the phrase, which has left no stone unturned to destroy the holy Ahlul Bayt. It also founded, after disassociating with the Ahlul Bayt, a particular sect which involves all non-Imamiyah and these non- Imamiyah have many different groups which are separately named by Abdul Qadir Jilani in Ghaniyatu Talibeen.

 

This phrase has created a big difference in belief between the Imamiyah and the non-Imamiyah regarding Imamate. It is a part of main belief in the view of Imamiyah, while it is secondary in the opinion of non-Imamiyah. The cause for this difference in belief, it seems, is that being the followers of the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Thaqalayn), the Imamiyah are of the opinion that Imamate is a divine command, on the basis of an argument that when the Holy Prophet (S) passed away from this world, in view of the said tradition, his progeny’s succession is also from Allah and it cannot be otherwise.

The fact of the matter too appears to be so that when his Progeny is included in Thaqalayn there can be no dispute about their being assigned by Allah. In accordance with this tradition (Thaqalayn) the Holy Prophet’s Progeny is either at par with Quran or only a little lower than it. Even if it is lower in rank than the Holy Quran, it certainly is one of the two great things. Despite this lower rank, the holy Progeny is surely not worth total abandonment and so may not be clung to along with the Holy Quran.

The truth is that the Holy Quran and the holy Ahlul Bayt can never be separated from one another. In my opinion, Progeny is higher than Quran because Quran is the argument of Quran whereas Progeny is talking Quran (Quran Natiq). That Ali (a.s.) has said that he is Quran Natiq is a profound evidence for a faithful man to appreciate Progeny as very graceful. Only one who is an opponent or enemy of Ali (a.s.) can deny this.

In short, the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) shows that Imamate is a divine affair. The reason why non-Imamiyah consider it a branch of belief (secondary) seems to be that by the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona…) the subject of Imamate, which is based on the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Thaqalayn) has been removed altogether. So no wonder if Imamate (which is from Allah) is considered as a dead issue because of the said phrase.

 

Obviously, when Imamate is not regarded to be from Allah, according to the belief of non-Imamiyah sect, there remains no superiority of rank for the twelve Imams over the four Sunni Imams. Rather, the value of the four is greater than that of the twelve, because all the jurisprudential needs of non-Imamiyah are solely related to those four Imams and they have neither a basic nor a secondary relationship with the twelve Imams. So in their view, the Imamates of twelve Imams cannot be considered higher than the Imamates of Ghazzali and Fakhruddin Razi.

Briefly speaking, the Imamate based on the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona…) can only be an Imamate, which is from people (as it is in Sunni circles). No doubt, these words of Umar bin Khattab succeeded in their aim and this phrase has virtually negated the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) in practice.

Therefore, the claim of non-Imamiyah, if at all, about clinging to Ahlul Bayt, by the Muslims of the time of Umar or thereafter, or even today is only on lips. This is not astonishing because when the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona…) makes it essential to cling only to Quran, it would naturally result in aloofness from Ahlul Bayt.

Quite opposite is the state of those Muslims in whose belief, clinging to Ahlul Bayt is as binding as clinging to Quran. Obviously, they cannot give up the holy family. Such Muslims, till today, cling to Ahlul Bayt in every matter and they are ever eager to obey the commands of the Holy Prophet (S) fully. But the number of such Muslims was small in the beginning and it is not large even today.

 

__________________________

1.Ref. Tohfa Ithna Ashariyah, by Shah Abdul Aziz, Vol. IV, Pg. 201.

2.Surah Najm 53:3-4

3.Ref. Tohfa, Pg. 201.

 

 

In the opinion of the writer, the root cause of sectarian difference among Muslims is this phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah). If these words had not been uttered by Umar after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S), Muslims would have equally clung to the Holy Quran and the holy Progeny as per the Prophet’s command, but these words took a large number of Muslims away from the holy Progeny and very few Muslims acted according to the Prophet’s tradition. They mainly belonged to Bani Hashim and their friends.

History books show that such Muslims, who had acted according to the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) kept themselves aloof from Umar’s phrase. They not only did not dissociate with Umar’s supporters but also kept a distance from them in every religious affair. Accordingly, when during the time of the first Caliph, they began to collect Quran as per his order, believers in the leadership of Ahlul Bayt remained aloof from them.

Similarly, during the days of Umar’s Caliphate, when personal exertions (Ijtihaad) were being made, they did not join the committees. In short, having clung to the words of the Prophet, these people followed in every affair, only the holy Progeny. Accordingly, they followed the religious commands given by His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)

The above events clearly show that the rift created by Umar’s words became wider with the passage of time and gradually two different ways of life (sects) came into being among the followers of Holy Prophet (S), one initiated with the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) and the other with the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah). The first is the Imamiyah path, because the natural consequence of following the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) is that one should not follow any leader or Imam of any other community or sect or family but the Imams belonging to the family of the Prophet.

Likewise, the path founded by the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah) made it compulsory for its followers to be ruled by non- Ahlul Bayt leaders or rulers; and to be led by the verdicts of non-Ahlul Bayt jurisprudents in religious matters. So, as seen from the books of both the sects, this latter is the sect which, in the second century of Hijra, came to be known as the religion of Ahlul Sunnat and which has not the least connection with the Imams from the family of the Prophet as will be explained in more detail afterwards.

Here it should be understood that when differences began after the demise of the Prophet and non-Bani Hashim people went away from the Prophet’s Progeny and started deriving meanings freely, and religious verdicts (Fatwas) began to be issued accordingly, a path different from the path of the Ahlul Bayt was established.

This school came into being due to a committee of personal exertions (Ijtihaad) founded by Umar, but at that time, it was not given any specific title; similarly, it remained nameless during the time of Muawiyah’s Caliphate also. But after him, in the beginning of the second century of the Hijri era, the followers of this path named it People of the Year and Congregation (Ahlus Sunnat Wal Jamaat). The reason of this naming is that Muawiyah had named the year (sanah) in which he had taken away Caliphate from Imam Hasan, as the year of the people (Aamul Jamaat) and the name of the year in which he had initiated cursing Ali (a.s.) in sermons as year of tradition (Aamus Sunnat).

Consequently, the opponents of the Progeny, like the Kharijis, Nawasib and Motazela sects, who had deep differences with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), began to call themselves Ahlus Sunnat Wal Jamaat since the second century Hijri with an intention that the treaty enacted between Muawiyah and Imam Hasan and the tradition of cursing His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), which was initiated thereafter, may not be forgotten.1

It is not unexpected from today’s illiterate Ahlul Sunnat to become furious on learning this, but what is mentioned above is the truth. So an Ahlul Sunnat scholar, Ibn Abde Rabb writes in Kitab Al Uqd: “When Muawiyah entered into a treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.), he named that year (Sana) Jamaat.” Jalaluddin Suyuti writes in Tarikhul Khulafa:2 “Muawiyah became Caliph from the month of Rabius Thani or Jamadiul Oolaa and he named that year (Sana) Jamaat because now the Ummah had agreed on one Caliph.” Similarly, research about “Aamus Sunnat” shows and Yahya Ibnul Hasan Qarshi, in his Minhaj Ut Tahqeeq, writes:

“When Muawiyah began cursing of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), he named that year Sunnat, which thereafter became Ahlul Sunnat.” Similarly, Hasan Suhail also has repeated this statement in Anwarul Badaayah and Shaykh Askari also writes in Kitabur Rivaaj: “Muawiyah named that year Sunnat.”

In short, the term Sunnat Wal Jamaat is made up of two names of years given by Muawiyah. But thousands and thousands of poor Ahlul Sunnat people today are totally unaware of the cause of the naming of their sect.

______________________

1.Ref. Tarikh Abul Fida, Vol. 1, Pg. 212.

2.Pg. 136

 

 

It should be noted that the Holy Prophet (S) had very emphatically called upon all Muslims, through the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn), that they must cling to both Quran and Ahlul Bayt, but Umar considered it sufficient to cling only to Quran. Now let the Muslims see how the ‘clingers’ to Quran behaved with the Quran. During the time of Abu Bakr, copies of Quran were collected. For this task the first Caliph had appointed Zaid bin Thabit, Ubayy bin Kaab etc. So they collected. That collected Quran continued to be read during the days of the first two Caliphs.

But when the turn of Uthman came, he began fresh correction and compilation such a manner that the God-given leadership or Imamate of Ali, the chief of Ahlul Bayt, became a matter of dispute. Generally, Sunnis say that no member of Ahlul Bayt is mentioned in the Quran by name, then how can the leadership or Imamate of Ali or anyone from Ahlul Bayt can ever be proved from Quran?

No doubt, such discarding has also decreased the formal beauty of the Holy Quran.1 Rational thinking never considers this Uthmani arrangement as perfect. It should be remembered that this rearrangement of the Quran was ordered by Uthman with an intention of removing whatever differences etc. were found in the copies arranged by Abu Bakr through this new rearrangement and correction. But Ali (a.s.) and Muhammad’s Progeny were put to a big loss by this work.

For this correction and compilation, Zaid bin Thabit, Abdur Rahman bin Zubair, Saeed bin Aas and Abdullah bin Harith bin Hisham were employed and Ali (a.s.) had an apparent enmity with these persons. On the ground of differences in pronunciation, these gentlemen removed words in favor of Ali and Muhammad’s Progeny, which were in the Holy Quran.

Doubtlessly, this deed too, like the word of Umar, proved to be the remover of the effect of the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn), because, when the divinely appointed status of Ali and Muhammad’s Progeny did not remain, why one would thereafter, cling to these members of the holy family? Therefore, Muawiyah and his son, and all others of the same thought never turned to Imam Ali, Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (a.s.). It is noteworthy that, as a consequence of the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah), one of the two great things, viz, turning to Ahlul Bayt had already been suspended, now the other great thing, that is, Quran too was curtailed in such a manner that the God-given leadership or Imamate of Ali, the chief of Ahlul Bayt, became a matter of dispute. Generally, Sunnis say that no member of Ahlul Bayt is mentioned in the Quran by name, then how can the leadership or Imamate of Ali or anyone from Ahlul Bayt can ever be proved from Quran?

Now, I want to show that during the Caliphate of Uthman, changes were made in Quran, which resulted in making the God-given Imamate to Ali Murtadha’ (a.s.) a matter of dispute. It should be kept in mind that the verse 67 of Chapter 5 was being recited as:

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord, that Ali is the Master of believers2….

 

This phrase, “that Ali is the Master of believers” has been removed from the present Quran. Everything about this discarding is known from commentaries of Quran. Refer to Durre Manthur of Suyuti and Miftahun Najah by Mirza M. K. Badakhshani. Similarly, commentators have written that in the recitation of Ibn Masood, there was also a phrase: “Bi Ali Ibn Talib.”

Moreover Thalabi, in his Tafseer, quotes his teacher Abi Waail, that “We have read the copy of Quran of Abdullah bin Masood and have found that in the verse:

“Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations.”3

 

After “the descendants of Imran”, the phrase, “Muhammad’s Progeny” was also there by way of explanation. This goes to show that till the time of the existence of Ibn Masood’s copy, the words of “Muhammad’s Progeny” were there in Quran and that the reciters used to recite so. But how strange that Uthman and his trusted fellows considered them unauthentic and removed them from Quran. Was the correction of Quran dependent on the removal of the words Ali and Muhammad’s Progeny? People of justice should decide!

I need not write more than this. But extremely sorrowful indeed is the black day, which Ibn Masood had to see in connection with this story of Quran. When this great companion refused to part with his own copy of Quran to the effect of the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn), because, Uthman, he was severely beaten.4 Poor Ibn Masood! He lost that Quran and when the divinely appointed status of Ali and Muhammad’s Progeny did not remain, why one would thereafter, cling to these members of the holy family?

Therefore, Muawiyah and his son, and all others of the same thought never turned to Imam Ali, Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (a.s.). It is noteworthy that, as a consequence of the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah), one of the two great things, viz, turning to Ahlul Bayt had already been suspended, now the other great thing, that is, Quran too was curtailed in also got severely beaten.

How could Ibn Masood reply to this merciless behavior? He just kept quiet. But when a similar attitude was shown to the copy of ‘A’ysha’s father, she became furious and the writer need not repeat what she said to the Caliph. But what was the benefit of such verbal anger? By the order of the Caliph, the copy of her father was also destroyed along with the copies of Ibn Masood and others.

Allamah Qaushiji, in his Sharhe Tajreed, has narrated the event of Ibn Masood in detail and there is no doubt about its factuality. It is noteworthy that what was done in the name of removal of differences was done only to remove the names of Ali and Muhammad’s Progeny.

This clearly shows that the aim behind all the performances of Uthman was to remove the God-given status of Ali and Muhammad’s Progeny so that the Imamate of the leader of Bani Hashim, that is Ali (a.s.) and his progeny, may never be established after the Prophet. These things can be termed by the just observer as despicable. In order to remove blame from Uthman, commentary- related words like “rare recitation” and “abrogated recitation” were coined. In the eyes of just persons, such excuses are worse than the crime.

But alas, aforesaid words were removed from the Quran. Had Uthman kept those words which were found in the Holy Quran right from the days of the Holy Prophet (S) at their places, the problem of Imamate would never have become a matter of dispute and the followers of Islam would have been protected from a very serious misguidance. So the consequence of the removal of the said words in this world, which the just people see now with their own eyes, are indeed very sorrowful.

 

It is obvious that the removal of the said words was a strategy of the opponents. I do not know whether this plan of self-interest was found by Uthman himself or somebody else had shown him the way. But my guess is that it was shown to him. There were some cunning people with him who were staunch enemies of the holy family of the Holy Prophet (S). No wonder if people like Marwan had shown this intrigue.

Anyway, whatever be the case, this deed shows the foresight of the three Caliphs combined. Doubtlessly, these tricks appear to be intended to complete the effect of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah). Umar had, through these words shown the way of keeping away from the Holy Family, but the mention of the Ahlul Bayt was there in the Quran.

The Quran was, unequivocally, commanding us to turn to Ahlul Bayt, so until these words were removed it was not easy to act on “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah). But when these words were removed, Umar’s words got total upliftment, that is, this Quranic affair conveniently separated the Ahlul Bayt from the mainstream of Muslims. Of course, it is a fact that since the Progeny and the Quran are closely related, it was never possible to make Umar’s phrase effective without separating Ahlul Bayt from Quran.

In short, it was in Uthman’s Caliphate that the aim of Umar’s words was fully attained. Now those who are just may decide whether through this process, the status of Ahlul Bayt has been lowered or not? In my opinion, not only this process lowered the status of Ahlul Bayt but also it was the reason of all the calamities, which befell Ahlul Bayt after the demise of the Prophet and all this got support through Uthman’s action.

Doubtlessly, such verbal and practical deeds removed the matter of the leadership (Imamate) of Ali and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) from the minds of common Muslims. So when Imamate no more remained a divinely ordained thing, it cannot be considered astonishing if the Muslims of the time behaved harshly, mercilessly and insultingly with the Imams of the holy family of the Holy Prophet (S). After the subject of clinging to Ahlul Bayt being eaten away by a quadruped and after the removal of the mention of Ali and Ahlul Bayt from the Holy Quran, every kind of bad behavior by Muslims with the holy family was not unexpected as it so happened on different occasions.

It won’t be an exaggeration to say that had there been two thousand Husains, Muslims could have enacted two thousand Karbala’s due to the aforesaid teachings. But since there was only one Husayn, Karbala’ was also enacted only once. Had it been considered compulsory to cling to Ahlul Bayt as desired through the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) and had the God-given status of Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) not been lowered systematically, what was done to these holy persons, by Muslims of the time would never have been done. All that the holy personalities had to suffer was only due to the fact that these faultless people were not considered divinely appointed for leadership of the Ummah.

Due to the aforesaid faulty teaching, the Muslims of those days as well as of the following days considered Ahlul Bayt as almost lifeless and hence not worth obeying. This will be explained henceforth. Had all Muslims considered them so, as they were indeed worth obeying, Muawiyah would not have fought with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), nor would he have made Hasan (a.s.) to abdicate Caliphate, nor Muawiyah’s son, Yazeed would have dared to ask for allegiance from Imam Husayn (a.s.).

Doubtlessly, due to this phrase, what Uthman had done to Quran and the status of Ahlul Bayt had been lowered so much that Ahlul Sunnat scholars began to consider Ahlul Bayt as “who could make mistakes”(Jaiz-ul-khata) as Ibn Taymiyyah writes about Ali (a.s.) that the latter erred seventeen times. Maulavi Abdul Ali says that Lady Fatima (s.a.) had erred.

Ghazzali says that the mention and narration of Karbala’ Tragedy and martyrdom of Husayn (a.s.) and his companions is prohibited. On Pg. 117 of Sharh Aqaide Nasafi, Abu Shakoor Salami writes in the margin of Lam Yuqtal that it was compulsory for Imam Husayn to give allegiance to Yazeed. These are his actual words! His argument is that the Caliphate of Yazeed was by way of Muawiyah’s appointment, and the companions and non-companions had obeyed Yazeed.

It should be noted that in the view of non-Imamiyah, appointment is one of the conditions of Caliphate and it was due to this important condition that Umar was considered as the successor of Abu Bakr. What consequence could ever result because of the distancing from Ahlul Bayt and following of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah), except that scholars like Abdush Shakoor should say that Imam Husayn should have given allegiance to Yazeed? How is it that the sky does not split and fall on the discarders of Ahlul Bayt?

But, yes, oppressors are always given a long respite and a day will come to stand before Allah Almighty for giving account, when it will be known whether following Husayn was compulsory or following Yazeed. One may say whatever one likes against Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) but the Greatest Revenger has not disappeared and the day is not very far when each and every one of us all will get the recompense of our deeds. Allah is the Greatest!

These are the holy Ahlul Bayt, who, because of their inclusion in the Holy Quran are holding a God-given status and about whom the Holy Prophet (S) has said that they are one of the two heavy things (Thaqalayn) and also added in this very tradition that these two, viz Quran and Ahlul Bayt will not separate from one another till they arrive at Kauthar in Paradise. The meaning of these prophetic words is that Quran and Ahlul Bayt are two great things, which will never get away from one another either in this world or in the Hereafter. But how this tradition was followed was that they (Ahlul Bayt) were totally isolated and clinging only to Quran was considered sufficient. Thereafter, it also was considered strategic to remove the names of Muhammad’s Progeny and Ali (a.s.) from the Holy Quran. What an excellent obedience of the Prophet’s command!

 

Now see where did the clinging to Quran reach? The knowledgeable do know that, after the burning down of copies of Quran, Muawiyah raised hundreds of its copies on the points of spears and after him, Walid also shot arrows at the Quran.

We should know that Abdullah bin Umar is also of the opinion that Quran has been tempered with as he says that much of the Quran has gone out of hand. So this is the story of Quran! Neither the Quran could remain safe from the hands of the enemies or the holy Ahlul Bayt.5 But what can be done? Both Shias and Sunnis have clung to whatever is now before us in the form of Holy Quran. I also consider this Quran as my guide. But had the copy compiled by Ali (a.s.) been available or even if that which was with Ibn Masood, I would have to give up the present Quran. My research shows that nothing at all has been added in the original Quran. The Quran, now in our hands is all in all the Divine script and Allah’s Word, not the word of man. But it is also doubtless that Allah’s word has been rendered incomplete as shown above.

As regards those who say that Allah is the protector of Quran, it is doubtlessly true that Allah is Quran’s protector but it does not necessarily mean that Allah must also be the protector of the writing. Had Allah been the protector of even the written copies not a single copy of the holy book could have been burnt during the time of Uthman nor could have been harmed in any way even thereafter. But it is not so!

 

Recently a disbeliever entered a mosque and burnt a copy of the holy book! Had the divine protection meant so, that wretched man would never have been able to do that. So it should be understood that though Allah is the protector of His holy Book, but it is not in a sense that even paper books, copies of it cannot be harmed. Quran is the Word of Allah and is indeed preserved in the Divine Knowledge and no one or thing can harm it in this sense whereby Quran can become defective.

Finally, it would not be out of place if I ask how weighty the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah) was. Allaahu Akbar! How many different changes did this phrase create in Arab history! The truth is that had this phrase not come to the lips of Umar bin Khattab, not only the history of Arab civilization, but also the culture would have appeared in a different color. What a cunning fellow cannot do in the world! The fact is that the political ability of Umar was indeed extraordinary.

Though Muawiyah, son of Abu Sufyan, also was a clever troublemaker, he cannot come to the level of the political brain of Umar, son of Khattab. It was the ability of only Umar that, with the power of few words, he rendered the Holy Prophet’s tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) ineffective, as a result of which Bani Hashim, who had considerable respect in those days, were easily driven away from power and could never gain it thereafter.

_________________

1.

2.By way of explanation

3.Surah Aale Imran 3:33

4.3 Ref. Nihyatal Uqool by Fakhruddin Razi and Najatul Mo-mineen by Mulla Hasan

Kashmiri and also Maarife Ibn Qutaibah.

5.Both Quran and Ahlul Bayt were torn into pieces – Publisher.

 

 

 

Only a few days after the establishment of Caliphate, Lady Fatima had to approach the court (Daarul Qaza) in the case related to Fadak. It should be understood that Fadak is a region in the Hijaz province, situated at a distance of three-days’ travel from Medina. The author of Saraah says that Fadak is a village of Khaybar. It should be remembered that Khaybar is in Hijaz and so it is correct to say that Fadak is a village of Hijaz. Previously this village was a property of the disbelievers of Khaybar, but after a treaty with them, it came in possession of the Prophet and became his personal property.

A look at Pg. 292 of Sharh Abil Hadid (Vol. 2) shows that Abu Bakr did not believe that Fadak was the property of the Prophet. But all commentators agree that it belonged to the Holy Prophet (S) and it was indeed so. There must have been something, which made the commentators to become unanimous in this matter. Otherwise, how would have they have agreed on this point? Anyway, Fadak was a well-populated and fertile village with a number of orchards and springs. It used to give a considerable income to the Holy Prophet (S). It is well known that the Prophet was not living a luxurious life. Yet Fadak’s income was of a considerable help to the poor and needy. In his lifetime, the Prophet had, in accordance with the divine verse:

“And give to the near of kin his due…”1

 

…given away this village to Lady Fatima (s.a.) and thus it was in her practical possession.

A look at Tafseer Durre Manthur of Suyuti shows that when, in accordance to a treaty, the village of Fadak came in the possession of the Prophet, Jibraeel descended with this verse and requested the Holy Prophet (S) to give away Fadak to his near and dear ones. The Prophet inquired who was that near and dear relative. Jibraeel (a.s.) said: “Lady Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.).” The Prophet complied with the divine command and gave Fadak in writing to Lady Fatima (s.a.),2 but when Abu Bakr became the Caliph, he confiscated it. A look at the above-mentioned books shows that at the time of the said confiscation, Fadak was in possession of Lady Fatima. Words of Jawaahirul Aqdain also make it clear that Fadak was taken away from Lady Fatima (s.a.).

Anyway, when in the court, Lady Fatima, gave a statement that: “My father had gifted this area to me,” Abu Bakr said softly: “I had imagined that you have claimed it as a share of your inheritance, whereas the words of the Holy Prophet (S) are: There is no inheritance among we, prophets. Whatever we leave behind is charity. But when your late father had gifted this area to you during his lifetime it’s being in your control cannot be called illegal.” Saying this, Abu Bakr was about to issue a written order to restore Fadak to Lady Fatima when Umar came forward to prevent the Caliph from issuing such an order and said: “Fatima is no more than a woman and she is like all other women. Ask for a witness from her.”

In response, Lady Fatima produced His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), Umme Aiman (r.a.), and Asma binte Umais (r.a.), whereafter the Caliph wrote an order returning Fadak. But Umar snatched the order from the Caliph and tore it down3 saying: “Fatima is wife of Ali. How can his testimony be accepted? Whatever Ali says will be in his own interest and as for the testimony of the other two ladies, it is unreliable.” Upon this, Lady Fatima said:

“O gentlemen! You have heard the Prophet say that ‘these two ladies are among the people of Paradise and hence they cannot lie’.”

 

But this reply of Lady Fatima was not considered cognizable and Fadak was taken away from her. Then Fatima raised a complaint: “O my father! O Muhammad” and returned to her house. A few days thereafter, she fell ill due to a feeling of disappointment and tiredness and left this world with a deep disgust towards the people in power.

It is written in Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 5 and Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3 that after this affair of Fadak, Lady Fatima became very much displeased with Abu Bakr and broke off relations with the Caliphate totally and never talked with him till she breathed her last and when she died, Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.), as per her will, buried her in the darkness of the night and did not even inform Abu Bakr and Umar.

____________________

1.Surah Bani Israel 17:26

2.Ref. Maarijun Nubuwwah, Chapter 40, Pg. 221; Habibus Sayr; Rauzatus Safa, Pg. 135, Vol. 2.

 

 

It should be noted that the words of ‘she frowned’ are found in a tradition of Sahih Bukhari, which means ‘she became angry’ or ‘she frowned’. Doubtlessly, it was an occasion which called for frowning or anger, because, in her opinion, Fadak was her property which was confiscated by the first Caliph, but it is extremely shameless that Qadi Sanaullaah, in his Saiful Malool, translated it as, “she felt ashamed”!

Is this an occasion for feeling ashamed? Lady Fatima was considering Fadak her own property and had approached the court for the return of a property, which she claimed as hers. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and other witnesses too had, seeing her claim as genuine, testified in her favor.

Thereafter also, the members of the holy family considered Fadak as the property of Fatima and that is why this property had been, on a number of times, returned to Ahlul Bayt by the Umayyad Caliph, Umar bin Abdul Aziz as well as other Caliphs of Bani Abbas. In short, it nowhere appears that either Fatima or anyone else from Ahlul Bayt had ever thought that confiscation of Fadak was an act of justice or fairplay. In such circumstances, if Lady Fatima became displeased and angry with Abu Bakr, it was not out of place, because whenever someone is angry with anybody he or she expresses his or her anger and does not become ashamed! The tradition of Bukhari shows that Lady Fatima stopped talking to Abu Bakr.

Similarly, it is seen from Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid1 that Lady Fatima had desired in her will that Abu Bakr should not even attend her funeral prayer. These narrations show that Lady Fatima had become very angry with Abu Bakr and do not show that ‘she was ashamed’. The reason why Qadi Sanaullaah had to create such unrelated meaning appears to be that he was aware of the Prophet’s words:

“One who hurts Fatima, hurts Allah and His Messenger.”

Hence he felt the need, because of his love for Abu Bakr, of translating ‘she frowned’ (Ghazabat) as ‘she felt ashamed’ (Nadimat). O Allah! Please save us from those who misinterpret the words of the Prophet! Justice-loving people should ponder how Ghazabat here can mean Nadimat. The truth is that the Qadi had, by creating such extraordinary meaning, wanted to help Ahlul Sunnat people in a big way. It is obvious that if Ghazabat is to mean Nadimat then it will prove that Lady Fatima had made a false claim and that she failed in her case and so felt ashamed.

But falsehood can never flourish. Every just and truth-loving person knows that Fatima (s.a.) had distanced herself from Abu Bakr with anger and that till her death, she was extremely displeased with the Caliph so much that she also passed away with a disappointed heart and met her departed father within six months of the latter’s demise. It is very sorrowful that those scholars who know ‘darning’ (making desired mending in Quranic verses), very often close their eyes at any insult to Ahlul Bayt.

See what a serious insult Qadi Sanaullaah has hurled at Lady Fatima by translating Ghazabat as Nadimat. Thereby he intended to allege that the sinless lady was one who did not know the truth, who made a false claim because of greed etc. The truth, however, is that there is no dearth of such untruthful translators among Muslim scholars. They, very easily, twist the meaning of Quranic verses and the Messenger’s words without caring for insult to Ahlul Bayt, only to support the Caliphate of the triad. We will come across a number of such examples henceforth.

_________________

1.Vol. 2, Pg. 292

 

 

It may be remembered that Lady Fatima’s grief and sorrow may not be of any concern to her opponent but the writer considers it such a serious and terrible thing, which is impossible for him to put in writing. I regard the sinless lady’s grief or displeasure as a grief and displeasure of Allah and His Prophet, rather, more severe than that, because Lady Fatima is a beloved of both Allah and His Messenger.

Allah forbid, what havoc can be caused by such a sinless lady’s grief in the Hereafter? Everyone can guess it! Qadi Sanaullaah also was not unaware of the consequence of this grief, and therefore he gave the meaning of “ashamed” to “frowning.” Thanks to the Lord that the writer was not living during the time of Lady Fatima (s.a.). He cannot imagine in what way he would have erred. It is indeed his good luck that despite being full of errors and sins, he is saved from observing the grief of the Lady of Paradise. He cannot be more fortunate than this.

 

 

 

The abrupt and rude manner in which Umar tore down the command of the Caliph shows some things; first, there was no respect or honor of the Caliph in the heart and mind of Umar. Tearing off of the decree of the Caliph of the time and that too in his presence, makes it obvious that the one who made such an extraordinary gesture did not accord any importance to the position of the ruler. The reason of this is also not secret. Umar knew that Abu Bakr was a Caliph made by him (Umar) and that without his (Umar’s) help, his Caliphate would not run. Undoubtedly, this kind of thinking on the part of Umar was not untrue.

In such circumstances, how can the respect of the Caliph get room in the heart of Umar? This is not mere guessing. Umar definitely was pressurizing Abu Bakr to such an extent that on one occasion the latter had to complain saying: “If it is to be like this, what was the use of making me a Caliph?” Not only this, once it had so happened that Abu Bakr held Umar’s beard, crying: “May your mother weep over you (may you die).” Obviously, it is difficult to believe that a patient man like Abu Bakr will do so to anybody. But when someone crosses limits, even a patient man loses his patience. Those who have knowledge know that all these events are recorded in history. Readers may refer at least to the history of Abdul Fida, Tarikh al Mukhtasar fee Ahwaalil Bashar.

Second, the tearing off of the Caliph’s order shows that the court of justice was a court of justice only in name. Though Abu Bakr did hear cases and give decisions but their enactment or repealing was in the hands of Umar. All this goes to prove that Umar had made Abu Bakr as a strategic Caliph, while practically it was Umar himself who was the Caliph. After two years, this concealment no longer remained necessary.

Third, the aforesaid gesture of Umar also shows that Abu Bakr’s court of justice was not bound by any rules. Apparently, Umar nor anybody else had any such legal right to annul the Caliph’s order in this way. We don’t know what was the official post of Umar at the time of the first Caliphate. If he was a government pleader, then certainly a government pleader has no such right to tear off the Caliph’s decree in such a humiliating manner. And if he was holding a post higher than that of the Caliph of the time in the court of justice, even then this type of interruption in the dealing of a subordinate court does not appear appropriate and legal. Fourth, such deeds of Umar make his enmity to Lady Fatima and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) quite obvious.

It looks quite clear that from the very beginning, Umar was trying to assure that Fadak is not restored to Lady Fatima (s.a.) and this enmity of Umar to Fatima is no secret. Only those who close their eyes cannot observe this malice and enmity. Fifth, a very ugly kind of harshness becomes apparent from all these deeds of Umar. Taking this into consideration, the commentator of Nahjul Balagha writes: “Even if law or right was not in favor of Lady Fatima, the Caliphate ought to have taken it into account that Fatima was a grief stricken woman claimant, her parents had passed away and the demise of her father had made her extremely gloomy.”

I say that at the time of writing about such sympathetic words, the commentator forgot that even before the case of Fadak and after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S) the condolence given to the Lady of Paradise by the Caliphate was that Umar was sent by Abu Bakr to burn down the house of this lady1 or he had proceeded of his own. When such a harsh treatment was given soon after the Prophet’s demise, any sympathetic or mild attitude could not have at all been expected at the time of Fadak proceedings in the court of law, which was after quite a long period of time. Why look only at this matter of Fadak?

A look at history shows that the Ummah of the Prophet imagined that it was unlawful to behave nicely with the holy progeny of Prophet! Even today, this behavior is no less visible. Only those descendants of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) (Sadaats) who had left the path of Bani Hashim and entered the path of Sunni, expect less enmity from the Ummah of the Holy Prophet (S). Otherwise, those who stayed on the path of their elders are even today fearing the same bad attitude from the Prophet’s Ummah, which had begun right from the moment of the demise of the Messenger.

_________________

1.Ref. Tarikh Abul Fida

 

 

It should be remembered that this event of Fadak, like that of the ‘incident of paper’, is an issue of major difference between Shias and Sunnis. The men of intelligence may opine in their own manner, but I could not yet understand as to what kind of Prophet’s word were, “There is no inheritance among us prophets. Whatever we leave behind is charity,” which goes against both Torah and Quran. The Holy Quran clearly talks about Prophet Sulaiman’s being an heir of Prophet Dawood (a.s.). The subject in Taurat is also similar.

For obvious reasons, these words cannot be the words of the Prophet. It could have been another thing had the Prophet said so in his own case. His so saying regarding all other messengers appears totally out of place. Imamiyah scholars say that these words “we do not leave inheritance” are both against Arab literary usage as well as tradition. So this cannot be a phrase uttered by the Prophet, because he was one of the best speakers of Arabic language.

Qadi Shazan seems to be silent in the face of this objection. What else could he have ever done when he had no reply at all? It was a fake phrase, because from Sahih Bukhari1 it appears that the Prophet had left ‘his white mule on which he used to ride, his weapons, and the estate of Fadak’ as his inheritance. Likewise, his leaving behind of some other things is also known from books like, Isafur Raghebeen etc.2, and all this does not fall in the jurisdiction of the said phrase, making them non-inheritable because the Prophet’s other things like headwear etc. were with Imam Husayn (at the time of Karbala’) by way of inheritance, not as charity (Sadaqah).

 

Anyway, because of this Fadak event, a jurisprudential difference arose between Sunnis and Shias and it is that in the matter of testimony, the witness of a husband in favor of his wife and/or a father’s testimony in favor of his son/daughter is not acceptable.3 Contrary to this, Shias have accepted such testimony as admissible in law.

Apparently, in this matter, the legal progress of time seems to be in favor of Shias. Wisdom also says that it is not necessary that a husband or a father will always lie because of the relationship and a non- related fellow too, just like a related one, can give false evidence. How can such persons be declared as unreliable in law merely because of their relations? The judge should look at the person’s character. To declare a witness inadmissible merely because of relationship is to kill justice.

In case of Fadak, the court ought to have seen what kind of a witness Ali (a.s.) was. Could Ali (a.s.) give a false testimony? Or was it impossible? To declare him unfit for testimony merely because of relationship is a matter, which shows only a lack of legal courage. The court should have admitted the testimony of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) because the whole world of that time was aware of his personality. Everyone knew about the superiority of knowledge and wisdom of Ali (a.s.) and also knew that Ali would not lie even if two thousand Fadaks were at stake.

The fact is that both Abu Bakr and Umar were aware of the truthfulness of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) but Umar did not want that Fadak should be restored to Lady Fatima. It is natural that one does not have friendship with one’s enemy or opponent. Umar had an old enmity with Lady Fatima. In such circumstances, it was not unexpected of Umar to say that Ali’s testimony did not carry weight. The description of this enmity will be given in the event of the marriage of Umme Kulthum. Therefore it is not mentioned here.

________________

1.Vol. 5, Pg. 159.

2.Pg. 10

3.Ref. Sharhe Mawaqif, Naval Kishor Press, Maqsad Raabe az marsad Raabe, Pg. 735

 

 

Those who had helped to get the aforesaid decision in the matter of Fadak say that “if Fadak was confiscated illegally from Lady Fatima, why was it not returned to her during the Caliphate of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)? This only shows that Fatima’s claim was unfair.” The reply to this question is that if the research of Fakhruddin Razi is correct, during the days of Imam Ali (a.s.) Caliphate, Fadak was in the possession of Ali (a.s.). What was then he to take back?

The said Imam (Razi) writes: “The first Caliph despite the testimony of Umme Aiman, did not give Fadak to Lady Fatima and that Umar gave it to Ali (a.s.) and so it was in the possession of Ali at the time of the latter’s Caliphate.” This does provide a sort of answer to the one who raised the question. But in my view, this statement of Fakhruddin Razi is far from circumstantial evidence. Why would Umar do like that? Fadak was continuously out of the hands of Muhammad’s Progeny. It was returned to them for the first time by Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz.

Anyway, the writer replies to the questioner that had Lady Fatima been alive during the days of Ali’s Caliphate he would certainly have given Fadak to her, because he was certain that the Holy Prophet (S) had gifted the property to Fatima. Had he not been aware of this fact, he would not have been produced as a witness by Lady Fatima but when Fatima was no more, Ali (a.s.) did not pay any attention to the matter of Fadak. The fact is that Ali (a.s.) was terribly grieved by the demise of Lady Fatima (s.a.) and his heart was never inclined to renew all the unpleasant events afresh.

Those who know the conditions of human heart can read more in my statement. But how can stonehearted, harsh-natured and selfish people know what sentiments are and what they demand? Moreover, immediately after his becoming a Caliph, people had started harassing him too much. Muawiyah misled ‘A’ysha and instigated her to fight against Ali (a.s.), Zubair and Talha broke allegiance and joined ‘A’ysha. This led to the Battle of Camel.

Then from Muawiyah’s side, there was a severe uproar and anarchy till the time of Ali (a.s.) martyrdom. How could he pay any attention to Fadak, being engaged in all these troubles? The fact is that during the period of Caliphate, which was a national and a religious affair, he had no time at all to look at his personal problems in those four years and five months. Due to these reasons, Fadak, which had gone out of hands of Ahlul Bayt, remained out of their possession during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) also.

 

 

What happened to Fadak thereafter, was that Umar bin Abdul Aziz gave Fadak to Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.). It should be noted that among the Caliphs of Bani Umayyah, this is the only one who can be said to have humane qualities. The rest of the Caliphs’ rule was nightmare, or they were the ones whom humanness had not even touched. When this Caliph, Umar the second, restored Fadak to Ahlul Bayt, people told him: “You have taunted the first two Shaykhs (Caliphs).”1 In response the Caliph said: “The two Shaykhs had, by confiscating Fadak, opened a door of taunts for themselves.”

It should be remembered that Umar bin Abdul Aziz was among the last Caliphs of Bani Umayyah and it is a fact that he was very justice-loving among Bani Umayyah and it was because of his good and truth-loving nature that he restored Fadak to Ahlul Bayt. But in response to his just nature his community poisoned him. Truthfulness in the matter of Ahlul Bayt is not an easy thing. Such truth-telling involved a sure risk to life during the Caliphates of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. But now since the British are ruling2, a risk to life is not more felt. Yet various harms are not totally ruled out.

Anyway, when the Caliphate went out of the hands of Bani Umayyah those Caliphs of Bani Abbas, who cared for the rights of Ahlul Bayt, like Mamoon, Motasim and Wathiq, had returned Fadak to the progeny of Lady Fatima. But then Mutawakkil, the Ahlul Bayt-hater (Nasibi) again snatched it from Ahlul Bayt and gave it to his barber. But Mutazz once again restored it to Fatima’s progeny. Then Motaqifa returned it to Ahlul Bayt but Muktafi again snatched it.

It is written in Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid on Pg. 493 that, “When Umar bin Abdul Aziz became the Caliph, he returned Fadak to the progeny of Hasan and according to another narration to the progeny of Zainul Aabideen and thus Fadak continuously remained in the hands of Bani Fatima but in his time, Yazeed Aatikaa snatched it.

Thereafter, it remained in the hands of the progeny of Marwan. Thereafter, Saffah, the Abbasid returned it to Abdullah bin Hasan, but Abu Ja’far Mansoor again snatched it. Then Mahdi Abbasi returned it to Bani Fatima. Then Moosa bin Mahdi and his brother Haroon Rashid confiscated it and it remained in the hands of Abbasids thereafter. Then Haroon Rashid returned it to Bani Fatima.

______________________

1.Ref. the narration of Abul Qadam in Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, Pg. 306

2.Refers to the period this book was compiled.

 

 

With a view to lessen the importance of the Fadak affair, the opponents of Lady Fatima (s.a.) say that the matter of Fadak was never significant, that it was only an orchard with some date trees etc. and hence its income was not considerable. One of the recent claimants of omniscience goes further to assert that the orchard comprised of sixteen or seventeen date trees and a spring of water and and that its annual income never exceeded fourteen annas1 (very less amount).

Such statements are issued, so that those who have no knowledge may imagine that the matter of Fadak was insignificant, about which the people in favor of Fatima (s.a.) are raising so much hue and cry quite unnecessarily. But those who undertake a deep research, know that Fadak was a hamlet, which was very fertile and well populated that there were several orchards and springs in it.

The writings of the author of Rauzatul Safa show that its annual income was four thousand gold coins. One dirham equals ten rupees. From this account, its income in those days was about forty thousand rupees per year. This is what history says. Anyway, it was a considerable amount and was in no way insignificant. The claim that it was worth only fourteen annas (less than a rupee) cannot be accepted as authentic for the following reasons:

Had the annual income of Fadak been only equal to fourteen annas (sixteen annas made a rupee till the last century AD), its dealing would not have been as described above, that is how was it that some of the Caliphs were snatching it away from Muhammad’s Progeny and some were restoring it to them? All this only goes to show that in the eyes of the Caliphs of the time, Fadak did have some importance and value!

Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz returned Fadak to Muhammad’s Progeny. Had the matter been so insignificant, as claimed by the opponents of Lady Fatima (s.a.), it would not have been necessary for a justice-loving Caliph to attend to it after about a hundred years of confiscation by the first Caliph. The very words uttered by this truth-loving Caliph: “Abu Bakr and Umar had themselves opened floodgates of taunts for them by snatching Fadak” show that Fadak had a significant value and importance.

As a matter of fact, had the value of Fadak been so insignificant as claimed, then neither the people of Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz’s time would have told him: “You have taunted Abu Bakr and Umar” nor the Caliph would have replied to them as above. The nature of this dialogue shows that the significance was such that both the Caliph and the people had paid attention to it. Doubtlessly, the above events show that even after the passing of a hundred years, the affair called for attention. That is why a Caliph of the time had to attend to it and the people also were alerted by it. It would never have been so, had Fadak been an insignificant thing.

If Fadak was not a province and if it was merely a small garden having some trees, then according to nature, such a little garden would not have lasted from the time of Abu Bakr till the time of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, especially when no one knows since when had that garden existed! The opponents of the Leader of the women of both the worlds (Fatima) should think that if a garden cannot last for such a long time what was that thing which Caliph Umar, the second, returned to the holy progeny of the Holy Prophet (S)?

This only shows that Fadak was not merely a garden but was a village, having several fruit trees and also some springs which was returned by the wise Caliph to Muhammad’s Progeny. It is also known that after the time of this just Caliph, some Caliphs used to confiscate it and some used to restore. So the existence of this thing for such a long time and its confiscation and restoring also proves that it was not a mere little garden but that it was a province.

Fadak, which was given by Mutawakkil the Nasibi to his barber, was surely a province of Fadak. Reason does not allow us to believe that a Caliph had gifted a garden having only an income of less than a rupee per annum to his barber of choice. Gifting such a trifling thing to a man of Caliph’s trust is incomprehensible, especially when that area was at a distance of about three months’ journey from the capital, Baghdad. It would have been like not giving at all.

Knowledgeable people know that the Caliphs of Bani Abbas were among the richest kings of the time, who gave away millions to their well-wishers. So it is unbelievable that such a Caliph could have confiscated such a cheap garden at a far off place from the capital from Ahlul Bayt to gift it to his man of choice. Surely that place was valuable and so the Caliph gifted it to his man of trust.

It may be noted that the misunderstanding of those who believe that the garden claimed by Lady Fatima was a garden of only a few trees seems to be based on an imagination that Fadak was a group of those trees which were planted by the Holy Prophet (S) himself in the province of Fadak and their number was not more than ten or eleven. Allamah Ibn Mitham Bahraini writes on Pg. 20 of Sharh Nahjul Balagha that in Fadak, there were eleven trees planted by the Holy Prophet (S) himself and those trees were in the possession of the progeny of Fatima (s.a.) and the Ahlul Bayt were giving the fruits of these trees to Hajj pilgrims, who used to recite benedictions on the Prophet (Durood) on receiving these fruits. But then some gentlemen ordered to cut off those trees and so it was done. This writer says:

“May my soul be sacrificed for the trees planted by the Holy Prophet (S) and may thousands of trees of Paradise be sacrificed for those trees.”

In short, it should be understood that Fadak was a fertile land and never a bunch of fruit trees, as some foolish people have believed. Ibn Abbas writes in his Tafseer that the Holy Prophet (S) used to distribute the produce of Fadak among Bani Abdul Muttalib. This proves that Fadak was yielding much produce. Similarly, narrations in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim also show that Fadak was an area near Khaybar and reliable commentators have written that the Holy Prophet (S) used to distribute Fadak grain between his near and dear relatives. How astonishing on the part of those unwise people who have understood that Fadak was a bunch of merely eleven trees which were planted in Fadak!

_____________

1.Indian currency

 

 

Causes of Aale Muhammad’s1 Dishonor

It should be clear that here the writer has no argument whether Fatima (s.a.) was on the right in the matter of Fadak or not. Here, we only need to see the effects of deprivation of Fadak from Muhammad’s Progeny. It is well known that Muhammad’s Progeny used to receive a considerable income from the orchards of Fadak and they used to spend a major portion of it on the poor and destitute. Thus, its deprivation caused a decrease in their worldly status. There is no doubt that just as the loss of rulership caused public dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny, In the same way, the loss of Fadak caused a private loss.

Doubtlessly, the deprivation of Fadak is seen as the second rung of the dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny. With these two a third fear struck Muhammad’s Progeny and that was the rise of Bani Umayyah who were suppressed by the Holy Prophet (S) but had now became the rulers of Syria (Shaam). Their rapid rise to power in Shaam had no parallel in case of any other tribe. Those who are conversant with history know that the progress of Bani Umayyah was at the cost of Muhammad’s Progeny. The Bani Umayyah continued to take revenge from Muhammad’s Progeny as is obvious from the statement of Muawiyah’s son. Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah says:

“Where are the slain ones of Badr? They should see how we have taken revenge from Muhammad’s Progeny.”

It was after the carnage of Karbala’ when Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) was presented in the court of Damascus and the singer sang Yazeed’s poetic composition. The poem also had the following couplet:

The Bani Hashim had played a game with the people. Neither glad tidings arrived, nor any revelation descended.

This shows that the frustrated Bani Umayyah considered the prophethood of the Messenger of Allah (S) to be a play and they were actually ignorant of its truth. Anyway, there is no doubt that the rise of Bani Umayyah put an end to the worldly status of Muhammad’s Progeny. The material wealth of Bani Umayyah was such that when Abu Bakr was made the Caliph, Abu Sufyan, the chief of Bani Umayyah came to Ali (a.s.) and said in a concerned way: “O Ali! The matter of Caliphate has been decided but you made no effort to obtain it? If you desire I can fill the desert of Medina with riders of Mecca and destroy that Caliphate in a moment.”

Ali (a.s.) said: “Abu Sufyan! You were creating mischief in the days of ignorance (Jahiliya) too. And now that you have proffered Islam, your machinations are still intact.”

Ali (a.s.) replied to Abu Sufyan in that manner because Abu Sufyan was from the Bani Umayyah and the Holy Prophet (S) had even cursed this tribe. In such circumstances, Ali (a.s.) could not tolerate any kind of pact with Abu Sufyan. Ali (a.s.) followed the Prophet in every matter. His aloofness from Abu Sufyan was justified. If he had shown any inclination to Abu Sufyan’s offer, it would have been absolutely against the desire of the Prophet. It is well known that the Bani Umayyah were dead opposed to both, the religion of Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S). The Holy Prophet (S) had put this tribe in its place in ten years. Now this tribe had no satanic power remaining.

Thus, if Ali (a.s.) sought the co-operation of Abu Sufyan, he would have been the cause of Bani Umayyah’s revival just as the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) were. That is, Abu Sufyan was made partner in rulership in order to save the seat of Caliphate. The result was that Bani Umayyah regained its lost strength and in no time, it became the supreme ruler of the Islamic lands.

It is indeed astonishing that this act, committed by the first Caliphate was clearly opposed to the aims of the Messenger of Allah (S). The consequences of this single mistake are not hidden from the people who know. And what to say of the mischiefs created in Islam itself? Words cannot describe the havoc wreaked upon the family of the Prophet. Doubtlessly, if Ali (a.s.) had agreed to Abu Sufyan’s offer, the blame of all the disasters and the carnage of Karbala’ would have come on Ali (a.s.).

Thus, after getting this reply from Ali (a.s.), Abu Sufyan came to Abu Bakr and Umar and said: “At last you have achieved your aim, but we have no share in your success. I shall destroy your Caliphate in no time.” The two were much worried at this threat of Abu Sufyan. They knew that to destroy the Caliphate was not difficult for Abu Sufyan. With all helplessness, they told Abu Sufyan: “You too become a partner in our success, what is the need to destroy the Caliphate?”

Thus, it was agreed that Abu Sufyan would send his son, Yazeed Ibn Abu Sufyan to rule Syria. This son ruled Syria for four years and after his death, his younger brother inherited the rulership of Syria during Umar’s Caliphate. His late brother was not at all learned and thus his death was a boon to Bani Umayyah. As soon as Muawiyah took over the reins of government, the wealth of Bani Umayyah began to increase rapidly till finally, Muawiyah became the ruler of all the Islamic lands.

We should know that as the Bani Umayyah gained wealth and strength, the Bani Hashim became further away from power and rulership. Due to the above reasons, the Bani Hashim were out of the common populace and their apparent status was no more. Then even though they got rulership during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) they could not regain their lost position. Even after gaining the Caliphate, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) could not dethrone Muawiyah. Ali (a.s.) continued to confront the Bani Umayyah but even after all the turmoil, Muawiyah continued to remain in power. The limited and temporary status of Bani Hashim ended with the martyrdom of Ali (a.s.).

Though Imam Hasan (a.s.) was the successor of his respected father, within a period of six months he had to forgo rulership due to Muawiyah’s onslaught. Here we do not debate whether Ali (a.s.) was on the right or Muawiyah or whether the forced abdication of Imam Hasan (a.s.) by Muawiyah was justified or not. Our aim in presenting these historical facts is only to show the terrible calamities that befell Muhammad’s Progeny after the passing away of the Prophet, due to which their status fell in the view of public, day by day and this finally culminated into the incident known as the tragedy of Karbala’.

Anyway, after the abdication of Caliphate, Imam Hasan (a.s.) became a pensioner of Muawiyah. This was by no means a great insult of Muhammad’s Progeny. At that time, all the Islamic lands were under the domination of Bani Umayyah. Muawiyah was not the chief of Bani Umayyah and ruler of Shaam alone. Being the Caliph of the time, his power extended to even Mecca and Medina.

However, there lived in Medina, Imam Hasan, Imam Husayn (a.s.) and other Bani Hashim. But none of the Bani Hashim had any kind of rulership. The command and the monetary wealth of the government were all in the hands of Muawiyah. In spite of this, Muawiyah was not satisfied. At last, the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (a.s.) pleased the heart of the Caliph.2 But that Imam Husayn (a.s.) was yet alive was not a lesser worry to Muawiyah.

Muawiyah knew that Imam Husayn (a.s.) had inherited the valor of his father. So to remain careless of him would be against reason. Therefore, he used to tell his son: “Do not consider your throne safe. Imam Husayn (a.s.) is still alive.” Even though Muawiyah was anticipating danger from Imam Husayn (a.s.), the condition of Bani Hashim had deteriorated and day by day their economic conditions worsened. Gradually, the people did not consider the grandson of the Messenger of Allah (S) to be worthy of being followed.

An example of this loss of position is that when Imam Hasan (a.s.) came out to confront Bani Umayyah, he had no more than 150 people with him. Seeing this condition of the Muslims, he returned to the city. It is obvious that as they had lost rulership, they could not bank on the support of the general Arab populace.

Only the Bani Hashim, who could never forsake them, offered their support. It was so, because they had true devotion to the Messenger of Allah (S) due to which they considered honoring Bani Hashim an obligatory duty upon themselves. Other people professed support to Bani Umayyah. And why should they not? When all the dominions of Islam were transferred into the hands of Bani Umayyah?

Another example of the dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny is that at the time of his passing away, Imam Hasan (a.s.) had made a bequest that he should be buried next to the Holy Prophet (S) and this bequest was natural. Also, Imam Hasan (a.s.) considered himself worthy of it. But its result was that when Imam Husayn (a.s.) moved with the bier of Imam Hasan (a.s.) towards the burial place of the Prophet, the opponents of Muhammad’s Progeny showered arrows on the bier.

We don’t know how many arrows were shot, but we can estimate from the fact that 60 arrows hit the bier of the Infallible Imam. Imam Husayn (a.s.) was enraged at this lack of support of the Muslims and unsheathed his sword. However, the matter did not reach the stage of bloodshed. Keeping in mind the kind of nature of Imam Hasan (a.s.), Imam Husayn (a.s.) forsook confrontation and took the last remains of his brother to Jannatul Baqi for burial.

This incident shows that till that time there was a considerable decrease in the status of Bani Hashim. They were not even capable to fulfill the last wish of their departed leader in opposition to the people’s desire. We consider the bequest of Imam Hasan (a.s.) justified because it fulfilled all the conditions of natural emotions. In the view of the just people who was more deserving to be buried next to his grandfather than Imam Hasan (a.s.)? But what is the reply of injustice of the people? O Allah! O Allah!

Now we present another example of the dishonor of Bani Hashim, which was also caused by Bani Umayyah. It is that in Damascus, curses were recited on His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) after every prayer, especially after the Friday Prayer. And as the writer has mentioned above, the initiator of this was Muawiyah. This custom continued for a long time till Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, the Umayyad Caliph, discontinued it.

The discussion of cursing will follow soon. In any case, if Shias had not adopted this type of cursing, they would have gained the sympathy of many of their opponents and this would have been a very effective instrument for the expansion of Shiaism. After this, we shall mention another example of the dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny, which would show how the honor of Muhammad’s Progeny had decreased after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S).

The incident is that Imam Hasan (a.s.) wrote a letter to Ziyad regarding some matter. Ziyad being of illegitimate birth was called by the name of Ibn Sumayyah. Imam Hasan (a.s.) also addressed Ziyad by this name and he had no intention to insult Ziyad, but this enemy of Allah replied to the letter of Imam Hasan (a.s.) addressing him as Hasan Ibn Fatima (s.a.). Imam Hasan (a.s.) was an absolutely good-natured person and he replied with utmost forbearance that:

“Everyone knows my father well, I am the son of Ali.” This shows to what extent Muhammad’s Progeny had fallen in the estimation of public that an illegitimate born disregarded the honor of even a leader like Imam Hasan (a.s.). Ziyad, the one whose hereafter was destroyed, insulted the daughter of the Prophet and the people of that time did not object? What type of Muslims are these who glorify the age of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas and the tears of the Muslims of this time are unabated.

Regarding the incident of Karbala’, it is necessary to know something about people like Ziyad. He is the same whose son, Ibn Ziyad was Yazeed’s commander and who had come from Basra to fight Imam Husayn (a.s.). Ziyad himself was actually of doubtful paternity, but he was such a resourceful person that Muawiyah felt the need to make him his brother. Indeed, he was most useful for the Caliph. He created brotherhood by announcing publicly that Ziyad is the biological son of Abu Sufyan Ibn Harb. But to confirm this, a witness was not found, except a person who testified that:

“One day Abu Sufyan had come to my tavern which is at a distance of 20 km from Mecca. At that time, Abu Sufyan was on a journey. Reaching my tavern he asked for wine. When I served, he consumed it and became intoxicated. After being intoxicated he asked for a woman. There was no woman except for a slave girl of mine and I presented it to her. On hearing this, Abu Sufyan said that she was not nice as her belly was large. But later when he became more intoxicated he asked me to get her. The woman was brought to him.”

Whatever the tavern-keeper said after this does not deserve to be mentioned here.

Those who desire to know the details may refer to Abul Fida’s Tarikhul Mukhtasar fi Ahwaalul Bashar. Anyway, on hearing this testimony, the Caliph was enraged and said to the tavern keeper: “You have come here to testify or to heap abuses?” In any case, this testimony of the tavern-keeper proved the brotherhood of Ziyad to the Caliph. And from that time, Ziyad became a man with family. Congratulations to Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan for such a brother and to all the opponents of Muhammad’s Progeny.

___________________

1.Progeny of Muhammad

2.Ref. Tarikh Khamis

 

 

O people of justice! Just see what atrocities Muhammad’s Progeny had to bear after the passing away of Muhammad Mustafa (S). Indeed, the progeny of no other person has borne such problems as the progeny of the Arabian Prophet, and that too at the hands of his own nation. This is not a new opinion presented by this writer, even the companions of the Prophet, who followed Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) used to see those injustices and say: “We have not seen anyone inflicted with such atrocities as the household of the Prophet after his passing away.” Allaahu Akbar (God is the Greatest)!1

Apparently, there is no limit to the atrocities and there were different types of atrocities, but Muhammad’s Progeny continued to bear them. Indeed, the patience of Ayyub (a.s.) is nothing in comparison to the patience of Muhammad’s Progeny. The patience of Imam Husayn (a.s.) in face of the handiwork of Amir Muawiyah, the patience of the elder brother of Imam Husayn (a.s.) even after he was poisoned, shows the caliber of their patience. In the same way, steadfastness of Imam Husayn, his patience and obedience is seen defeating human aspiration!

It is worth noting that the age of Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) was four years at the time of the tragedy of Karbala’. He accompanied the prisoners to Damascus and upon the orders of Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah, the prisoners were exhibited in the bazaars of Damascus, when a Syrian woman following the custom of that country tried to offer him a loaf of bread, which she had made the expiation of her son. It was an ancient custom according to which people used to offer bread loaves to the prisoners after expiating them over their children.

Even though Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) was only four and he was also hungry, yet he refused to accept the bread and said: “We are Muhammad’s Progeny and alms (Sadaqah) is prohibited for us.” O those who value infallibility of Muhammad’s Progeny, such a differentiation of the prohibited or lawful is only possible by one who is born an infallible. This incident clearly shows the difference between true and false Imams. Reason says that only such an Imam can be the true successor of the Messenger of Allah (S). Doubtlessly, the Messenger of Allah (S) was infallible.

O Allah, bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

Reason can never accept that the successor of an infallible could be a fallible person. Those who have considered it possible have, without any argument, been irrational.

______________________

1.Refer to Murujuz Zahab of Masudi, Pg. 166, and Tarikh Kamil of Ibn Kathir, Vol. 5

 

 

Respected readers! Please note that the humble writer has mentioned the points that show the worldly loss of honor of Muhammad’s Progeny. Now we shall mention the religious aspects that caused decrease in the respect of Muhammad’s Progeny, as a result of which, a major part of the Islamic world remained deprived of their leadership.

There is doubt that worldly dishonor and loss of religious positions did not in any way cause personal harm to Muhammad’s Progeny. But surprising are those who were the causes of these misdemeanors towards Muhammad’s Progeny and still continue to be so. Today, neither the Bani Umayyah remains not the Bani Abbas and there remains no hope of any benefit from their past kingdoms, but thousands are still devoted to them, just like when they were in power. Even today, such people are inimical to the name of Muhammad’s Progeny as their enemies were in the bygone days. Even though Husayn (a.s.) is not present, there is no dearth of Shimrs and Ibn Ziyads.

The condition is such that an Ahlul Sunnat scholar wrote an article in an Urdu newspaper based on some virtues and merits of Ali (a.s.). This article caused a lot of consternation among the enemies of Ali (a.s.) and people wrote letters criticizing this article and wanted to know since when the writer has adopted Shia religion. They asked him what was the need to pen such an article? The poor scholar had no reply and he remained quiet. Anyway, the next issue of that paper carried an extensive article in praise of Muawiyah. It is a pity that it is no more the reign of Muawiyah, otherwise, the writer would have received a handsome reward from the wealth of Shaam (Syria).

This is the extent of malice to Muhammad’s Progeny today; so you can imagine what it would have been when Bani Umayyah were in power! Now I request the just people to study the factors that caused decrease in the religious position of Muhammad’s Progeny. They are as follows:

 

 

It seems that the Quran was compiled and collected during the time of Holy Prophet (S) and its compiler was Ali (a.s.) as apparent from the traditions of Bukhari, Suyuti and Damiri. He had collected the Quran in the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (S) and according to the report of Bukhari, he used to announce that he had the Quran systematically arranged by the Prophet. However, the matter of Caliphate was decided; as a result of which the Bani Hashim were distanced from rulership.

Thus, after sometime, it became famous that Ali (a.s.) was busy in collecting the Quran. Learning of this, Abu Bakr appointed Zaid bin Thabit and Ubayy Ibn Kaab to collect the Quran. These people did as ordered by the Caliph.

There is no doubt that Ali (a.s.) had collected the Quran during the lifetime of the Prophet. The Holy Prophet (S) had himself given the name and the sequence of the verses of each chapter of the Quran. But what happened to the Quran collected by Ali (a.s.)? There was no sign of it. But it is learnt that a copy of the Quran collected by Ali (a.s.) existed upto the time of Saffah, the Abbasid ruler.1 When it survived till the reign of Saffah, there can be no doubt about its existence during the time of Abu Bakr, when its collector, Ali (a.s.) was himself present.

It is surprising that Abu Bakr did not ask for the Quran collected by Ali (a.s.). What was the use of appointing Zaid bin Thabit? Books of both the sects show that Abu Bakr did not involve Ali (a.s.) in this matter at all. He neither asked Ali (a.s.) to collect the Quran, nor did he take any advice from him. This disregard by the Caliph doubtlessly created an aspect of decrease in Ali’s status in the people’s view. People are aware that from the aspect of tradition of the two heavy things, Ali (a.s.) could not be considered separate from Quran. Even today, those who believe in the veracity of the Holy Prophet (S) consider Ali (a.s.) to be with the Quran on the basis of the prophetic tradition: “The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with the Quran.”

Thus, the action of the Caliph to have the Quran collected by people other than Ali (a.s.) was a one-sided matter and any matter concerning the Quran had no one more deserving than Ali (a.s.). In addition to be the subject of the tradition:

“The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with Quran.”

He was also the gate of knowledge according to the Holy Prophet (S). But when the Quran collected by him was not give currency, naturally people began to consider him less important from that aspect of religious leadership. Indeed, if the Quran collected by him had become popular, he would have earned great credit and respect among the populace. Apparently, the matter of gathering the Quran seems to be a secret affair. But it was one of the strongest causes for the dishonor of Bani Hashim.

In view of this writer, this incident was the second after the incident of “we have the Book of Allah”, which brought worldly loss of status for Bani Hashim. We all know that the matter of collecting the Quran affected the people of all ages and even today its effects are obvious. For example, as in past, in this age also, programs of Quranic recitation are held. The memorizers recite the Quranic verses and the scholars explain the meaning, quoting the relevant traditions of the Holy Prophet (S). But not once do they refer to the tradition:

“The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with the Quran.”

But if this Quran had been the one collected by Ali (a.s.), they would have been compelled to recite the above tradition also. In that case, the remembrance of the ‘Silent Quran’ would have been accompanied with the remembrance of ‘Speaking Quran’. The ‘Speaking Quran’ denotes His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). He has referred to himself as the ‘Speaking Quran’.2 Anyway, if this omission from Quran recitations programs does not show disrespect of Bani Hashim, what else does? Only those considered worthy of remembrance are remembered. Who remembers those unworthy of remembrance?

It would not be out of place to mention a belief of Ahlul Sunnat that Allah is so angry with Shias that they are not able to memorize the Quran! Apparently, this implies that Shias never make efforts to memorize the Quran. I have seen two or three memorizers of Quran. One of them being the son of Mir Mahdi Husayn Sahab, who recites the Quran every year in the holy month of Ramadhan at Lodi Qada. The witness of this is Hafiz Abdul Majeed Khan Sahab who presently resides at Natwal.

There are even some Shia memorizers of Quran (Hafiz) in the principalities of Rampur, Amroha and Lucknow. Maulana Hafiz Kifayat Husayn Sahab is ever ready to travel anywhere and recite the Quran for anyone who so desires. And there were numerous people from Shias who learnt the Quran by heart.

For example, Asim, Amash, Ibn Abbas, Abul Aswad etc. Even Ahlul Sunnat consider them excellent Huffaz (pl. of Hafiz = one who knows the Quran by heart). In short, we can say that it is a stupid notion that Shias cannot memorize the Quran. Leave alone Shias, Christians, Jews and atheists could become Hafiz if they strive for it. Indeed, bigotry is something that makes one blind to truth, and it is the greatest impediment to research.

_____________________

1.Ref. Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 260

2.Refer Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 72

 

 

The second cause for the decrease of religious significance of Bani Hashim arose during the Caliphate of Umar Ibn Khattab. During this time, it became famous that Ali (a.s.) has started practicing religious jurisprudence (Ijtihaad). Ali (a.s.) began to derive the solution of religious problems as the circumstances demanded and the Bani Hashim began to follow his decrees (did Taqlid). And why shouldn’t they, when they knew that Ali (a.s.) was the gate of knowledge, the expert of Quran and the flesh, blood, self and soul of the Holy Prophet (S)? And that his creation and the creation of the Messenger of Allah (S) was from a single luminosity (Noor).

But when that Caliph learnt of this, he appointed some other people to derive the laws of Shariah, chief among them were Ibn Masood, Abu Moosa Ashari and the same Zaid Ibn Thabit. Upon receiving orders from the Caliph, these gentlemen began to formulate religious decrees and their rulings came out to be different from those of Ali (a.s.). People other than Bani Hashim began to follow their decrees, but the Bani Hashim continued to follow the rulings of their religious and tribal chief, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.).

From that time, two distinct sects developed among the Muslims. One was the Alawite sect and another, Farooqi sect. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) himself formulated his religious decrees but Umar Ibn Khattab accomplished this task with the help of his appointed assistants. Apparently, this did not auger well for Islam. This division bestowed no benefit on the Islamic religion. Even today we witness disturbances in the Muslim world due to this division and this shall continue forever. Anyway, Ali (a.s.) was always busy in solving the problems of Shariah.

However, since he did not have the support of the ruling party, his followers were limited to the family of the Prophet, i.e. the Bani Hashim. Doubtlessly, temporal power has a great role in the spread of religion. The lack of the spread of the religion of Ali (a.s.) was not unexpected. On the other hand, the Farooqi religion made great strides and even today this is the religion of the majority of Muslims. There is no doubt that the Farooqi religion had received a great impetus.

It began during the time of Umar and during his lifetime itself, it spread to all the Islamic territories. Bani Umayyah adopted this religion due to their natural inclination towards it and also due to the exigencies of that time. And after them, most of the Bani Abbas also adopted this faith. If some persons of Bani Abbas followed the religion of Ali (a.s.) they are very few and hardly taken into consideration. Then the great kingdoms followed the religion of Farooq. So much so that even the last Muslim dynasty of India, i.e. the Mughal Dynasty was following this religion.

In any case, this controversy with regard to personal exertion (Ijtihaad) harmed the religious leadership of Ali (a.s.). Because this completely overshadowed the fact that he was the gate of knowledge. Being distanced from rulership, he had already become a common member of the populace. Now these matters decreased his religious significance too. In my opinion, this was more harmful than the matter of collecting the Quran. Now we shall present some facts about the Farooqi religion and the faith of Ali (a.s.), so that uninformed people may gain some understanding.

 

 

 

We should know that according to Ahlul Sunnat people, from the three Caliphs, only Umar Ibn Khattab had the status of a jurisprudent (Mujtahid). Abu Bakr and Uthman never performed any derivation of Islamic law. However, each of them are known as the collectors of Quran, because the Quran was ‘collected’ in the Caliphate of the first Caliph and rearranged in the Caliphate of the third Caliph. As we have mentioned before, the religious laws derived by Ali (a.s.) were different from those formulated by Umar. It was on the basis of this very contradiction that two sects came into being. One was Farooqi sect and the other Alawite.

Although the beginning of religious differences was initially seen during the tenure of the Caliphate of Umar, as the days passed, the differences became more pronounced. Finally, it assumed the form of the Farooqi religion, which is also known by the name of the religion of Ahlul Sunnat wal Jamaat whose cause of being named thus has already been mentioned before. In the same way, the jurisprudence of Ali (a.s.) resulted in the formation of the religion known as the religion of the practice (Sunnat) of Ali (a.s.) or the Imamiyah faith.

The completion of the religion of Ali (a.s.) was in the way that as there came Imams from the family of the Prophet, they continued the jurisprudence of this school of thought and remained on that religion. This religion became famous as the Imamite religion. It should be clear that due to the jurisprudence (Ijtihaad) of the Imams of the family of the Prophet, the followers of Farooqi religion always remained aloof and depending upon their need, continued to derive the solution of their religious problems.

Thus, day-by-day their differences increased in the principles and articles of faith. These differences became so pronounced that today the two sects are completely unrelated to each other. It is only the ignorance of the common people, who think that the only point of difference between Sunni and Shia is the matter of Caliphate. It is definitely not so. There is no sort of similarity between these two, whether in principles of faith or practical laws.

So much so that the God of Ahlul Sunnat seems to be different from that of Shia God. In the same way, all principles of religion of these two religions are quite dissimilar and their practical laws should also be derived from them. It should be clear that in the beginning, the Farooqi faith was simple and straightforward. That is, it was dissociated from wisdom and philosophy, but at last it began to form its distinct philosophy.

The first scholars of Ahlul Sunnat were Motazalite. This religion began to assume a distinct form from the time of Hasan Basri and in its time, the Motazalite religion was thought to be the true one.

Then Abul Hasan Ashari opposed his teacher, who was a Motazalite and began to formulate the Ashari faith in 365 A.H. From this time, the Motazalite faith began to decline and people began to be attracted towards the new concocted faith. Even those, whose teachers were Motazalite, opposed their teachers and left the Motazalite faith.

Thus, the four Imams: Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafei and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal became aloof from the Motazalite faith and formed their own distinct religions. Then the religion of Matrudiya was established. We should know that the principles of faith of Ahlul Sunnat have been derived by the jurisprudence of Abul Hasan Ashari and Abul Mansoor Matrudi.

In the same way, the practical law was formed by the decrees of the four Imams. These four gentlemen ignored the jurisprudence of Ali (a.s.) and took the decrees of Ibn Masood and Zaid bin Thabit as the basis for framing their laws.

This is clearly explained in detail by Shah Waliullah in his book, Izalatul Khifa. They were clearly divorced from the opinion of Ali (a.s.) in all matters. Thus, when we see every class of people of Ahlul Sunnat, we find that they have raised their structure of religion on the Farooqi foundations and never sought the assistance of any of the Imams of the family of the Prophet.

If we examine carefully Sunni and Shia faith, we shall realize that there is no sort of compatibility and similarity between the religion of Ali (a.s.) and the Farooqi faith; both are unrelated to each other. There has always been absolute dissociation between the scholars and Imams of the two religions. All the past Ahlul Sunnat scholars avoided any sort of association with the Imams of the family of the Prophet and with the scholars of this school.

A study of Ahlul Sunnat books shows that Abu Hanifah did not follow any of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Although Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) from the family of the Prophet was present, Abu Hanifah continued his own jurisprudence. Actually the fact is that Abu Hanifah and Malik Ibn Anas had no sort of relation with Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.).

This is another misconception that these two gentlemen had the license from Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) to practice Islamic jurisprudence. Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) was himself an Imam, then how can he entrust jurisprudence to people of other faiths? Neither Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) had any sort of shortcoming, nor was there any compulsion on him to do so.

It was the common practice of the jurisprudents of both faiths that as much as possible, they used to be dissociated and be aloof from scholars and Imams of rival faiths. It is illogical to assume that Abu Hanifah and Malik used to practice jurisprudence on the lines of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.). Numerous proofs of this type of dissociation are mentioned below.

 

 

 

Readers should note that Sahih Bukhari is the great authentic book of Ahlul Sunnat. The compiler of this book has not even forgetfully related a tradition of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), while thousands of traditions have been recorded from Imam Sadiq (a.s.) elsewhere and hundreds of scholars have quoted traditions from this praised Imam (a.s.). Also, Hafiz Shamsuddin has included Imam Sadiq (a.s.) among the weak and unreliable narrators in his book al-Mughni. He writes that Bukhari has not related any tradition from him.

Bukhari’s teacher, Yahya Ibn Saeed Al Qattan also says: “I am also suspicious of Ja’far as-Sadiq. Even Malik never related any tradition from Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) till he did not have another narrator of the same tradition.” The Arabic text of the book Mizanul Etedal is translated to mean the same. The same behavior was shown to Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.) and his respected forefathers.

Asqalani, an influential Sunni scholar, includes Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.) among the weak narrators and says that the traditions of Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.) are unsafe. Regarding Imam Reza (a.s.), Abu Tahir says: “Imam Reza (a.s.) has narrated weird things from his father; and he used to doubt and err.”

The same attitude of Ahlul Sunnat scholars continued with Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). Thus, Ibn Jauzi and Suyuti in their books of traditions, Ali bin Muhammad Iraqi in his book, Tanzeelatul Shariah and Shaykh Rehmatulla in Mukhtasar Tanzeelatul Shariah has written that Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) was [Allah forbid] nothing! (Laisa Beshayyin).

In short, the above research confirms that Ahlul Sunnat scholars were absolutely aloof from the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). The truth is that the Imamite and Sunni religion are two streams that flow in the opposite directions and till the Judgment Day, instead of coming closer they are moving farther from each other.

 

 

Here it would not be inappropriate to state that although the Imams of the Prophet’s family were understood by the above method to be undeserving of being followed, the truth is that they had no equal, not only in the nation of the Holy Prophet (S) but also in the people of all the past prophets from the aspect of their knowledge, superiority, piety, religiousness, truthfulness, modesty, justice, magnanimity, charity, bravery, worship, forbearance and obedience etc.

These Imams carried the blood of the Prophet (S) in their veins, they were the life and heart of the Messenger. They are the close confidants and self of the Prophet. They are his flesh and soul. They were (Allah forbid) not illiterate and uneducated; each of them was a leader of faith. Each of them was a capable jurisprudent, and each was a true leader and guide. They all acted on the knowledge they possessed. Individually, each of them was a sum of knowledge and action.

They are the Imams (a.s.) that find mention in the Torah. Even today you can open the Torah and see. The Almighty has given the good news that twelve princes shall come from the progeny of Ismail (a.s.). These are the twelve Imams. Indeed, who can be greater princes than they were? These personalities are the beloveds of the chief of the Prophets. Allah forbid, if anyone considers them ‘weak’ and ‘Nothing’, it is their whim and fancy. And they are the Imams that the Almighty and the Prophet know. Apparently, they were helpless and so oppressed that from Imam Ali (a.s.) to Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) each were easily martyred but internally all of them were the brave lions of the religion of Allah.

O Allah! Bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

 

 

 

In the discussion presented above and in other places in this book it is mentioned that the jurisprudence of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) was different from the jurisprudence of scholars of other faiths. Our readers should know that we had written in this way to follow the convention and usual manner of writing. The Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) were much higher in status than jurisprudence.

The knowledge of the Imams (a.s.), like the knowledge of the Holy Prophet (S) is beyond the scope of human understanding. Jurisprudence to seek solution of religious problems is not allowed for Imams and Prophets. Rather, it is a sort of insult to say that the Prophet had practiced jurisprudence. The sciences of the Prophet were religious and revealed and he was bestowed with divine knowledge. The Almighty had opened wide, the doors of knowledge for him.

These gentlemen are the cities and doors of knowledge. Neither do they have to resort to rational arguments nor do they have to make derivations or take help from analogy. It is sufficient for them to just refer to the Knowing and the Knowledgeable God. All the religious problems are solved in no time. He is the Knower of the Unseen and the divine luminescence.

Jurisprudence is for those who are deprived of the service and presence of the Prophet and the Imams (a.s.) and the paths of knowledge and certainty are closed for them. Then even for this there are conditions and aspects. If those derivations are taken from the Holy Quran and traditions, they are reliable, but if they are mere conjectures and analogies, they shall be very far from guidance. Then what can be said of those in their company? They used to gain benefits of knowledge and religion from them. Even they had no need to perform jurisprudence. And why should they need to resort to it when the door of research was open. They are only needed to ask for the solution of any problem and the answer was ready.

The moment they posed a question, they got an immediate response. It would have been an insult to the Holy Imams (a.s.) that while they are present, people should undertake personal exertions, and not take advantage of their revealed and divine knowledge. In brief, we can say that the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) were not at all concerned with jurisprudence. We have called it jurisprudence because the people of that time, due to their lack of understanding considered the utterances of Holy Prophet (S) also as jurisprudence; therefore, we have also used the same terminology. Otherwise, wherever these words are used in this book, they denote their divinely bestowed knowledge and the jurisprudence of religious problems mean the explanation of rules of religion.

 

 

 

Here the writer desires to mention some examples that show that the method of the Imams of the family of the Messenger (S) was distinct from the scholars of Ahlul Sunnat. It is common knowledge among the literate public that Abu Hanifah, Malik and other scholars used analogy (Qiyas) in deriving the rules of Shariah, while Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) used to prohibit it. It is apparent that even if in the beginning a faith observes these principles, it will eventually be filled with contradictions.

Thus, what we see is that the religion of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) is very much opposed to the religion of the leaders of Ahlul Sunnat. The writer of the Sharh (Explanation) of Minhaj writes that the denial of analogy (Qiyas) is the religion of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) just as acting on analogy is the religion of Abu Hanifah and other Ahlul Sunnat. Thus, the statement of this writer clearly shows that the faith of Ahlul Sunnat and Shias is different from the aspect of analogy.

The second difference is that Mulla Jalal Dawwafi, the writer of Sharh Aqaid Uzdiya says that the best of the sects is the ‘Successful sect’, that is the Ashari sect, because this sect acts upon those traditions of the Messenger of Allah (S) that are related by his companions and unlike the Motazalite, this sect does not temper traditions by rationality. And neither does it quote persons other than the companions as Shias have done, who, due to the belief in their superiority, quote their Imams. Here the notable point is that the Motazela sect is mentioned to be different from the Ashaira.

However, both these relate traditions from the companions, unlike Shia sect which related traditions from non-companions, that is the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). The writer presents five examples of controversies from the aspect of actions. One is that Ali (a.s.) mostly considers legal the selling of slave-girls who have children while the scholars of Ahlul Sunnat consider it prohibited. Allamah Taftazani writes in Sharh Mukhtasar Usoole Azudi:

“The companions have differed in the matter of the selling of slave girls who have borne children. Ali (a.s.) considers it permissible and it is the religion of Shias and Shias know well the religion of Ali (a.s.).” Secondly, Thalabi has related that Ali (a.s.) considers the wiping over the shoes prohibited while Abu Hanifah allows it, as is also mentioned in the Sharh Waqaya.

Thirdly, Ahlul Sunnat scholars do not allow inheritance to the woman whose husband had died with the consummation of marriage unlike Ali (a.s.). Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi, the believer of Sunni faith in his Sharh Mishkat differs with the religion of Ali (a.s.) and says: “That is the religion of Ali (a.s.) and his Shias and this is the religion of Ibn Masood, that is why we follow the statement of Ibn Masood.” It should be clear that the above two examples illustrate that Ahlul Sunnat differ from the religion of Ali (a.s.).

Ignorant people from Ahlul Sunnat think that their religion is same as that of Ali (a.s.); it is certainly not so. There is no similarity between the religion of Ahlul Sunnat and the faith of Ali (a.s.).

Fourthly, rabbit meat is unlawful in the religion of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), while Abu Hanifah permitted it. Mulla Jami has mentioned this in his book Tafhaat. Here it is worth saying that rabbit is prohibited by Allah in Taurat. Thus, the impermissibility of rabbit is mentioned with the prohibition of pork. That the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) had prohibited it does not seem to be without reason. It seems that Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) has taken into consideration the prohibition of the Almighty and decreed rabbit unlawful.

Fifthly, fishes without scales are prohibited in Imamiyah faith and Ahlul Sunnat consider them lawful. Please note that this type of fish is also prohibited in Taurat. It is included in the list that mentions pork and rabbit meat. Thus, we see that Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) used their broad knowledge fully while practicing jurisprudence. The title of Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.) as a “judge who judges by the four scrolls” is very much appropriate. All his successors also are seen to be fully qualified for this title. And why shouldn’t it be so?

 

 

 

It is regretful that within a short time of the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) a lot of controversies arose among the Muslims regarding principles of faith and practical laws. Now the situation is such that any sort of agreement between the sects is impossible.

Two such powerful sects have come into being that it is impossible for anyone of them to disappear. Now, if only Allah removes the differences from the Muslims can there be a fresh unity among them. Presently the conditions of Muslims require reconciliation, but no one has any idea how this could be achieved.

Till the time Muslims themselves do not strive to patch up, there is every possibility that they would never unite. This cannot be achieved by debates and argumentations. The truth cannot be unraveled without forgoing bias. However, to get rid of bias, itself requires good sense given by Allah, which is a great bounty bestowed by Allah on whomsoever He wishes.

 

 

 

It is a fact that the religion of the Imamites is same as the religion of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), and it is absolutely different from the religion of Ahlul Sunnat. As mentioned by Sharif Zurjani in Sharh Mawaqif: Initially the Imamites followed the religion of their Imams, but after a long time controversies developed among them.

The descendants of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) (Sadaat) were indeed initially on the religion of their Imams, but the passage of time changed their faiths. Today they follow every type of religion, some are Shias and some Tafzeeliya, some Sunni, some Wahabi, Khariji, Nasibi, Christian and some are even atheists. We should know that society and government has a great influence on religion.

Some Sadaats in India are seen following a religion of other than the Imamites. This is so, because India mostly had non-Shia rulers. Economic and monetary factors forced the Sadaat of India to start following the religion of the rulers and this deprived their families of the religion of their forefathers. Now these poor people do not even know what religion their forefathers had followed, or whether their present religion is new or ancient. The statement of the writer of Al Milal wan Nihal also proves that the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) had a distinct religion. And their followers were called Imamites as they also followed the same faith.

Ibn Kathir, a great Sunni scholar, writes the following in connection with the Imamite faith in his book Jame al-Usool: “Now we describe the well known faiths of the Muslims that were followed by the people in different areas of the world. That is the Shafei, the Hanafite, the Maliki, the Hanbali and the Imamiyah.” After this, the respected scholar has named and introduced the founders of each of these faiths. Regarding the founders of Imamiyah faith, he writes:

“The leader of the Imamiyah in the second century was Ali Ibn Moosa ar-Reza and in the third century, it was Muhammad Ibn Yaqoob al-Kulaini and in the fourth century it was Sayyid Murtada Alamul Huda. The religion of all the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) was same. Thus, whatever was the religion of Ali Ibn Moosa ar- Reza, it was the same religion of all the Imams.”

 

 

 

It should be clear that the success and popularity achieved by Ahlul Sunnat faith till this time shows a great transformation. No decrease or increase is seen in the principles of its faith and the practical laws. Doubtlessly, the Imams and scholars of Ahlul Sunnat have given it great embellishments and decorations.

This religion is furnished with Quran, tradition, heritage, reports and jurisprudence, laws etc. Presently, no sort of deficiency is seen in the religion. However, if there is any shortage and deficiency, it is the support to the family of the Prophet and the similarity with their views through their words and deeds, as shown by the writer in the foregoing pages and as shall be further explained in the following pages.

However, this matter cannot be open to objection in any way, because if the scholars of Ahlul Sunnat had shown the same support and similar views with the family of the Prophet as Shias scholars did, Ahlul Sunnat faith would not have separated from Shia faith and achieved such great success. Then in reality both the religions would have been one and the same. In that case Ahlul Sunnat faith would have become extinct. The aloofness of Ahlul Sunnat scholars from the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) was necessary for the popularity of Ahlul Sunnat faith.

 

 

 

Before we relate the incident of Karbala’, it is necessary to mention some more points of differences between the Imamiyah and Ahlul Sunnat. It is not possible to mention all the points of differences in this book. Even then we feel it is necessary to mention the following basic differences with regard to the incident of Karbala’.

Without this, it would be impossible to describe the incident of Karbala’. Rather, the reality of the incident will remain veiled for the people unfamiliar with it. Below, we shall describe in brief, the matter of Caliphate, because the incident of Karbala’ has a definite connection with the matter of Caliphate and some basic principles are related to this problem.

 

 

 

Although both the Imamiyah and Ahlul Sunnat consider the matter of Caliphate to be a valid affair, there is wide difference in their beliefs. Also, both the sects believe in twelve Caliphs.

Today the position is such that both the sects consider the tradition of twelve Caliphs correct. But the difference is as to the names of the twelve Caliphs. Jabir Ibn Samra says that one day he went with his father to the Messenger of Allah (S). He heard the Messenger of Allah (S) say: “This affair shall not be complete till there are twelve Caliphs.” Jabir says that after this, the Prophet said something, which he could not understand. So Jabir asked his father what the Messenger of Allah (S) had said. The father told him that the Prophet said: All of them (Caliphs) shall be from Quraish.

On the basis of this tradition, Ahlul Sunnat have enumerated their Caliphs as follows: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali (a.s.), Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan and seven Caliphs from Abdul Malik to Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz. Some Ahlul Sunnat scholars consider Yazeed after Muawiyah and the Umayyad Caliphs in an unbroken chain among the twelve Caliphs. Even the teacher of this writer, Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Gul Jalalabadi considered valid the Caliphate of Yazeed and the author also had the same belief during his student life. We should know that Ahlul Sunnat sect, which has excluded Yazeed from the list of twelve Caliphs has done so due to the reason that Yazeed was a transgressor and sinful man. But the sect that considers Yazeed a rightful Caliph does so with the justification that infallibility is not a necessary condition of Caliphate.

From the aspect of principle, to be a rightful Caliph one has to fulfill at least one of the necessary conditions of Caliphate, while Yazeed fulfilled many of these conditions. Yazeed had the support of the consensus (Ijma) of Abu Bakr. Only two people are sufficient for consensus while Yazeed had the consensus of hundreds of thousands of people. Apart from this, Yazeed had the condition of the nomination of Umar, the consultation (Shura) of Uthman and the military superiority of Muawiyah. In such a case, the validity of Yazeed’s Caliphate is not against the principles of Caliphate. From this aspect, we must count all the twelve Caliphs and not make exclusions like some sects of Ahlul Sunnat do by excluding Yazeed from the luminaries of twelve Caliphs. This is not an aimless discourse.

Doubtlessly, no follower of the principles of Caliphate could exclude Yazeed from the twelve Caliphs. Thus, Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi in his book, Izalatul Khifa mentions in serial order the names of the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat and Yazeed is also included in the list. Now, this was about the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat. Let us see the list of the twelve Caliphs of the Imamiyah Sect. There is no difference among the twelver Shias regarding the twelve Caliphs.

The Caliphs of Shias are as follows: Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), Imam Hasan (a.s.), Imam Husayn (a.s.), Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.), Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.), Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.), Imam Ali ar-Reza (a.s.), Imam Muhammad at-Taqi (a.s.), Imam Ali an-Naqi (a.s.), Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) and Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi (a.j.) (Peace be upon them all).

It should be clear that Shias consider Caliphate to be a divine affair on the basis of Quran and the tradition of the two heavy things (Thaqalayn). They also all believe in the infallibility of the Caliphs. According to the Imamiyah sect, it is necessary for the Caliph to be infallible. The Imamiyah say that the Prophet was infallible, therefore his successors should also be infallible. The successor of an infallible cannot be a non-infallible.

Ahlul Sunnat people have contrary belief with regard to the matter of Caliphate and they do not consider it to be a divine affair. The writer has shown that the statement of “We have the book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah) had created an atmosphere, which was not conducive to make the affair of Caliphate a divine affair.

Thus, they consider the Caliphate of Abu Bakr valid on the basis of a single consensus (Ijma). And according to principles, they do not successfully present any Quranic or traditional proof to justify their stand. Some proofs of nomination, that are presented by some Ahlul Sunnat scholars do not conform to their own principles of Caliphate. Because, if the nominative proofs are considered correct, the Caliphate of the three Caliphs will become an affair from Allah, which is the very belief of the Imamiyah sect and which is vehemently opposed by Sunni sect.

We shall study these nominative proofs later. Here, we do not desire to dwell further on this topic. In the same way, the belief in the infallibility of the Caliphs is a belief very far from Ahlul Sunnat. They do not consider anyone infallible, except the Holy Prophet (S). Rather, there is a Sunni sect which considers Holy Prophet (S) infallible only at the time of divine revelation and for other times they do not even consider him infallible.

One of their sects even believes that before Prophethood, (Allah forbid!) the Messenger of Allah (S) was a disbeliever and his respected father was also a disbeliever. It is apparent, that on the basis of the lack of infallibility, Ahlul Sunnat cannot have the belief of the fourteen infallibles, because according to them, after the Holy Prophet (S), there was no infallible and there shall never be in the future. Unlike Ahlul Sunnat, Shias have the belief of the fourteen Infallibles (a.s.) and this belief is special only to Shias.

Doubtlessly, some Ahlul Sunnat people have unprincipally taken this belief from Shias. It is obvious that when according to the majority of Ahlul Sunnat, when no one from the Muslim Ummah could be infallible, except the Holy Prophet (S), then from where did we get these thirteen Infallibles? Ahlul Sunnat do not consider anyone infallible except the Holy Prophet (S).

In these circumstances, if one of them agrees to the infallibility of any member of Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet, the Caliphate of the three Caliphs would become invalid. Obviously, then after this confession what remains to give preference to the three Caliphs over His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)? Preferring a non-infallible to an infallible is indeed an irrational thing!

Doubtlessly, it is a brilliant decision of Ahlul Sunnat to consider Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) non-infallible like the other common Muslims. Apart from this, if the Muslims of that time had believed in the infallibility of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), the matter of Fadak would have been decided in a different manner. Indeed, due to the confession of infallibility, the dark deeds of the house of justice towards Lady Fatima (s.a.) would have come about in a different manner.

Knowledgeable people are aware that Fatima (s.a.) was treated as an ordinary woman in the litigation of Fadak. Thus, Umar being an opposite party in the case said that Fatima is nothing more than a woman! In brief, it is the very belief of Ahlul Sunnat that Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) can commit mistakes.

The statement of Maulavi Abdul Ala regarding Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) in Bahrul Uloom clearly shows that according to Ahlul Sunnat the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) also sometimes commit mistakes like the common people and they are even prone to deviation. And this was due to the sin they committed without intention. Like the sin committed by Lady Fatima that she should accuse the Caliph of the Prophet to be a liar and that she should become aloof from him when he had confiscated Fadak.

Apparently, it seems that Fatima (s.a.) did not consider Abu Bakr a Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S), that she should accuse him of such misdemeanor in the words of Abdul Ala. The above circumstances also show that all Bani Hashim did not consider Abu Bakr to be Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S).

And Ali (a.s.) also had similar view, as we shall show in the following pages. In any case, the denial to believe in the infallibility of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) definitely decreased their greatness and importance. It should be clear that gradually these acts of dishonor towards Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) culminated in the incident, which is known as the Tragedy of Karbala’. The incident of Karbala’ is nothing but a result of these acts and it is not even unnatural.

Here we shall mention some examples of insulting behavior towards Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) that culminated in the Tragedy of Karbala’. One of this is the burning of the door of Fatima (s.a.). This event is mentioned in the Tarikh of Abul Fida. Tarikh Tabari, Tarikh Waqidi, Al-Murtadha’, Saqifah of Abu Bakr by Jauhari, Al Imamah was Siyasah etc. Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlavi also agrees to it as mentioned by him in his book, Tohfa Ithna Ashar. Apart from this, Asian books, like Gaban, Aaseeran and Aurang also include this incident. Indeed, this incident has a historical base and it is not fiction.

Till this point, writer had not seen this incident mentioned in these books, he did not believe it to be a true incident. But after the student days, when he studied the books of history and Scholastic Theology (Ilmul Kalam), he became disenchanted with the well-known Islam. Now the condition is such that he is ashamed to call himself a Muslim.

Regrettably, even the Tohfa (gift) of Shah Abdul Aziz could not provide any succor. Rather, the replies of the Shah seem to justify sins and encourage sinful deeds. Actually, this book has distanced the writer further from popular Islam. Anyway, whether I became a denier or whatever, at least I am safe from not recognizing the Holy Prophet (S), praise be to Allah. If Allah wills, I shall not be ashamed to face the Holy Prophet (S) in front of Lady Fatima (s.a.) after I die. Let us now read the terrible and tragic incident as recorded in Al Imamah was Siyasah.

 

 

 

When Abu Bakr learnt that the people opposing allegiance were with Ali (a.s.), he sent Umar to them. Thus, Umar called them while they were in the house of Ali (a.s.), but they refused to come out, so Umar got firewood piled at Ali’s door and said: “By the One in Whose hands is the life of Umar, we shall definitely bring them out, or we shall burn all of them to death.” Someone said: “O Hafasa’s father, Fatima (s.a.) is also in the house.” Upon this, Umar said: “Let her be!”

All the people came out and paid allegiance, except Ali (a.s.) who did not come out. Umar thought that Ali (a.s.) had vowed that he will not leave his house till he has collected the Quran, and he would not even put his mantle on his shoulders till he had collected the Quran. After this, Fatima came near the door and said:

“You left the bier of the Messenger of Allah (S) and became busy in your activities and now you have come to trouble us? You have no regard for our rights!”

After this, Umar came to Abu Bakr and said: “Will you not take allegiance from that opponent (Ali)?” Abu Bakr sent his slave, Qunfuz to summon Ali (a.s.) and Qunfuz went to Ali (a.s.) who asked him the purpose of his visit; Qunfuz said:

“The Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S) has summoned you.” His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) said: “How you people attribute falsehood to the Messenger of Allah (S)?” The slave returned to Abu Bakr who continued to weep for a long time. Umar again asked him if he wouldn’t take allegiance from the opponent of allegiance.

Abu Bakr told his slave to go once more and say that the chief of the believers (Amirul Mo-mineen) has called him. So Qunfuz went and told as he was bidden. Ali (a.s.) became visibly angry and said: “Glory be to Allah, what claim is it, that he (Abu Bakr) has no right to it?” The slave returned to Abu Bakr who again began to weep.

Then Umar got up and a group of people went with him. They reached the door of Fatima (s.a.) and knocked. When Lady Fatima (s.a.) heard them, she began to wail and scream aloud: “O Father! O Messenger of Allah (S) help your daughter! See what we are made to suffer after you at the hands of Ibn Khattab (Umar) and Ibn Abi Qahafa (Abu Bakr).”

When the people heard the mournful voice of Fatima (s.a.), they turned away while their hearts were painful and shattered. But Umar remained there and with the help of some people brought Ali (a.s.) out of the house and took him to Abu Bakr. The incident of arson so far is related to the house of Fatima (s.a.) and the writer cannot comment further. But does this incident at the house Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) not insult the respectable household? The next insulting behavior towards the Purified Household (a.s.) came about when Ali (a.s.) was brought before Abu Bakr.

 

 

 

Again we quote from the book Al Imamah was Siyasah. When Umar brought His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) to Abu Bakr, Ali (a.s.) said: “What if I don’t give allegiance?” Umar said: “By the One except whom there is no god, in such a case we shall behead you.”

Ali (a.s.) asked: “Will you kill a slave of Allah and the brother of Holy Prophet (S)?” Umar said: “Slave of Allah is right, but not the brother of Holy Prophet (S).” At that time Abu Bakr was silent and he did not utter a single word. Umar asked Abu Bakr why he did not tell Ali what he wanted? Abu Bakr said that till Fatima (s.a.) was at the side of Ali (a.s.), he (Abu Bakr) could not force him for anything. After this, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) came to the grave of the Messenger of Allah (S). He wailed and entreated:

“O son of my uncle! Help me! The people have weakened me too much and are prepared to slay me.”

The people of justice should understand what effect this statement of Umar had on the Muslims. All these actions against the Chief of Bani Hashim, that is Ali (a.s.), the forcible arrest and an open threat to kill him! All this did not enhance the respect of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Here no one objects to this type of action of Umar. The most shocking of all is the refusal of Umar to acknowledge that Ali (a.s.) was the brother of Holy Prophet (S). While every person of that time was aware that Ali (a.s.) was the cousin of the Messenger of Allah (S).

In addition to this, the Holy Prophet (S) had compared him to Prophet Haroon (a.s.) and also bestowed him the status of brother in the world and in the hereafter. However, the way Umar dealt with Ali (a.s.) must have influenced the people to think Ali (a.s.) must be so unrespectable that Umar cannot bear to call him the brother of the Messenger of Allah (S). Doubtlessly, this denial cannot in any way enhance the respectability of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), whatever the intellectuals may think.

 

 

Here are present other example that prove decrease in the respectability of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). It is the stand of Ahlul Sunnat scholars that two people of other than Ahlul Bayt (S) are sufficient for quorum of consensus. But the consensus of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) is not acceptable whether of two people or two hundred

Fourthly, this jurisprudence removed the belief of the infallibility of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) from the common people and this indirectly benefited the non-Ahlul Bayt people. Without any doubt, this type of jurisprudence showered untold honors on the non-Ahlul Bayt people and went to great lengths to decrease the respectability of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Thus, there is no doubt that Karbala’ was the culmination of the intrigue against Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) that was initiated just after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S). This continued till Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). Rather, it exists even after that and will remain till there remains enmity to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

 

 

 

The fourth example of decrease in the respectability of Muhammad’s Progeny is given below: It should be clear that in the view of this writer, one of the causes of insult to Muhammad’s Progeny is the transferring of the titles of thousand. Farooq Aazam,1 Siddiq Akbar2 and Saifullah3 which were exclusive for Ali (a.s.). And the majority of Muslims do not once remember His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) with these titles. Rather, only one or two from a hundred thousand Muslims may be aware that these titles belong specially to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

The same is the case with the title of Siddiqa4, which was exclusive for Lady Fatima (s.a.). But the majority Muslims have separated this title from her. The following matter also tells us of the insult to Muhammad’s Progeny that the majority Muslims have turned the title of Imam into such a common appendage that people like Fakhruddin Razi and Ghazzali are decorated with it, whereas this title is exclusive for the Imams from the family of the Prophet. If the majority Muslims had valued Muhammad’s Progeny, they would not have transferred their titles to ordinary people. But since the majority Muslims are bent on disrespecting Muhammad’s Progeny, what else would they have done?

If the majority Muslims had valued Muhammad’s Progeny, they would not have transferred their titles to ordinary people. But since the majority Muslims are bent on disrespecting Muhammad’s Progeny, what else would they have done?

_____________________

1.The great discriminator

2.The great truthful one.

3.Sword of Allah.

4.Truthful lady

 

 

We should know that the title of Siddiq Akbar is especially for His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and it cannot be applied to anyone else. Salman Farsi and Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari say that the Holy Prophet (S) held the hand of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and said:

“Indeed, this is the person who was the first to bring faith in me. And he is the discriminator of right and wrong in this nation and he is the chief of believers. And he is the one who shall meet me first on Judgment Day, and he is the Siddiq Akbar.”1

The second saying of the Prophet is: Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari narrates that the Holy Prophet (S) told Ali (a.s.): “You were the first to believe in me and you are the Siddiq Akbar.”

The third saying of the Prophet is: Ibn Abbas and Abu Laila say that according to the Holy Prophet (S), Siddiq Akbar are three: “Habib Najjar, the companion of Prophet Isa (a.s.), who had brought faith in Isa (a.s.) and said: O people of my nation, follow the Prophets. The second was Hizqeel, from the group of Firon. But he believed in Allah and he was the one who said: O people of my nation, would you slay one who says that the Almighty is his Lord? The third is Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.); and he is superior to both of them.”2

This tradition tells us that except for these three persons, there is no other Siddiq Akbar. Although one can call anyone as Siddiq Akbar.

The fourth prophetic tradition is as follows: Regarding the following verse of the Holy Quran:

“And whoever obeys Allah and the Apostle, these are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed favors.” 3

Ibn Abbas says that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) asked the Messenger of Allah (S): “Would we be able to see the Prophet in Paradise also?” Holy Prophet (S) replied that there had been a close confidant of every prophet who had brought faith in him first of all. Then this verse was revealed that they are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed the bounties. That is with the prophets, the truthfuls, the martyrs and the righteous ones. And they shall be their good companions. After this, the Holy Prophet (S) called His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and said: “O Ali! The Almighty Allah has revealed the reply to your question and made you my confidant, because you brought faith in me before others did and you are the Siddiq Akbar.”4

The fifth tradition of the Holy Prophet (S) is related by His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) himself wherein the Messenger of Allah (S) said: “This Siddiq Akbar is Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.).” The writer has refrained from quoting this tradition in full, although it is absolutely authentic and its reporter is Abu Ja’far al-Aqeeli.

The gist of this narration is that Holy Prophet (S) told His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) that on Judgment Day except for the four of us, no one would be astride a mount. A person from the Helpers (Ansar) got up and beseeched the Prophet to inform them who these four were. The Prophet replied:

“One of these is myself. I shall be astride the Buraaq. And my brother Salih, the prophet shall be on the she-camel whose legs were severed. And my Uncle Hamza shall be stride the she-camel, Ghazba. And my brother, Ali (a.s.) shall be on a she-camel of Paradise and the standard (Liwaul Hamd) shall be in his hand, and he would be calling out: ‘There is no god, except Allah. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (S).’ All the people would be saying that he is a proximate angel or a Messenger sent by Allah or a bearer of the throne (Arsh). An angel from inside the Arsh would reply: ‘O People! This is neither a proximate angel, nor a Messenger sent or a bearer of the throne, this is Siddiq Akbar, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.).’”

So far, we have mentioned the saying of the Holy Prophet (S). Now, one should also know that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) has called himself by the title of Siddiq Akbar as apparent from the following traditions.

First Tradition: Maaza Adwiya reports that he heard Ali (a.s.) saying from the pulpit of Basra that he was the Siddiq Akbar.5 In the same way, in Sharh Tajrid of Allamah Qaushiji, on page 389, we see that Ali (a.s.) said to a huge crowd: “I am the Siddiq Akbar. I brought faith before Abu Bakr did.” It should be clear that Ali (a.s.) has not attributed something new to himself; it was exactly what Holy Prophet (S) had declared about him.

Second Tradition: Ibaad Ibn Abdullah says that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) said: “I am the slave of Allah and the brother of the Messenger of Allah (S). I am Siddiq Akbar. Except me, one who calls himself Siddiq Akbar, is a blatant liar. I have prayed seven years prior to everybody else.”6 It should be clear that this statement of Ali (a.s.) is based on the saying of the Messenger of Allah (S). Thus, except for Ali (a.s.), no one has the right to call himself Siddiq Akbar.

Third Tradition: Maaza Adwiya says that he heard Ali (a.s.) saying from the pulpit of Basra that he was the Siddiq Akbar and that he had brought faith before Abu Bakr and had accepted Islam before Abu Bakr. From the sayings of the Holy Prophet (S) and Ali (a.s.) it becomes clear that for one to be Siddiq Akbar it is necessary that he should have precedence in faith and in Islam.

Now the people of justice mat decide whether Ali (a.s.) is eligible for the title of Siddiq Akbar or someone else. But it is extremely regrettable that justice has disappeared from the world. Common Muslims don’t even know that it is the special appellation of Imam Ali (a.s.) and according to the statement of the Prophet no one has even a share in it. The same is the case with the title of Farooq Aazam (the great discriminator) as will be proved from the traditions mentioned below.

______________________

1.Riyazun Nazarah

2.Refer Sahih Bukhari

3.Surah Nisa 4:69

4.Tafseer Ibn Jaham

5.Refer to Riaz of Mohib Tabari

6.Khasais of Nasai; Mustadrak of Hakim; Hafiz Abu Naeem in Hilaya etc.

 

 

 

First Tradition: Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari says that he heard the Messenger of Allah (S) say to Ali (a.s.): O Ali, you are the Siddiq Akbar and such a Farooq Aazam1 that you will discriminate between good and evil.

 

Second Tradition: It is narrated from Salman Farsi that the Messenger of Allah (S) told with regard to Ali (a.s.) that he was the first to bring faith in the Holy Prophet (S) and that he would be the first to meet the Prophet on Judgment Day. He is the Siddiq Akbar and Farooq Aazam who discriminates between good and evil. He is the chief of the believers, whereas material world is the chief of the hypocrites. This tradition shows that precedence in faith is necessary for one to be Farooq Aazam. Thus this title cannot be allowed for anyone, except Ali (a.s.).

Third Tradition: Abu Laila relates that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Very soon there will be turmoil in my nation when it is so, you should serve Ali (a.s.). Indeed, he is the one to discriminate between truth and falsehood.”2

This tradition proves that Ali (a.s.) is discriminator (Farooq) and other important points are also derived from this tradition. The article ‘soon’ shows that the Holy Prophet (S) knew that there would be controversies among the Muslims in the near future. It was something that was related to Muslims and in the situation Ali (a.s.) would also be present and it was supposed to be an affair against the Bani Hashim. It cannot be anything except the ‘consensus’ of Saqifah Bani Sadah.

It was turmoil or mischief, which has till now put the Islamic world in controversy. The opponents of Bani Hashim might not consider it so, but in the view of Muhammad’s Progeny and common Bani Hashim, the matter of Saqifah was a mischief. The immediate effect of this incident was that many insulting and dishonorable actions against Ali and Fatima became apparent. And after this, such actions against Bani Hashim took place that is not hidden from the people of awareness. If this affair of Saqifah is not a mistake, what is it?

Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) knew by unseen knowledge of his Prophethood that very soon, mischief was about to be created. On the basis of this, he said that when such turmoil happens, and there is not much delay in this turmoil, O Muslim, you must support Ali (a.s.) in this turmoil. But what a pity, that, except for a few, no one supported Ali (a.s.) and did not act on the command of the Prophet.

Those who supported Ali (a.s.) were Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari, Salman Farsi, Miqdad and Malik al-Ashtar. Another result of the incident of Saqifah is that thousands of Muslims (even in this time) if not openly, they harbor suspicions in their heart with regard to Muhammad’s Progeny. Though I can mention many examples of this aloofness, here I present only two examples.

Three years ago, Maulana Shibli Nomani was in Calcutta and I was also present in the house where he stayed. One day Mirza Hairat Dehalvi was mentioned in the conversation. People of India are aware of the animosity of Mirza Hairat to Muhammad’s Progeny and especially to Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.). For some moments, the opposition of Mirza Hairat to Ali (a.s.) was discussed. It is not hidden from people of awareness that the Mirza has not left anything unsaid against Ali (a.s.). Although, this is something which any common person would oppose.

So I was not surprised when Shibli Nomani said that many scholars of Ahlul Sunnat have supported the views of Mirza Hairat. However, I was surprised when the Maulana went on to relate what those scholars have said in this regard. “They said that we cannot say anything about the elders of Shias but they criticize our Caliphs without any restraint. At least now there is a person who speaks bad of the elders of Shia and takes revenge on our behalf for the bad they say about our elders.” This, at least shows that many people of Ahlul Sunnat, though they themselves may not curse Ali (a.s.), they are pleased at the cursing of Ali (a.s.). How can such people support Ali (a.s.) in a time of turmoil that was prophesied by Holy Prophet (S)?

Second Example: There was person of Pathan (Afghan) origin in a family of Delhi. He used to visit me daily and remain in my company for a long time. I knew he was a Sunni and a staunch one at that. So I never mentioned the family of the Prophet before him. By chance, I involuntarily uttered a couplet of Saadi in praise of Ali (a.s.). Although my face was turned away from him the Khan became very angry. He wanted to say something severe to me but his anger was so intense that he was at a loss of words. At last, when he regained control, he said: “This is a religious matter and in this, swords can also be used.”

It is worth noting that the Khan was under obligation to us, and I had not said anything related to cursing. In spite of this, he was so angry that if he had a sword he would have killed me like Ibn Muljim. In any case, I apologized to him and till the time he was alive, I did not severe contacts with him. These two examples say a lot about the devotion of the majority of Muslims to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

Thousands of Mirza Hairats are present in the world. Because Mirza Hairat has earned popularity due to his animosity to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), the people of India know him as an opponent of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Otherwise, there are many people of his kind who are inwardly same, but they will never be exposed. Now, I will show how the title of Saifullah (sword of Allah) belongs to Ali (a.s.). To prove this, I mention the following tradition:

______________________

1.The great discriminator

2.Ref. Al-Istiab of Ibn Abde Barr

 

 

 

Ibn Abbas relates that Holy Prophet (S) said: “Ali Ibn Abi Talib is the unsheathed sword of Allah1 for the enemies of Allah.”2 This title is also exclusive for Ali (a.s.), but the truth is that this cannot be applied to anyone. It is only for the one who is the victor of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, Hunayn and Khaybar.

_________________

1.Sword of Allah

2.Ref. Sharafin Nubuwwah

 

 

 

In the end, I mention about the title of Siddiqa1. It is the exclusive title of the chief of the ladies of Paradise (Fatima), but this also, like the above-mentioned titles did not remain with her exclusively. The tradition, on the basis of which she is the owner of this title is as follows: Abu Humrah relates that the Prophet said:

“O Ali! You are bestowed three bounties that no one, even myself, has not received. You have got a father-in-law like me that even I haven’t got. You have got in marriage Siddiqa, my daughter that I haven’t got. You have got Hasan and Husayn from your loins but I have no sons like you. The truth is that you are from me and I am from you.”2

This tradition shows that no wife of Holy Prophet (S), even Khadija (s.a.), was equal to Fatima Zahra (s.a.). In this way, no woman in the world has the right to be addressed by the title of Siddiqa. Though it is rational, even the Almighty has no reply for bigotry. Ahlul Sunnat people consider ‘A’ysha most superior to all women and consider Fatima equal to her or less than her. (Peace and blessings be upon Fatima and her respected father). But they give preference to ‘A’ysha as obvious from the writing of Pir Dastagir (Abdul Qadir Jilani). He writes in his book Ghaniyatu Talibeen:3

“Indeed, ‘A’ysha is the most superior of all the women of the world. This is proved from the fact that Almighty Allah cleared her of the blame of unchastity, such that it shall be recited till Judgment Day. In the same way, Fatima the daughter of the Prophet, is the most superior of all the women of the world.”

The above statement clearly expresses the status granted by him to ‘A’ysha. Indeed, no one has any opinion contradictory to this. When she is the mother of the faithful, her status is indeed respectful. But that she is the best of all women, because the Almighty cleared her of a baseless allegation, is just wishful thinking. How can that be a proof that she was the best of women? This only proves that those who heaped false allegations against her are being worthy of punishment by Allah. ‘A’ysha was definitely free of unchastity.

It is clear that the divine words in the concerned verses have the connotation of complete aloofness from such people. It has no connection with anyone’s superiority or infallibility. Although the saying of the prophet in the above tradition: “O Ali! You have received (a wife) like Siddiqa, my daughter, such that even I have not.”

It is a statement that clearly shows that neither Khadija, ‘A’ysha or any other wife of Holy Prophet (S) could be considered equal to Fatima. It is only due to the love of Abu Bakr that Ahlul Sunnat consider ‘A’ysha superior to Fatima (s.a.). Actually the daughter of the Prophet is superior to all the Muslim ladies and higher than all the ladies of the world and the chief of all women. Peace be upon Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

The writer has no intention to cast aspersion on the honor and status of ‘A’ysha; whatever is her grade, is clear in the view of Allah. But it is not proper to consider her higher in status to Fatima Zahra (s.a.). When the verse of purification descended, establishing the purification of Ahlul Bayt, ‘A’ysha asked the Messenger of Allah (S) what was the command about her. He told her: “You are in your own class.” And indeed she is in a class of her own.

Being the wife of the Prophet is not a small thing; it is a great status. But those who exceed in according more respect due to blind love for her cannot be but blamed to be ignorant friends. The fifth example of the decrease in the respect of Amirul Mo-mineen is mentioned below.

_______________

1.Truthful Lady

2.Dailami

3.Pg. 192

 

 

 

Here I would like to discuss something that is a matter of shame for myself and every respectable person. Though it exceeds the limits of decency, I shall mention it due to necessity. Anyway, Umme Kulthum was the daughter of Ali (a.s.) born of Fatima Zahra (s.a.). Ahlul Sunnat scholars and some Shia scholars write surprising things about this chaste lady. This writer differs from the research of both these sects.

It is written in Isafur Raghebeen that Umar asked for the hand of Umme Kulthum, the daughter of Fatima (s.a.) and Ali (a.s.) refused, stating her young age as an excuse for the refusal. Ali (a.s.) intended to marry her to the son of Ja’far at-Tayyar. But Umar pleaded with him and went to the pulpit and said that he had this wish because Hellfire is not for those who are related to the Prophet by blood or become the son-in-law of the Prophet. Thus, Ali (a.s.) decorated Umme Kulthum as a bride and sent her to Umar. When the Caliph saw this innocent girl, he lifted her up and placed her in his lap and kissed her. When she got up, he caught her by the thigh and said: “Tell your father, I am ready to marry you.” And when the child told all this to her father, Ali (a.s.) had her marriage performed. From this innocent girl was born Zaid Ibn Umar.

Ibn Hajar says that the kissing and embracing was by way of respect and it was because she was a child and had not attained puberty.

Ibn Sabbagh says that this incident is of 17 A.H. and Umar married her in the month of Zilqad that year. The dower was fixed at 40000 dirhams. Abul Fida, the historian and the writer of Seeratul Muhammadiya has also recorded this marriage of Umar. In this way, some Shia people also agree that this was true. Rather, they have included this strange incident in their books. As mentioned on Page 86 of Hadiqatush Shia of Shaykh Ahmad Ardbeli. The same is stated in Majalisul Mo-mineen of Qadi Nurullah Shushtari quoting the book Istigasa.

Here I will be content to relate the tradition of Hadiqatush Shia. The writer of this book says: Umar sent Abbas to Ali (a.s.) to ask for the hand of Umme Kulthum. Ali (a.s.) refused. Umar told Abbas that Ali (a.s.) had reservations from him. “By Allah! I will kill him.” Umar sent this information to Ali (a.s.). Ali (a.s.) said that being killed is something and giving the hand of the daughter is something else. “I will never give him the hand of my daughter.”

Umar told Abbas to be present in the mosque on Friday so that he can be a witness of whatever happens. Abbas was present in the mosque on Friday. He heard Umar say during the sermon: “O people! There is a person from the companions of the Prophet who has committed fornication. But there is no eyewitness to this act. What is your opinion about this person?” All the people said that the chief of the believers does not need a witness. If you order, we shall kill this person.

After this, Umar descended from the pulpit and said to Abbas: “If Ali does not give me the hand of his daughter, I will do as I have said.” Abbas heard this, came to Ali (a.s.) and told him everything. Ali (a.s.) told Abbas that he was aware of this before Abbas told him but he would never give the hand of his daughter to Umar. Abbas said that Umar was a shameless and vicious person. “If you don’t give the hand of your daughter to Umar, we shall do that to avoid enmity; and we would just think as if this daughter was never born.”

Thus, Abbas told Umar that though Ali (a.s.) refuses to give the daughter, we have no objection. After this, Umar collected the people and said: “Abbas is the uncle of Ali (a.s.). Being more senior in the family, he gives the daughter of Ali (a.s.) to me.”

This is a narration of Shia sect. Commonly, we do not take the reference of traditions from a Shia book. The readers may read whatever they desire in this tradition. Here, I do not invite the opinion of anyone in this regard, but in the knowledge of this writer, the marriage of Umar with Umme Kulthum never took place. Because, according to Ibn Sabbagh this union took place in 17 A.H. At that time, she was definitely of young age. If she had not been so, the Caliph would not have kissed her.

The same Ibn Sabbagh says that Umar married her in the month of Zilqad that year. Doubtlessly, copulation with a girl of this young age is irrational behavior. Apparently, the writer considers this incident baseless.

The research of this writer shows that Umar had actually married Umme Kulthum the daughter of Abu Bakr. The mother of this Umme Kulthum had later married Ali (a.s.) and from this aspect she was Rabia, the daughter of Ali (a.s.). The writer’s derivation is that scholars have related this matter to Umme Kulthum, the daughter of Fatima with some special aim in mind. Ahlul Sunnat scholars have established that on the basis of this marriage, Umar became the son-in-law of the Prophet and therefore was destined to Paradise. Imamiyah scholars have agreed in the authenticity of this incident, because it proves the despotic and evil nature of Umar, which can never make one eligible for Paradise. Anyway, we shall investigate this incident based on the writings of Ahlul Sunnat scholars.

If the research of Ahlul Sunnat is correct, this marriage has many repulsive aspects. What a nice way to make oneself eligible for Paradise? By marrying a young girl while one is 60 years of age and against the wishes of her father; and even when she is betrothed to someone else? Age is also a consideration in the matter of matrimonial match. Just to become eligible for Paradise, a person is bent on making a living being burn in hellfire of this world. That is what must have been the life of Umme Kulthum. Doubtlessly, such behavior cannot be expected from a human being. Such a vicious act requires a great degree of hard heartedness.

The way Umar threatened Ali (a.s.) and he relented by sending her as a bride to Umar is mentioned in Isafur Raghebeen. Umar must have indeed behaved very badly that he threatened to allege fornication to Ali (a.s.). But it is not expected of Ali (a.s.) that he would have sent his daughter to him. He had to maintain silence against his will.

Thus, if the above incident is true, the Bani Hashim had become so weak that a person could obtain the hand of the daughter of the chief of Bani Hashim so easily. I have to show in this book, how different types of insults were heaped on Amirul Mo-mineen. So much so, that at last the incident of Karbala’ happened and after this, the various atrocities that were committed on descendants of the Prophet and descendants of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) (Sadaat).

This incident of the marriage of Umme Kulthum related by Ahlul Sunnat scholars is a very tragic incident indeed. It tells of the pathetic level of the honor of Amirul Mo-mineen. What can one say about the tragic and horrific nature of this incident? Although Mohsinul Mulk has greatly defended the behavior of Umar, but as the Nawab (Mohsinul Mulk) was himself childless, it was not possible for him to put himself in the position of the bride’s father and see what a painful matter it was.

O cruel people of the world! Whether you are Jew or Hindu or Muslims! I ask you, how you would feel when a four or five year daughter of yours, whom you intended to marry to a suitable match, is snatched away forcibly by a sixty year old demon? And when the girl goes to that person before the marriage that beast makes her sit in his lap and kisses her and when she is to return home, he catches hold of her thigh! O parents of young girls! Can you bear such behavior with your daughters? Indeed, your modesty and conscience will scream out, “Never! Never!”

Though Ibn Hajar has justified the kissing of Umar that it was by way of respect, but he has presented no justification for the holding of thigh – May be in the tribe of Ibn Hajar it was a permissible matter for women to have their thighs held by stranger men, that he did not think it required any explanation. In brief, this incident of Umar seems to be an act to hurt Bani Hashim and it can’t be for the love of Paradise. No religion considers forcible marriage to a young girl, a means to obtain Paradise.

According to the belief of Ahlul Sunnat, Umar was one of the ten people who had been guaranteed Paradise according to the Prophetic tradition of Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten)1 Therefore, what was the need for him to insist on marriage to Umme Kulthum? Except that it was a way to further oppress and hurt Bani Hashim. If the people of justice do not call it severe injustice, what else would they say?

Leave alone Shia narrators, the narration in Sunni book itself is sufficient to prove the cruelty and viciousness of the main protagonist. The truth is that if Ahlul Sunnat narration is correct, this girl was forcibly taken from Bani Hashim. The marriage of Umme Kulthum to Ali (a.s.) never took place by the consent of Ali (a.s.). Ali (a.s.) was extremely hateful to Umar (a.s.). Ali (a.s.) knew that Umar was the enemy of his life and property, as it is not hidden from the researchers. It is beyond reason to assume that Ali (a.s.) could have willingly given his daughter’s hand to Umar. The proof is that the Holy Prophet (S) did not give the hand of his daughter to Umar though he had asked for it.

Thus, Ali (a.s.) who followed in the footsteps of Prophet (S), could not go against the practice of Prophet (S) and give his daughter to Umar. It is well known that the refusal of Prophet resulted in Umar becoming hateful to Ali (a.s.) and Fatima and this enmity continued to the end of his life. It is a great misconception among Muslims that Umar and Ali (a.s.) were close friends. In that situation, when there was absolute enmity between them, it is highly improbable that such an affair could have occurred.

Also there was a wide difference between the nature and upbringing of Umar and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Anyway, even if we assume it to be true, as Ahlul Sunnat believe, it is sufficient to say that Umar had great resolve. Because if he failed to obtain the hand of Fatima (s.a.) from the Prophet, he at last succeeded in gaining the hand of such a young daughter of Fatima (s.a.) after all these years. The strength of resolve is a great thing! At last, on the basis of that power, now Umar made himself eligible for Paradise. How great it is to be the master of ones resolve and intention!

____________________

1.Ten persons who received the glad tidings of Paradise.

 

 

 

Now the writer shall discuss the difference between the sects regarding the five holy personages (Panjetan Paak). We should know that the belief of the Purified five is the belief of only Shias and Ahlul Sunnat are not in anyway connected with it. It is so, because Ahlul Sunnat do not consider the verse of Purification to be restricted to Holy Prophet, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.). Neither do they consider that the verse of Malediction (Quran 3:16) to be related to Ali and Fatima (s.a.) specially. They include ‘A’ysha, Zubair and Talha also in the verse of Purification (Quran 33:33). This makes them more than five. It is apparent that due to this the belief of five pure ones does not remain valid.

Some Ahlul Sunnat who seem to be following the belief of Panjetan Paak are actually unprincipled. That which is not in their religion is followed by them only on the basis of their ignorance. Who has prevented such Sunnis from becoming Shias? What is the meaning of having a Shia belief when one is a Sunni?

It is just like some Sunnis cultivate the belief in 14 infallibles, while actually the religion of Ahlul Sunnat has no relation to the belief of 14 infallibles and in the religion of Ahlul Sunnat, there is no place for the Imams except Ali (a.s.) and Imam Mahdi (a.j.). Since Ali (a.s.) is the fourth Caliph of Sunnis he is included in the rightly guided Caliphs.

There are other Imams of Sunnis and according to their belief, Imam Mahdi will appear just before Judgment Day and reform the world, that is why he is mentioned in Sunni belief. Otherwise, the other Imams of Muhammad’s Progeny have neither a place in the list of the twelve Caliphs of Sunnis nor do they have any place in the belief of Ahlul Sunnat.

They do not even consider the rulings of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt valid for their legal problems and also do not accept their views in jurisprudence. On the other hand, Shias believe that the Imams from Ali (a.s.) to Imam Mahdi (a.j.) are successors of the Prophet and they do not consider Caliphate to be divorced from Imamate.

 

 

 

Scholars of Ahlul Sunnat, according to Allamah Damiri, do not separate Caliphate from Imamate and it is a fact that Caliphate cannot be divorced from Imamate. It is meaningless to think that Caliphs may be different from Imams. It is necessary that whoever is the Caliph must also be the Imam. Abdul Qadir Jilani also in his book Ghaniyatu Talibeen, on page 196, mentions the Caliphs with the title of ‘Imams’. Which clearly proves that apart from being Caliphs, these people also held the position of Imams. Thus, when Ahlul Sunnat do not consider the Imams of the family of the Prophet from Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.) to Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) as the Caliphs of the Messenger of Allah (S), then they cannot even consider them as Imams whose obedience is compulsory.

The truth is that Ahlul Sunnat have no religious connection with the Imams from Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.) to Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). Whatever religious relationship Ahlul Sunnat have, it is with Abu Hanifah, Shafei, Malik and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. That is why from among Ahlul Sunnat, except for some Sufi people, there would be hardly one or two people from ten thousand who can recite the names of the 12 Imams of Ahlul Bayt in a serial order.

It is clear that when these Imams have no connection with religion what is the use of remembering their names? When they have no religious standing in the view of non-Imamiyah people it is but natural that the non-Imamiyah people have nothing to do with them. On the other hand is the matter of the Imamiyah sect. Here, even the young children know by heart the names of the twelve Imams (a.s.).

Doubtlessly, it is the need of religion that the names of the Imams are so faithfully recited by the Imamites. If Ahlul Sunnat had a religious connection with the Imams of the family of the Prophet they would have remembered their names in proper order, like the Imamites. Now, before the writer invites the attention of the readers to the tragedy of Karbala’ it seems appropriate to explain the conditions of Amirul Mo-mineen Ali (a.s.).

 

 

 

His name is Ali (a.s.) and agnomen, Abul Hasan and Abu Turab while his respected father’s name was Imran and agnomen, Abu Talib (a.s.); that is why he is called Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.). Abu Talib was the paternal uncle of the virtues and excellences are mentioned in brief below, with the intention of gaining divine rewards.

(1) He was the ward of the Messenger of Allah (S), because when the Holy Prophet (S) was an orphan, Abu Talib (Ali’s father) brought him up and did not allow the sorrow of being orphan to enter his heart. As long as he was alive, he continued to help the Holy Prophet (S) with his life and property and continued to defend him from the attack of the Meccan infidels.1 Till the time he was alive, he did not allow any harm to the Messenger of Allah (S). O respected readers! This caretaking of Ali (a.s.) is not a secret matter. Though bigotry may prevent some to disregard it, the people with insight see it clearly.

(2) He was equal to the Holy Prophet (S) from the aspect of lineage. His blood relationship does not require explanation.

(3) The Holy Prophet (S) used to consider him his life and body, as is the statement of Holy Prophet (S):

“Your flesh is my flesh, your blood is my blood, your self is myself, and your soul is my soul.”

This is a prophetic tradition and to mention the name of Ali without reciting benediction (Salawat) is bad etiquette.

(4) According to the statement of the Holy Prophet (S): “Ali and I are from the same Radiance (Noor).”

This tradition is quoted in writings of great scholars, all of whom consider it to be correct. A large group of scholars consider it correct. But Shah Abul Aziz has taken it as a topic of discussion in his book of Tohfa. What is to be said of this tradition, the whole book of Abdul Aziz looks like a copy of Mulla Kabli. If Mulla Kabli had not there, Tohfa may not have been compiled. This Mulla was a severe opponent of Ahlul Bayt.

Thus, even the Shah has no recourse to his views and by great interpolation, Mulla Kabli has selected this tradition for discussion. But the Moon cannot be hidden by casting mud on it. Those who want to research the authenticity of this tradition, may refer to Nadir Husayn’s Ittehaaful Islam. Indeed, the foundation of Sunnism is opposition of Ahlul Bayt. They cannot see a single merit of Ahlul Bayt. To select this tradition for investigation was the job of Mulla Kabli and Shah Abdul Aziz.

(5) He was the son-in-law of the Prophet and such a son-in-law that he was the husband of the pride of womenfolk, Fatima Zahra (s.a.).

(6) He is one of the folks of the cloak (Kisa). That is, those who had entered the blanket of the Holy Prophet (S) by his permission and the Holy Prophet (S) had recited the verse of Purification after taking him in the blanket.2

(7) He is from the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet. Allah the Almighty has addressed him, his wife and his sons by the title of Ahlul Bayt, as mentioned in the above verse and also apparent from traditions of the Holy Prophet (S).

(8) He is one of the Holy Five (Panjetan Paak). They include the Holy Prophet (S), Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.). That they are pure, is proved from the verse of Purification3 and also from the verse of Malediction.4

(9) He is one of the Fourteen Infallibles. The Fourteen Infallibles consist of the Holy Prophet (S), Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and the Twelve Imams. Ibn Abbas relates the following tradition with regard to the Twelve Imams. A Jew named Nathal, came to the Messenger of Allah (S) and said: “O Muhammad! I question you because I have straitness in my chest. If you can reply my questions, I will accept Islam at your hands. Thus, tell me who your legatee is? Our Prophet Moosa (a.s.) had appointed Yusha Ibn Noon as his legatee.” The Holy Prophet (S) said:

“My legatee and my successor after me, is Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and after him his sons, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) and after that nine descendants from the loins of Husayn (a.s.) shall be the righteous Imams.” The Jews asked him to state their names. The Messenger of Allah (S) said: “After Husayn, shall be Ali, son of Husayn, then Muhammad Baqir, then Ja’far as-Sadiq, then Moosa Kazim, then Ali ar-Reza, then Muhammad al-Jawad, then Ali al-Hadi, then Hasan Askari and then Hujjatullah al-Mahdi (Peace be upon them forever). Thus, these are the twelve Imams, like the twelve tribes of Bani Israel.”

The Jew asked him where they would reside? Holy Prophet (S) said that they shall be in Paradise in his grade. Then this Jew began to recite the formula of faith: “There is no god except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (S)”, and said that these are the right successors. “It is the same that I have found in the book of Moosa (a.s.). That the Prophet of the last age will be born and his name shall be Ahmad. And after him there shall be no prophethood and after him shall be Twelve Pure Imams.”

This tradition is recorded by Shobi and Kashful Ghumma and other scholars like Khwarizmi, Hamuyi, Juwaini, Ibn Najjar and Abdullah bin Ahmad continued to include it in their writings. It should be clear that it was with regard to those who are purified of all small and greater sins. Thus, just like Holy Prophet (S) is infallible, In the same way, are Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and other Twelve Imams. It is the belief of this writer that the fourteen are purified of all small and great sins. But the non-Imamiyah do not consider anyone infallible, except the Holy Prophet (S) an d rather, there is a sect of Ahlul Sunnat that does not consider even Holy Prophet (S) as infallible except at the time of getting divine revelation. We seek Allah’s refuge from such infa my!

(10) He is the first of the twelve Imams of the family of Holy Prophet (S). It should be clear that the Twelve Imams are as follows:

The first Imam is Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.), second, Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba, third, Imam Husayn, the Martyr of Karbala’, fourth, the chief of those who prostrate, the ornament of the worshipper, Imam Sajjad (a.s.), fifth, Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.), sixth, Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), seventh, Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.), eighth, Imam Ali ar-Reza (a.s.), ninth, Imam Muhammad Taqi (a.s.), tenth, Imam Ali an-Naqi (a.s.), eleventh, Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.), twelfth, Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi, the Master of the Age and the time. Peace be upon them till Judgment Day.

These infallible Imams are the successors of the Holy Prophet (S) and they were the guardians of religion after him. All the descendants of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) (Sadaat) are related to these personages. And according to Ibn Qutaibah there was a time when all the Sadaat followed the religion of these Imams. The excellence of these beloved ones of the Prophet is beyond computation. The followers of the family of the Prophet may invoke blessings upon them.

(11) He, Ali (a.s.) is also from Ahlul Bayt according to the verse of Malediction.5 Muslim relates from Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas that when this verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet (S) called Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) and said: “O Allah! These are my Ahlul Bayt.”

(12) Ali (a.s.) was the favorite and most beloved to the Holy Prophet (S) than other people. As proved from the tradition of the Roasted Bird, which Tirmidhi and Hakim have recorded. The tradition is as follows: “One day the Holy Prophet (S) was presented with a roasted bird and he prayed to Allah to send to him one who was the most beloved to Allah from His creatures, so that he could accompany the Prophet in partaking of the bird.”

Anas bin Malik the narrator of this tradition says that he used to pray that such a person should be from his people, that is the Helpers (Ansar). But after sometime Ali Ibn Abi Talib came and shared the bird with the Prophet.

(13) Ali (a.s.) was the brother of the Prophet in religion and the world, as the Prophet said: “You are my brother in the world and in the Hereafter.”

(14) Ali (a.s.) was to the Prophet like Haroon was to Moosa (a.s.) as the tradition says: “You are to me in position as Haroon was to Moosa (a.s.).”6

(15) Ali (a.s.) and the Prophet, is bestowed with the same position, as the Prophet has said: “Indeed, Ali (a.s.) is to me and I am from him and he is the guardian of all the believers.” This tradition is recorded by Tirmidhi from Imran bin Husayn. Apart from this, the tradition of Radiance (Noor) and the tradition of “your flesh is my flesh...” also prove his oneness with the Prophet.

It seems that Umar was not aware of these traditions; otherwise, he would not have behaved so rudely with Ali (a.s.). Like the statements of Umar: “I will strike your neck,” and “You are not the brother of the Prophet,” etc.

(16) Ali (a.s.) is the Guardian and Master (Maula) of all the believers as proved from the above tradition and the tradition of Ghadeer: “Of whomsoever, I am the Master, this Ali is also his master.” Those who have construed Maula to mean friend and beloved have ignored the position of Mastership of the Holy Prophet (S), because the position of Ali (a.s.) with regard to the Holy Prophet (S) informs us that he was the confidant of the Holy Prophet (S) and nothing else. This implies that the position of the Holy Prophet (S) with regard to the believers is the same that Ali (a.s.) had with them.

In the words of Shah Hasanali, a Sunni scholar from Rae Bareily, the tradition of Ghadeer shows the Mastership of the Holy Prophet (S) to the believers. Traditions do not have the scope to limit the Mastership of the Holy Prophet (S) to the believers and that Ali (a.s.) is only a friend! That with regard to the Holy Prophet (S) the word Maula is taken as master but with regard to Ali (a.s.) its meaning is taken to be as a helper and friend! The words of these traditions are neither ambiguous nor difficult to understand by a common man, neither is it against reason, however, if one creates needless controversies in it, it is another matter.

Indeed, the love of Ali (a.s.) is an affair decreed by Allah; He bestows it on whomsoever He wishes. The attributing of special connotations to the verses of Quran and traditions of the Prophet shows the animosity of Ahlul Sunnat to Ahlul Bayt. Though they might not admit it, all their interpretations and derivations clearly show that the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is based on the enmity of Ahlul Bayt.

(17) Ali (a.s.) was fully qualified to fulfill the rights of the Holy Prophet (S) according to the tradition: “Ali is from me and I am from Ali and no one is qualified to fulfill my right except Ali (a.s.) and I.” The narrator of this tradition is Jash bin Junada and this tradition is related to the annulment of the treaty with the polytheists.

Initially, Abu Bakr was sent with the verses of Surah Baraat to announce them to the people of Mecca, but revelation descended on the Prophet that he should either deliver the verses himself or someone of his caliber must do it. The Prophet dispatched Ali (a.s.) to take the verses from Abu Bakr and announce them himself to the Meccans. Thus, this happened and Abu Bakr returned to Medina. This shows that either Ali (a.s.) has the right to explain the meaning of revelation or the Prophet himself. This is the fact, but opponents of Ali (a.s.) hide his excellences. We seek refuge in Allah!

(18) Ali (a.s.) was born in the Kaaba and martyred in the Kufa Mosque. He began his worldly life in the Holy House and ended it in the house of Allah. Whatever he achieved, it was from the house of the Almighty. This was the special excellence exclusive to Ali (a.s.) but to undermine it, in the 3rd century A.H. a tradition was concocted that Ibn Hazm was also born in the Holy Kaaba, while this tradition has no firm basis and it is only a product of Sunni imagination. The birth of Ali (a.s.) in the Kaaba is mentioned in the books of Tarikh Khamis, and Tazkeratul Khawas of Sibt Ibn Jauzi etc.

(19) Ali (a.s.), according to apparent causes, was the first to accept Islam. Thus he says: “I preceded you all in the acceptance of Islam.” This shows that he was the first to accept Islam through apparent causes, but the reality is that when he and Holy Prophet (S) are from the same Radiance (Noor), they cannot be associated with polytheism and disbelief in any way.

(20) He was the owner of great knowledge and wisdom as apparent from the tradition: “I am the abode of wisdom and Ali is its door.” The narrator of this tradition is Tirmidhi. This tradition is also famous with the words. “I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate.” His sermons, letters and sayings tell us that he had great intellectual accomplishment.

(21) He was a great scholar of Quran as an Imam should be.

(22) The Holy Prophet (S) has mentioned Ali (a.s.) and the Holy Quran together as seen in the tradition: “The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with Quran.” This tradition is included by Tibrani in Al-Awasaat.7

(23) Ali (a.s.) was the ‘Speaking Quran’ as apparent from his own words; and only one who is strayed forever will consider him untruthful.

(24) Ali (a.s.) is included in the progeny of the Holy Prophet (S) and therefore is of the same caliber as the Book of Allah. Holy Prophet (S) says:

“O people! I leave among you two things. If you attach yourselves to both of them, you shall never go astray. They are the book of Allah and my progeny, my Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).”

Progeny and Ahlul Bayt mean the same. It denotes Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.). It is surprising of some people to think that it denotes only the descendants. What is the meaning of such aloofness from the progeny and Ahlul Bayt of Mustafa (S)? It is apparent that the religion of non-Imamiyah is based on the opposition of Ahlul Bayt. Everywhere, the non-Imamiyah have created innovative excuses with regard to the position of Ahlul Bayt. What a good way of obeying the command of Allah and His Prophet (S)!

(25) Ali (a.s.) had an astounding and admirable ability to adjudicate, as the Holy Prophet (S) had said: “Seek your judgments from Ali (a.s.).” Indeed, his legal judgments were such that the people of that time used to see them with astonishment and after him people used to say that legal cases are there, but Abul Hasan is not there to judge them.

(26) He was absolutely kind, forbearing, modest, forgiving, brave and courageous, pure, contented and truthful. He was pious, and the most knowledgeable. He was the giver of knowledge, patient and thanks-giver. He was a striver, the one who was constant in his efforts. He was best in mannerism, attributes and views and always spoke the truth. He was content with less, understanding, purified, obedient and a seer. His excellences cannot be all be expressed in words. The writer has mentioned these qualities only to derive divine rewards, otherwise, there is no intention to convey that he had only the above excellences.

Mr. Carlyle writes about Ali (a.s.): “This young man was such that he would be liked all. In such a young age, he promised to help the Prophet. This and other qualities of this young man show that he was of a fine creation and accomplished in many fields. Before the fire of whose valor nothing could survive. His nature had a strange kind of valor.” After quoting these words the writer of Ittihaful Islam says: “Here it would not be out of place to say that a High court Judge of Bombay had mentioned in his judgment: ‘Everyone liked Ali and he deserved it too.’”

It was in the time when the brave ones of the Arab were spread in the horizon (in large numbers). His title was the Victorious Lion of Allah. And people used to call him the ‘bravest of the Arabs? Bravery, valor, wisdom, charity and piety, all were perfected in him. He has very few equals in history. The writer of Ittihaaf further writes that when the sister of Amr Ibn Wudd came to the dead body of her brother and saw that his corpse had not been stripped of clothes, she said: “Indeed! Your slayer was honorable and kind.

If it had not been so, I would have cried for a brave lion like you forever. But now I will not mourn you.” Saying this she recited some couplets: “If the killer of Amr had been someone else, I would have wept for him the whole life. But his killer is such as not having any kind of defect. He is such a person and the title of the father of this person is known to the world as the refuge of the city.”

(27) Love of Ali (a.s.) is incumbent on believers. His opponent cannot be a believer. Holy Prophet (S) says: “The hypocrite will never love Ali and the believer shall never hate Ali (a.s.).” Tirmidhi has related this tradition from Umme Salma. We should know that love of Ali is belief, but the interpretation of this tradition has been greatly distorted.

(28) There are a large number of Quranic verses that speak of his excellences. Here we shall mention some of them:

(a) “Only Allah is your Wali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.”8

This verse is related to the incident when Ali (a.s.) gave his ring in charity, while he was bowing down in prayers.

(b) “O you who believe! Be careful of (your duty to) Allah and be with the true ones.”9

In this verse the ‘true ones’ implies Ali (a.s.):10

(c) “And (as for) those who believe in Allah and His apostles, those it is that are the truthful...”11

This verse was revealed for Ali (a.s.), Ja’far at-Tayyar and Hamza Ibn Abdul Muttalib. In this verse, the Almighty has referred to these persons as truthful and witnesses:12

(d) “and a witness from Him recites it.”13

This verse is revealed for Ali Murtadha’ (a.s.). All the scholars are unanimous about the circumstances of revelation of this verse:

(e) “and (there is) a guide for every people.”14

Hafiz Abu Naeem, Abdullah Ibn Abbas and Thalabi have all associated this verse with Ali (a.s.). In addition to these verses, the following are also with regard to Ali (a.s.):

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people.”15

“This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion.”16

“They fulfill vows...”17

(29) Ali (a.s.) never allowed his self to interfere in the limits demarcated by Allah. Whenever he feared selfishness to enter in this area he performed such astounding acts so as to leave no scope of selfish desires. Thus one day it so happened that Ali (a.s.) faced a strong infidel in the battlefield and after much efforts, he succeeded in throwing him down. When he lifted his sword to kill him, the infidel spat at the holy face of Ali (a.s.). Ali (a.s.), at once clambered down from his chest.

This strange behavior of Ali (a.s.) made the infidel ask: “O Ali! You subdued me with such difficulty but when the time came to slay me, you went away from me?” Ali (a.s.) said that he had intended to kill the infidel according to the command of Allah and not for his selfish desires. “But when you spat on me, my slaying you would have been contaminated by selfish motives. That is why I moved away from you and did not kill you.” The infidel heard his effective speech and became a Muslim.

(30) Ali (a.s.) attained the status of martyrdom, also, which in itself is a great honor. His martyrdom occurred in Kufa. Abdur Rahman Ibn Muljim, the paramour of Qatama was his killer. Ali (a.s.) was an embodiment of mercy and forgiveness and he did not deprive even his killer from his mercy.

(31) Ali (a.s.) used to labor with the intention of earning lawful sustenance. For example, he used to draw water from wells on payment.

(32) The staple diet of Ali (a.s.) was meager, and merely barley bread and that was too with the aim of survival. His dress was similarly simple and bereft of embellishments.

(33) Ali (a.s.) used to give preference to the needs of others over his own needs. He never used to spurn beggars. Once he kept three fasts of vow with his wife and son and their maid. In order to break their fasts, he borrowed some barley from Shamoon, the Jew. Those who fasted, grinded the barley and baked bread loaves out of them. In the evening, when Ali (a.s.) sat down to break the fast with his family members, a beggar arrived at their door and begged for food. Ali (a.s.) gave him the victuals that he had arranged for the breaking of the fast. Ali (a.s.) and his family members broke their fast with water and went to bed.

The same thing happened on the second and third day also. God is the greatest! What generosity, that was not to be seen anywhere in the world. This was only the achievement of Ali (a.s.) and his family members. Without divine help, it is not possible for man to perform such feats. The same incident is alluded to in the Holy Quran in the verse:

“And fulfill their vows.”

(34) He was the owner of a perfect recognition of Allah. He had such a belief in the Almighty that anything more than this is impossible. As he himself has said: “Even if all the curtains were removed, it will not result in any increase in my belief.” Of what grade was his belief in Allah? Can anyone define it?

(35) Ali (a.s.) used to consider this world worthless as was apparent from every act and statement of his. He had no worldly possessions. He used to eat barley bread and wear coarse clothes. He often sat on the ground, busy in the remembrance of Allah. That is why the Holy Prophet (S) and the people of his time referred to him by the title of Abu Turab. We should know that his piety and humility was of a unique hue. His statements exhibited a disdain of worldly things. One of his statements is often quoted that shows us the grade of his insight. One day he was sitting in the Medina Mosque and he was fasting. A traveler came to him at the time of breaking the fast. Ali (a.s.) gave him half the barley bread.

This person realized that half the bread would not satiate his hunger so he went to the place where Imam Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) were distributing food to the poor. The brothers gave him a share sufficient for one person. He took it and then asked for one more share. The Imams (a.s.) asked him why he alone wanted two shares.

He said that there was a needy person at the mosque who had nothing to eat. “And that he had one loaf of bread out of which he gave me half.” I want to take a share for him. The Imams (a.s.) told him to describe this person. When he did so, the young Imams said that he was not a needy person, he was their respected father. What a great act of piety was seen in the manners of Ali (a.s.)!

(36) He is a Sayyid (chief) in his own right just as the Messenger of Allah (S) is. That is why, his children, even though not by the womb of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) are also Sayyid. The Sadaat who are not from the progeny of Fatima are called Alawite Sadaat. It should be clear that Allah bestows to the Holy Five, piety and chieftainship. Fatima Zahra is not a chief lady (Sayyida) only because she was the daughter of the Prophet, but she is so due to her own right.

In the same way, Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (a.s.) are chiefs (Sayyids) in their own right. We should know that being a Sayyid is a great bounty and there is no bounty greater than that. The Sayyids of today are obliged to value this bounty and remain on the practice of their forefathers. They should follow their ancestors in perfection; that is the Holy Imams (a.s.). They must see that their names are protected from being sullied. They must not corrupt their pure generations by falling into worldly passions.

(37) Ali (a.s.) was very hospitable and hospitability was personified in him. Even today the trait of hospitability is seen among those Sadaat who follow the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

(38) Both his killer and those who were killed by him are from the inmates of Hell. Recently a mischievous writer had written in a newsletter that Ali (a.s.) was the killer of Uthman. The other followers of Muawiyah and Yazeed had also heaped this allegation. Thus, a person of this same mentality asked Maulana Shamsuddin Fakhuzi, about his view regarding Ali (a.s.), whether he was the killer of Uthman? The respected Maulana replied: “Uthman would have been doomed to perdition if Ali (a.s.) had killed him.”

(39) One who makes war to him wages a war against Holy Prophet (S). The Messenger of Allah (S) said regarding Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.):

“I am at war with one who wages a war against them and I am at peace with one who is at peace with them.”

(40) The Prophet was very much attached to Ali (a.s.) as mentioned in the tradition of Atiyyah related by his companion. It says: “The Holy Prophet (S) sent a contingent of army in which Ali (a.s.) was also present. Then we heard the Holy Prophet (S) pray with his hands raised:

‘O Allah! Do not make me die, till You have shown Ali to me once more.’”

This is related by Tirmidhi. Indeed, the beloved one is different from others.

(41) Just as Ali (a.s.) received the daughter of the Prophet in marriage, he was bestowed Zulfiqar (the sword) by the Almighty. In the words of Mulla Kashi (a.s.): “Ali (a.s.) had got from Allah and Mustafa, the sword and the daughter respectively.”

(42) On the night of migration (Hijrat), he risked his life and slept on the Prophet’s bed. There is no equal of this valor anywhere. Even the prophets experienced fear to their lives. Moosa (a.s.) himself was fearful on seeing his staff turn into a serpent, but Ali, the son of Abi Talib slept in that place all night long. Jibraeel (a.s.) who was with him the whole night by the command of Allah used to say: “Congratulation to you, O son of Abi Talib, who can be equal to you? And the angels of the Almighty send greetings to you.” After this, the Almighty revealed the following verse in praise of Ali (a.s.):

“And among man is he who sells himself to seek the pleasure of Allah; and Allah is Affectionate to the servants.18” 19

(43) Ali (a.s.) was nurtured since infancy by the Holy Prophet (S). He sucked at the tongue of the Messenger of Allah (S) after birth and was washed by him first of all. He was the first to pray with Holy Prophet (S).

(44) Ali (a.s.) climbed on the shoulders of the Messenger of Allah (S) to break the idols and this position was not bestowed to anyone else.

(45) Ali (a.s.) was like Adam (a.s.) vis-à-vis his knowledge. He possessed the status of Allah’s friendship, like Ibrahim (a.s.), his awe was like that of Moosa (a.s.) and worship, like that of Isa (a.s.).

(46) Ali (a.s.) was the executor of the last rites of Holy Prophet (S). He himself was bathed and shrouded by the angels. It is apparent that if he had left the body of the Prophet unbathed and unshrouded, the angels would not have performed his funeral bath or shrouding.

(47) Ali (a.s.) had the permission to enter the Prophet’s Mosque even in the state of ritual impurity by the leave of the Holy Prophet (S). This permission was granted to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) and no one else. This shows that he and all the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), on the basis of the verse of purification, are ritually pure in every condition. God is the greatest! What a high position is it of the holy Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Anyone other than Ahlul Bayt are not even remotely having these qualities.

(48) Ali and the Imams (a.s.) of his progeny are mentioned in heavenly books: “like the people of knowledge have nothing to fear.”20

(49) He judged according to the verdict of four scriptures, In the same way, the other Imams (a.s.) also had the ability to judge by the divine books.

(50) Ali (a.s.) never usurped the right of anyone. This is not an insignificant quality.

(51) Ali (a.s.) never spilt a drop of blood without justifiable cause. He never oppressed those who were subdued by him in war. He never abused the prisoners of war. Neither did he kill any of the prisoners of war nor advised the Holy Prophet (S) to do so. He always avoided all types of mischief. Time and again he advised the third Caliph to act in a manner that would have been beneficial for him. But he did not heed the advice of Ali (a.s.) and instead sought the counsel of Marwan etc. And finally the consequences were same, as there had to be by keeping bad company.

(52) He was very sharp and solved legal problems on the spur of the moment. The writer cannot quote examples of this type, as it would lengthen the discussion. Otherwise, there are many such examples.

(53) Islam was victorious by the help of his strength and steadfastness. It was the sword of Ali (a.s.) and none else that made Islam a powerful force in Medina and subjected Mecca to Medina and subdued all the bad wishers of Mecca. Without any doubt, the Islam of the time owed ninety percent of its success to Ali (a.s.). No one can deny this. There was no one more helpful to Islam during the lifetime of Holy Prophet (S) than Ali (a.s.). And from the aspect of courage and bravery there is none equal to Ali (a.s.). Without any doubt, Ali (a.s.) was the hero of Islam. In addition to this heroism, he possessed other praiseworthy qualities that are specific to prophets and saints of Allah.

But it is surprising that no Ahlul Sunnat scholar of this age has penned the biography of Ali (a.s). Even if one has done it, it is in a way that every point mentioned therein leads one to conclude that Ali (a.s.) was inferior to the first three Caliphs. The writer would not have complained if the research scholars had not been busy in biographical works. What a pity that no one writes about Ali (a.s.) and a drunkard, wanton Caliph of Bani Abbas is included among the heroes of Islam and pages are written in his false praise. But even a two-page biography of Ali (a.s.) is not written.

O Muslims! Is it just, that a person to whom the Islam of the Prophet’s age was indebted, should not even be included among the heroes of Islam? And even two lines are not published to describe him? If this is the judgment of Muslim scholars then Islam can never gain any benefit from such writers. Destruction of truth is a bad thing, especially the loss of the rights of Ahlul Bayt. This harmed Islam and shall continue to harm in the future.

Even now these people are busy in concealing the virtues of Ahlul Bayt. Otherwise, all their efforts to serve Islam will be in vain. The divinity of Allah continues due to justice. It is not possible for a building of success to be constructed on the foundation of injustice. May Allah give Muslims the ability to discern right from wrong.

Anyway, now the writer shall present the details of how the courage and martial prowess of Ali defended Islam and kept it safe from subjugation. The truth is that Islam would not have survived without the sword of Ali (a.s.). This is not a conjecture, it is based on reality and actual events.

It is a pity that very few people of the Muslim world are aware of this information. The reason for this lack of knowledge is that very few people are attracted to the study of history. Also, the concealment of truth and usurpation of rights have been made a part and parcel of the Muslim faith. The concealment of truth and usurpation of rights is seen on a large scale. The benefactor of Islam, Ali (a.s.), was not accepted as the successor of the Holy Prophet (S) and people like Abu Bakr and Umar, who had no power to defend Islam during the Prophet’s lifetime, became Caliphs and successors of the Prophet. The discussion presented below will clarify to the people of discrimination, the difference between the Caliphs and Ali (a.s.).

The truth is that no relationship of anyone, other that Ali (a.s.), is seen with the defense of Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet (a.s.). Bigotry and partiality are different and there is no equal standard to allow us to compare Ali (a.s.) with these people. History and traditions clearly show that the three Caliphs have not even a simple achievement to their credit in the Prophet’s lifetime. Below, we mention the accounts of the battles that saved Islam from destruction.

After a study of these battles, the people of justice have no recourse except to confess that it was the sword of Ali (a.s.) alone that protected the religion of Muhammad (S) from becoming extinct. These battles do not show any contribution of the three Caliphs.

It should be clear that when the Holy Prophet (S) was forced to flee Mecca, he took refuge in Medina and the people of Medina accepted Islam. Due to the acceptance of Islam by its people, Medina became an Islamic town. When the infidels of Mecca saw that the Prophet has reached Medina and established himself and Islam successfully there, they were filled with malice and jealousy and they began to plot an attack on Medina to destroy the nascent faith.

With this intention, the Meccan chiefs mobilized an army and marched to Medina. The first battle of the Muslims with infidels occurred at the spring of Badr. If Muslims had been defeated there, the extinction of the religion of the Prophet would have been certain.

_______________________

1.Refer to books of History

2.Quran 33:33

3.Quran 33:33

4.Quran 3:61

5.Quran 3:61

6.Refer Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim

7.Refer Darasatul Labeeb, Pg. 1212

8.Surah Maidah 5:55

9.Surah Taubah 9:119

10.Refer Tafseer Thalabi etc.

11.Surah Hadid 57:19

12.Ref. Musnad Hanbal; Tafseer of Thalabi.

13.Surah Hud 11:17

14.Surah Raad 13:7

15.Surah Maidah 5:67

16.Surah Maidah 5:3

17.Surah Insan 76:7

18.Surah Baqarah 2:207

19.Refer Tarikh Khamis, Tafseer Kabeer, Rauzatul Ahbab, Matalibus Sooul, Tafseer Thalabi, Ihya-ul-uloom of Ghazzali, Tadkeratul Khawas of Sibte Ibn Jawzi, Maarijun Nubuwwah and Madarijun Nubuwwah etc.

20.Ref. the Taurat of Moosa (a.s.).

 

 

 

It is well known that the Battle of Badr is equal to the Battle of Bridge of the time of Constantine.

This battle was fought within 100 years after Christ between the Christians and their enemies. If Constantine had been defeated, the success of Christianity would not have been possible. In the same way, if the Battle of Badr had ended in the defeat of Muslims, Islam could have been finished. We should know that no religion could be established without struggle and war. Establishment and popularity of a religion is only possible by armed struggle and war.

Although Jesus Christ himself did not wage any war, it is well known that his religion spread in the world on the strength of the sword. Millions have perished in the wars that led to the dominance of Christianity. It is also well known that the Prophet undertook all military expeditions as the last resort. The conditions were such that there was no course open, except to undertake a war.

In this very Battle of Badr, we see that the infidels of Mecca were the first to mobilize an army. Do you suppose the Holy Prophet (S) could have allowed the infidels to enter Medina and destroy Islam? So if he had not confronted them, what else could he have done? This battle was the natural response. If such a situation arises even today, everyone will advocate that facing the enemies in battle is a necessary thing.

The infidels of Mecca were inimical to the Holy Prophet (S) to such an extent that while he was in Mecca, they tortured him and even when he fled to Medina, they left no option to pursue and destroy him. They attacked again and again. Still the enemies of Islam blame Islam in this regard. They blame the Prophet for having taken recourse to war and causing bloodshed!

Now readers are requested to study the Battle of Badr carefully and decide for themselves the true causes; also how the Battle of Badr was fought and what feats the sword of Ali (a.s.) performed in this battle? History mentions that when the Meccan army arrayed itself against the Muslims, three warriors emerged from within the ranks of Meccans and challenged the Muslims.

There was no response from the Muslim side except Ali, Hamza and Abu Ubaidah bin Harith bin Abdul Muttalib, who were all Hashemites. These three people first praised the Bani Hashim and performed great feats of bravery. With them, the other Helpers (Ansar) and other people of the Muslim army also participated in the battle and performed great feats of valor. Seventy infidels were killed and seventy taken captives and of the seventy killed, thirty-six were killed by Ali (a.s.) alone. Most of the others were sent to Hell by the sword of Hamza. The name of each of the slained ones is recorded in books of history.

In brief, the Battle of Badr is that on which depended the future of Islam. If Islam had been defeated, it would have been destroyed completely. Then neither had there been Islam after this nor had there been Caliphs of the Holy Prophet (S). Umar and Abu Bakr were present in this battle but no historical statement proves any of their contribution. As for Abu Bakr, Suyuti writes that he was in the company of the Prophet, defending him. The fact is that Abu Bakr was not a man of battlefields.

As for Umar, he also did not play any active role because in that case he would have to confront his maternal uncle, Abu Jahl. In such a situation, it was the sword of Ali (a.s.) and none else that strengthened the roots of Islam during the time of the Prophet and continued to do so in the future too. Finally, Islam became such a strong tree that even the Choesroe and Caesar of Rome could not subdue it.

 

 

 

When the Quraish of Mecca suffered a terrible defeat and their leaders, like Abu Jahl were killed, there arose among them a passion for revenge. Thus, the very next year of Badr, the infidels of Quraish marched to Medina in a state of great preparedness. From here, the Holy Prophet (S) took with himself the Emigrants (Muhajireen) and Helpers (Ansar) from Medina and came out to confront them. The armies of Islam and the Quraish faced each other besides Mount Uhud. Abu Sufyan was the leader of infidel army, because his sons and relatives were put to sword by Ali (a.s.) in the Battle of Badr; that is why he arranged the battalions painstakingly.

The Quraish women also accompanied their army, playing instruments of war music and singing war songs to instigate the Quraish army and to encourage it to take the revenge of those slain in Badr. The chief of these female Satans was Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan about whom Hakim Sinai had written a Persian couplet. When the battle began, the Islamic army had the upper hand but they soon busied themselves in collecting war booty.1

The Muslims had forgotten the instructions of the Holy Prophet (S). That is, he had instructed fifty archers to remain at the mouth of the valley, but when the booty was being gathered, they left their positions and jumped into the field to collect their share of booty fearing that they would be deprived of it. Quraish saw these changed circumstances and they collected their remaining men and launched a fresh attack on the Islamic army. The army of Muslims was taken by surprise and most of them fled the battlefield including Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, such that there was no sign of them. (We shall discuss in detail the flight of these three later in this book).

Only the Emigrants of Bani Hashim, who were the relatives of the Prophet, remained firm on the battlefield. In the same way, the Helpers also remained rooted there and continued to encourage each other. The writer of Madarijun Nubuwwah, Shaykh Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlavi, writes: “When the Muslims suffered defeat, they left the Prophet alone and fled from the battlefield. (What a faith these people had!). At that moment, the Prophet became angry and perspiration flowed from his forehead. When he looked besides him, he saw Ali (a.s.) firm at his position. He asked Ali (a.s.) why he had not fled with his brothers? Ali (a.s.) replied: “There cannot be disbelief after belief. Indeed, I am having the power with you.”2

This shows that in the view of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), deserting Holy Prophet (S) in the battlefield was equal to disbelief. According to the writer, it seems appropriate to ask how can those who flee from the Holy Prophet (S) in such circumstances be considered believers? To call them of perfect faith is to degrade faith itself. Anyway, at that time, a group of infidels attacked the Holy Prophet (S). The Prophet asked Ali (a.s.) to defend him from the attackers, and serve him as it was wont to serve.

Since it was the time to serve as per the command of the Holy Prophet (S), Ali (a.s.) turned to the attackers and dispersed them in a swift manner sending an infidel to Hell. After this, the praised traditionalist says that when Ali (a.s.) performed this feat, the Holy Prophet (S) said regarding Ali (a.s.): “Indeed, he is from me and I am from him.” And Jibraeel (a.s.) said: “I am from both of you.”3 The writer further says that an unseen voice was heard: ‘Laa Fatha illa Ali, Laa Sayf illa Zulfiqar’ (There is no victor except Ali (a.s.) and there is no sword except Zulfiqar).4

He also writes that the following supplication: Naade A’liyyan Maz’harul Ajaaibi Tajidho Aunallaka Finnawaaibi Kulli Hammin wa Ghammin Sayanjali. Bi A’liyyin, bi A’liyyin, bi A’liyyin, bi A’liyyin.5 [Call Ali, the one who shows extraordinary wonders of God. You shall find him a helper in every difficulty and calamity. By Ali! By Ali! By Ali!] was revealed in the Battle of Uhud. The statement of the traditionist shows that these four sentences are revealed words and they were not the words of a human being, they are the words of Allah, which were revealed for Ali (a.s.).

Glory be to Allah, what a pure personality Ali (a.s.) had, and how he was the true helper of Islam and one who risked his life for the Holy Prophet (S). How he saved Islam from destruction in Badr and became the savior of Prophet’s life in Uhud. He routed the enemies of the Holy Prophet (S). O people who like the truth. Is there any other person who has such an achievement to his credit in the service of the Prophet? Is it just to consider at par a person who did not care for his life in defending the Prophet to those who were accustomed to flee from the battlefield? Shall we not consider this person fit for the successorship of the Prophet?

How can such a person be considered inferior and the one who fled be considered superior? If you consider this with justice, you would definitely agree that cowards who flee the battlefield cannot be true successors of the Messenger of Allah (S). Even though people may have accepted them as Caliphs, such people cannot be Caliphs of Prophet or be Imams.

Every just person will agree that deserting a friend in times of peril is indeed an act of cowardice. Whatever people may call such cowards is appropriate. But what could be said regarding those who left the Prophet in such circumstances? Or tried to avoid risking their lives in defense of the Messenger of Allah (S). Without doubt, these people do not deserve to be called the people of perfect faith. Over and above, Ali (a.s.) is considered inferior to these people and the distinguishing qualities and unsurpassable feats are ignored.

Books of history and biography state that 65 to 70 people from the Muslim army were martyred, out of which 61 were from the Helpers (Ansar). Only 3 or 4 Emigrants (Muhajireen) were killed and they were from the relatives of the Prophet. None of the ordinary Emigrants (Muhajireen) were injured or killed. We should understand the faith and loyalty of Emigrants (Muhajireen) from this. Leave alone common people, who can be more distinguished than the trio of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. But these too followed the laymen of Emigrants and fled the battlefield.

Apparently, it seems that except for Holy Prophet (S), the Bani Hashim and the Helpers, none of the Emigrants participated in battles. This was an account of Badr and Uhud; the same condition is seen in the later wars also. The most tragic event of this battle is the martyrdom of Mir Hamza. His martyrdom was a great tragedy for the Holy Prophet (S). He was a great supporter and helper of the army of Allah and he sacrificed his life in utmost bravery for Islam; Surely we belong to Allah and to Him we shall return.

A terrible incident is recorded in history in connection with this battle. It is that after Hamza fell, Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, cut out his liver and chewed upon it. She dismembered his ears and nose and made a garland of them and wore them around her unclean neck. This evil deed of Hind shows what type of a woman she was.

Also it shows the level of degradation of the tribe of which she was a member. This woman was from Bani Umayyah and Bani Umayyah was a tribe of Quraish notorious for cheating, murder, killing, drinking and adultery. The Holy Prophet (S) despised this clan greatly and his hatred of them continued till he passed away.

Thus, Imran Ibn Husayn has related that the Messenger of Allah (S) passed away hating three tribes: Saqif, Bani Hanifah and Bani Umayyah. Shah writes in his Sharh that the Messenger of Allah (S) had a dream in which he saw monkeys jumping on his pulpit and he explained his dream that the monkeys denoted Bani Umayyah. This indeed became a reality after he passed away from the world. Bani Umayyah became powerful by their machinations and intrigue. Shaam (Syria) came under their control and later they controlled all the Islamic lands. They continued to rule from the Prophet’s pulpit in a blatant way.

What a pity that a tribe which the Messenger of Allah (S) had weakened and routed in his lifetime, regained its strength and also became much more powerful after his death. If only this tribe had been prevented from gaining power. If this tribe had been left in its degraded state, neither Ali (a.s.) had been troubled nor the Bani Hashim subjected to mental and physical torture and neither Miqdad and other supporters of Ali (a.s.) suffered insults, nor Talha and Zubair had gone back from their allegiance, or ‘A’ysha had fought the Battle of Jamal, or ‘A’ysha had been killed by being thrown into a well, or Imam Hasan had been poisoned, nor Imam Husayn had been martyred in the desert of Karbala’, nor the sons of Imam (a.s.) had been killed in a cruel manner. Or the inmates of harem had been taken out as prisoners through the streets of Kufa and Shaam. Doubtlessly, the empowerment of Bani Umayyah was very harmful to Muslims. Bani Hashim were made to pay for the Battle of Badr and Uhud.

Here the writer wishes to ask as to who it was who injected a new life into Bani Umayyah? The reply to this question is obviously that Abu Bakr and Umar were foremost in this regard. It is also confirmed beyond any doubt that Ali (a.s.) did not let Bani Umayyah near him. Apparently, Ali (a.s.) could not have any truck with a clan that the Messenger of Allah (S) had disliked all his life. If Ali (a.s.) had done so, the blame of the tragedy of Karbala’ would have been upon Ali (a.s.), because this tragedy was the consequence of promoting Bani Umayyah.

In this battle, only thirty infidels were killed, nine of whom were their standard bearers, who fell to the sword of Zulfiqar one by one. Twelve more were slain by the Lion of Allah. As for the remaining nine, some of them were dispatched to Hell by Hamza and rest were slain by the Helpers (Ansar). The Emigrants (Muhajireen) other than Bani Hashim are not known to have killed anyone in this battle. It is obvious that when they had no interest in an armed struggle, how could they be expected to kill the infidels? They were often seen fleeing from the battlefield. Flight from the battlefield was not cowardice according to them! There is no strength and power except by Allah.

It seems that these Emigrants (Muhajireen) were having a great foresight. They neither killed nor were killed. But we should know that valor is the best quality and all the good deeds are rooted in it. It is such a quality that bestows honor upon the one who possesses it; as a companion of the Holy Prophet (S) had recited a couplet in this battle. Cowardice has degradation and there is greatness in facing the enemy, and the coward cannot survive fate by his cowardice.

It is clear for all that those who fled from the battle escaped with their lives but the steadfastness of Ali (a.s.) remained intact till the end. Ali (a.s.) says that even though he had received sixteen wounds in that battle and was feeling dizzy, “Someone used to catch hold of my hand and make me stand up again and I continued to fight in this way.”

The Holy Prophet (S) hearing this, said that it was Jibraeel who helped him thus,6 this battle was won by Ali (a.s.) and it was this same steadfastness of his regarding which the Almighty Allah says in the Holy Quran:

“Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall.”7

The Holy Prophet (S) has also said similarly by which one can perceive the limits of greatness and high position of Ali (a.s.). Holy Prophet (S) addressed Ali (a.s.) and said:

“O Abul Hasan! If all the good deeds of creation and their beliefs are kept on one side of the balance and your deeds in other, yours shall be heavier. Indeed, Allah has praised your deeds. This day all angels of the sky and the curtains of the heavens were lifted and Paradise itself used to look at you with interest. And the Lord of the world was pleased by your deed. He shall reward you in such a way that even the prophets and the martyrs shall vie it.”8

People of justice should see that this one tradition has bestowed such a great status to Ali (a.s.) in comparison to all the creation of Allah. Holy Prophet (S) has said thus, but the opponents of Ali (a.s.) consider him inferior to the three Caliphs. First of all, one who flees has no right to claim preference over those who do not run away, and that also in comparison to such a valiant warrior about whom the Holy Prophet (S) has said that his deeds are heavier than deeds of all creatures together.

Those who do not pay attention to such sayings of the Holy Prophet (S) are indeed a strange kind of Muslims. Such people have regarded only the love of three Caliphs to be faith, and in this blind devotion, neither can they see the merits of Ali (a.s.) nor are they capable to take note of the sayings of Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S).

Such bigots say that the Almighty Allah has condemned in Quran those who fled from the Battle of Uhud. There is no doubt that Divine Mercy had been instrumental in this regard, but the discussion here is how this condemnation enables the fleeing people to gain a meritorious position? How could this be considered an achievement, while all that is obvious from this verse is unlimited Mercy of Allah? How can it show a praiseworthy quality of people who ran way from the battlefield? It is beyond human understanding. An absconder is an absconder forever, even though Allah has overlooked his act of escapism.

If we read this verse carefully, we shall realize that this forgiveness was for this life alone. That Allah did not make them pigs and monkeys when they deserted the Messenger of Allah (S). It certainly does not imply forgiveness of the Hereafter because the verse has ended on ‘Forgiving, Forbearing’ (Ghafoorun Haleemun). If it had denoted forgiveness of the Hereafter, Allah would have said ‘Forgiving, Merciful’ (Ghafoorun Raheemun).

Many other battles and military engagements took place after the Battle of Uhud but they are not too famous. Books of military expeditions and history indicate that even in those engagements, the sword of Ali (a.s.) was not inactive. The brave one did not fall short in helping the Holy Prophet (S) and in assisting Islam. Thus, in the Battle of Bani Nuzayr, a not so well known battle, Ali (a.s.) slew a great brave infidel. He was such a strong warrior that non-Bani Hashim Emigrants could not have faced him.

We do not know what was the use of these non-Bani Hashim Emigrants. When they did not have the capacity to fight, why they undertook the trouble of migrating to Medina? Wherever you see, you find them bolting from the battlefield. Or even if they remained afield, they did so as accompanying jesters etc. It is indeed surprising that these gentlemen could not exhibit a single act of valor in all the battles of the Prophet. On top of this, some people are not ashamed to give them preference over the Lion of Allah, Ali (a.s.).

Anyway, the Bani Nuzayr had planned to attack the Messenger of Allah (S) in the dead of the night and they had departed from their fort with this aim. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) understood their evil intentions and went towards them without waiting for the Prophet’s command. The villain had left his high abode and was coming on to slay the Messenger of Allah (S) when Ali (a.s.) intercepted him midway and dispatched him to Hellfire within a few moments.

This incident shows that Ali (a.s.) used to help the Prophet and support Islam even without the Messenger of Allah (S) commanding him. This was the condition of his Jihad in the way of Allah. We request the people of justice to compare this with the behavior of the absconders of Uhud when the Prophet was calling out to them not to flee, but they paid no heed to his pleas.

Allamah Waqidi writes in connection with these gentlemen that on the day of Uhud, these people were fleeing to the heights of Uhud and Holy Prophet (S) was calling them: “Come here so and so, come here so and so, I am the Messenger of Allah (S).” But none of them paid any heed.9 This is also mentioned in Surah Aale Imran:

“When you ran off precipitately and did not wait for anyone, and the Apostle was calling you from your rear.”10

How beautifully Umar has described his flight to the heights of Uhud. He says: “We were jumping on the mountain like mountain goats.” It is obvious that in this jumping and prancing, how he could have heard the call of the Prophet? In any case, this clearly shows the difference between the courage and steadfastness of Ali (a.s.) and the cowardice of these people. On one side, Ali (a.s.) did not even wait for the Prophet to order him to help him and on the

But in any case, Amr Ibn Abde Wudd, Khalid bin Amr bin Abde Wudd, Akrama bin Abu Jahl, and Abdullah bin Mughaira crossed the ditch by spurring their horses.1 The infidels came to the edge of the ditch to watch. Amr Ibn Abde Wudd came to the Medinan side and challenged the forces of Islam. Since none of the Muslim soldiers accepted the challenge, they all remained quiet. Only Ali (a.s.) came out in defense of Islam. However, the Holy Prophet (S) stopped him and asked the Muslim army, if there was anyone who could accept the challenge of this infidel, but no one volunteered.

Seeing this, the Holy Prophet (S) asked what the problem was. On hearing this, Umar said: “Amr Ibn Wudd and I were together in a caravan that was going to Shaam. All of the sudden, the caravan was surrounded by a thousand bandits who began to loot the caravan. On seeing this, Amr Ibn Abde Wudd took out his sword and slew all the bandits in a few moments.” That is the

other side, Abu Bakr and Umar did not listen to the Prophet even when he called them to help him.

Glory be to Allah! What a valor of the ‘Prince of Men’ and what a tremendous strength of faith! Indeed, if the Almighty had not created Ali (a.s.), He would have had to create some other means of strengthening Islam. Apparently, it seems that much of the power that Islam achieved was to the credit of Ali (a.s.). Anyway, after these minor wars, the Battle of the Ditch (Khandaq) took place. It is also referred to as the Battle of the Clans (Ahzab). It is also as famous as the Battle of Badr and the Battle of Uhud.

 

______________________

1.Refer to Tarikh Tabari, Pg. 1394, Part III; Sirah Ibn Hisham, Part II Pg. 83; Rauzatul Ahbab; Madarijun Nubuwwah, etc.

2.Refer Madarijun Nubuwwah, Vol. 2, Pg. 52; Rauzatul Ahbab, Pg. 77; Rauzatul Safa, Vol. 2, Pg. 51; Marijiun Nubuwwah.

3.Refer Tarikh Tabari, Vol. I, Part III, Pg. 402; Kamil of Ibn Athir Vol. 2, Pg 63;

Madarijun Nubuwwah, Vol. 2, Pg. 53.

4.Refer Tarikh Tabari, Pg. 402; Sirah Ibn Hisham, Vol. 2, Pg. 92; Matalibus Suool, Pg. 131.

5.Ref. Fawate Mibandi, Pg. 412

6.Refer Rauzatul Safa, Vol. 2, Pg. 92; Madarijun Nubuwwah, Vol. 2, Pg. 53.

7.Surah Saff 61:4

8.Refer to Yanabiul Mawaddah, 2nd Edition, Pg. 64

9.Refer Maghazi of Waqidi, Pg. 234

10.Surah Aale Imran 3:153

 

 

 

This battle occurred during the 5th year of Hijrah when the infidels of Mecca in cooperation with some other tribes and Jews marched to Medina under the leadership of Abu Sufyan, father of Muawiyah, grandfather of Yazeed. They laid siege to Medina for some days. In order to defend Medina from their attack, a ditch was dug up under advice of Salman the Persian and that is why this battle is called the Battle of the Ditch. The infidel attackers tried to launch many attacks, but they failed to gain entry into Medina. This time the infidel army was 10000 strong1 and the enemies of Islam had made elaborate arrangements of warfare. On the side of Muslims, the ditch was dug up with great efforts.2

But in any case, Amr Ibn Abde Wudd, Khalid bin Amr bin Abde Wudd, Akrama bin Abu Jahl, and Abdullah bin Mughaira crossed the ditch by spurring their horses.3 The infidels came to the edge of the ditch to watch. Amr Ibn Abde Wudd came to the Medinan side and challenged the forces of Islam. Since none of the Muslim soldiers accepted the challenge, they all remained quiet. Only Ali (a.s.) came out in defense of Islam. However, the Holy Prophet (S) stopped him and asked the Muslim army, if there was anyone who could accept the challenge of this infidel, but no one volunteered.

Seeing this, the Holy Prophet (S) asked what the problem was. On hearing this, Umar said: “Amr Ibn Wudd and I were together in a caravan that was going to Shaam. All of the sudden, the caravan was surrounded by a thousand bandits who began to loot the caravan. On seeing this, Amr Ibn Abde Wudd took out his sword and slew all the bandits in a few moments.” That is the reason why no one was prepared to accept his challenge.4

Then the Holy Prophet (S) gave Ali (a.s.) the permission to fight. Ali (a.s.) was eager for this leave and he was prepared to fight even before the Prophet had given him the permission. He at once rushed to confront the infidel. The infidel was huge, strong, ferocious and awesome. He continued to fight Ali (a.s.) for a long time but was finally killed at his hands. After his extermination, the Prince of Men sent some other leaders of the army of infidels to Hell.

When Umar saw that Ali (a.s.) had instilled fear in the breasts of infidels and none had any courage to face the Muslims, he came to the field and at once pursued Zarar bin Khattab who had already started running from Ali (a.s.). When Umar ran after him, he turned to Umar and gave him a small spear and went on his way. This happened somehow, otherwise, Umar never risked taking part in any sort of fighting. Anyway, in this battle also, like the battles of Badr and Uhud, none of the non-Bani Hashim was killed and neither did they kill anyone. Leave alone getting killed, none of them, except Umar, as mentioned in the above incident, even got a bruise.

Only six persons of the Ansar were martyred. From the infidels too, three people were killed. Doubtlessly, this victory fell to the Muslims without any fighting and bloodshed. The cause was that the slaying of Amr Ibn Abde Wudd instilled a great terror in the hearts of the infidels after which the deniers of Islam fled and they could not gather the strength to face Muslims.

We should know that the sword of Ali (a.s.) provided the same sort of service that it had provided in the previous battles. If the Prince of Men had not subdued Amr Ibn Abde Wudd, the infidels of Mecca would have attacked and destroyed all Muslims, and Islam would have perished in its infancy. But the slaying of Amr Ibn Abde Wudd strengthened the arms of Islam and shattered the backbone of infidelity.

As soon as Amr was killed, the infidel forces were demoralized and there developed cracks of disunity among the confederates. All of them took to their heels. We should know that on this juncture, the Holy Prophet (S) said regarding Ali (a.s.):

“Each strike of Ali on the day of Khandaq is superior to all the good deeds of my nation put together, till Judgment Day.”

This tradition is available in Madarijun Nubuwwah, Maarijul Nubuwwah, Kashful Ghumma, Nazalul Abrar, Insaanil Uyoon, Seeratul Ameen - Mamoon, Rauzatul Ahbab and other books of Ahlul Sunnat. No one denies the correctness of this tradition. Was the contribution of Ali (a.s.) to the religion of Allah any less than what it was on the day of Uhud? What can be said about the unsuccessful.

Thus, the people of justice may themselves conclude, if there is anyone more superior to Ali (a.s.). Does he deserve to be included among the four Caliphs? What is the meaning of considering him at par with Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman?

The truth is that comparing Ali (a.s.) to other Caliphs or saints of Allah is a useless act. It is indeed pitiful that in this battle also, Abu Bakr could not present any feat worthy of mention. Rather, it was not even clear where Abu Bakr was and in what condition during the Battle of Khandaq. In spite of his achievements, would Ali (a.s.) still remain in the category of the Caliphs? What type of justice is it? Whatever Allah and the Prophet may say, these people continue to harp upon their old tune.

________________________________

 

1.Ref. Tarikh Khamis, Pg. 290; Kamil of Ibn Athir, Vol. 2, Pg. 23.

2.Ref. Tarikh Rusul wal Muluk

3.Ref. Tarikh Khamis, Ibid Pg. 290 – 293; Tarikh Tabari, Pg. 1475.

4.Ref. Maarijun Nubuwwah, Pg. 58; Rauzatus Safa, Vol. 2, Pg. 101.

 

 

 

The Battle of Khaybar took place in the 7th year of Hijrah. The opponents in this battle were the Jews of Khaybar. This battle came about because the Jews had amassed an army of 10000 and were ready to attack Medina. Among these 10000 were included some tribes of Jews who had taken part in hostilities against the Muslims in cooperation with the Quraish infidels. The less numbered Muslims decided to confront the large numbered Jews and the Muslims moved to Khaybar. The chief of the Fort of Khaybar was Marhab; and his brother Harith was a well-known warrior like Marhab.

Thus, these two brothers were well-known brave warriors and apparently had no equal. During this engagement, the Holy Prophet (S) was having a migraine and was therefore in his tent, but the Muslim army launched attacks for three days yet returned defeated. This continued for three days and whichever Muslim fighter went to confront the Jews, was killed by Harith. When two people used to be killed, no one from the Muslim army had the guts to go further companions for cowardice while his companions used to hold him responsible.

The Muslim army suffered this degradation for three days. Everyday, it had become a routine for the Muslim army to go to the battlefield, attack and suffer defeat and then return to their camps dejected. One day Abu Bakr took a contingent and attacked Khaybar but he returned defeated. In the same way, Umar launched an attack twice but both the times returned completely unsuccessful.1 Marhab and Harith pursued the Muslim army and chased them upto their camps and quite often the Holy Prophet (S) who was in the tent nearby learnt of these developments. It seems that Marhab and Harith were great warriors of their time because Umar could not bear to face them even for a short while.2 Shah Abdul Aziz writes that Umar used to return every time and blame his companions for cowardice while his companions used to hold him responsible.3

Thus, the army of Islam was involved in terrible difficulties in this way and they did not know what to do. The cause of their problems was that till now, the Holy Prophet (S) had not been able to accompany them in the battle. Ali (a.s.) had remained behind in Medina due to sore eyes. That is why he was apparently not fit to participate in the war, but he came to the army of Allah to contribute to the help of the Prophet.

Doubtlessly, this is true faith and assistance of Islam! Glory be to Allah, he could not bear separation from the Prophet, even during an illness and he was so eager to offer his services that he came from Medina to the Muslim camps at Khaybar, but due to the severity of the discomfort, he could not fight for three days. When the army of Islam was defeated for the third consecutive day, the Holy Prophet (S) said:

“Tomorrow, I will hand over the flag of the Islamic army to a person who is brave and who does not flee from the battlefield. That is one who is absolutely courageous and never bolts from the field. One who loves Allah and the Messenger and Allah and the Messenger love him. He will not return till Allah does not grant victory at his hands.”

This is what happened. And that prophetic tradition is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, Khasais Nasai and Tabari.4 But the Holy Prophet (S) gave the standard to a person who had already been tested in the battles of Badr, Uhud and Khandaq and one who had till date, continued to save the religion of Allah from destruction.

Anyway, the next morning the Holy Prophet (S) applied his saliva to the sore eyes of Ali (a.s.), which cured him completely. He then handed him the standard and gave permission to initiate the battle. After this, the Holy Prophet (S) recited the famous words of supplication: “Call Ali, the one who shows extraordinary wonders of God…” (Naade A’liyyan maz’haral ajaaibi…)

The valiant warrior rushed to the battlefield, engaged his opponents in combat and soon dispatched Marhab and Harith to Hellfire, then he uprooted the gate of Khaybar and conquered the fort. The followers of Ali (a.s.) should know that such unimaginable feats are not possible without divine help. Without any doubt, Ali (a.s.) was helped by Allah. If it had not been so, it would have been impossible for him to perform such feats. How can a person who lived on barley bread and fasted often, rout the enemies of Islam time and again? How can he subdue a warrior like Amr bin Abde Wudd? How can he slay people like Marhab and Harith? And in addition to that, he uproots the gate weighing 700 mounds, and then used this gate as a shield to deflect the strikes of the foes.

O people of justice! Do you think such feats are possible without divine help? It is well known to people who know that the uprooting of the gate of Khaybar is a historical fact and it is not a work of fiction. It is recorded in history. Even the historians who are among the opponents of Islam have recorded this incident in their books.

Washington Irving has recorded this incident in his book on Islamic history. Thus, it is surprising that people of later generations have started to consider it fictional and tend to ignore this achievement of Ali (a.s.). In view of the writer, only such people can deny such incidents, who have not brought faith in the Messenger of Allah (S), because when the Holy Prophet (S) had called Ali (a.s.) as, “one who shows extraordinary wonders” (Mazharul Ajaaib) on the basis of divine revelation, one who does not accept it to be true, cannot be considered a Muslim.

In short, in this battle also, Ali (a.s.) offered such incomparable services to Islam that were not offered by anyone else. Yet, the opponents of Ali (a.s.) refrain from confessing to the bravery of Ali (a.s.). While they are bent to make Abu Bakr and Umar the bravest ones of the companions and the most brave ones of men, as apparent from the writings of Suyuti. O God! There is indeed something like justice!

Abu Bakr and Umar had no connection with valor and bravery. In such a condition, neither Abu Bakr nor Umar could be called the bravest ones. They did not perform any feat during the lifetime of the Prophet, which can make them eligible to be called the bravest ones. Leave alone being the bravest ones, how can a person like Ali (a.s.), who never fled from the battlefield and continued to often rout the enemies of Islam, should be considered inferior to those who always bolted from battles and did not even scratch the enemy of Islam. Now the readers are invited to study the account of the Battle of Hunayn.

___________________

1.Ref. Tarikh Khamis

2.Ref. Izalatul Khifa

3.Ref. Tarikh Tabari Pg. 579; Mustadrakul Hakim

4.Pg. 1579

 

 

 

This was the last battle fought between the Muslim army and the infidel Quraish. After the conquest of Mecca, most Arab tribes had accepted the domination of the Holy Prophet (S), except the tribe of Saqifah and Hawazin, who confronted the Muslims at Hunayn in large numbers. The Muslim army was also very large. Because the enemies attacked by deceit, all of a sudden, the Emigrants and Helpers, both left the Holy Prophet (S) and fled from the battle.

Only four people remained on the battlefield according to historical accounts. They were Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Abbas, Abu Sufyan bin Harith bin Abdul Muttalib and Abdullah Ibn Masood. The names of these four are also mentioned in other narrations, which shows that there were nine people who remained steadfast in this battle. In order to stop the people from fleeing the battlefield, the Prophet called them by titles of ‘People of Samara’ or ‘People of Tree’. Hearing this, around 100 people from the Helpers returned and rejoined fighting.

The reason for addressing the people who fled, by these titles is that most of them were among those who had pledged allegiance to the Holy Prophet (S) at the tree of Rizwan. The allegiance of Rizwan was performed when the Messenger of Allah (S) had proceeded to Mecca with the intention of performing Hajj, but he had to accede to the treaty with the Meccans.

The allegiance was that the people will support and help the Prophet in all circumstances and will not desert him, come what may. They will never turn back from Jihad and shall always be busy in the service of the Prophet. Since the allegiance of Rizwan occurred under a tree, it is also known as the allegiance given under the tree. That is why the Holy Prophet (S) called them by the title of the ‘People of Tree’ so that they shall be ashamed. It seems that the tree under which allegiance was given was the tree of Samara.

Thus, when some absconders returned, the fighting restarted. A person by name of Abu Huroor came out from the ranks of infidels singing a war song and challenged the Muslims. No one from the Muslim army offered to confront him. They were awestruck by his courage and strength. But the Zulfiqar of one who was unconquered, swiftly sent him to the place where previously Amr bin Abde Wudd, Marhab and Harith had been sent. The infidels suffered a clear defeat and seventy of them were killed. Forty of them were alone sent to hellfire by the sword of Ali (a.s.). The rest were killed by Bani Hashim and the Helpers (Ansar).

The killing of a single infidel by a non-Bani Hashim Emigrant is not proved from any of the books of history. It is indeed a pity that even in this battle, the three Caliphs were unable to exhibit any remarkable feat. Their absconding from the battlefield was nothing unusual. The account of their flight is mentioned in the tradition of Sahih Bukhari related from Abu Qatadah: Qatadah says that the Muslims fled and he also fled.

Qatadah says: “I saw Umar among the absconders and asked him the condition of the people?” Umar replied: “It is as Allah willed.” After this, people went to the Messenger of Allah (S). People of justice, please let us know if any man of perfect faith could flee from the battlefield? Then how can they be given preference over Ali (a.s.) who was always steadfast in every battle and in spite of being injured seriously, he continued to serve the Holy Prophet (S) and the religion of Allah? All this proves that he possessed a perfect faith. The repeated absconding of the three Caliphs cannot qualify them to be successors of the Messenger of Allah (S) after his passing away.

The Messenger of Allah (S) was very brave and valiant person and he did not recede an inch in any of the battles, because flight from the battlefield is a dirty thing. The successor of such a brave prophet should be someone as valiant as Ali (a.s.) and not less.

What was it that qualified Abu Bakr to be appointed the successor of the Prophet? It is an absolutely surprising thing. None of the three Caliphs had the right of vicegerency of the Messenger of Allah (S). These gentlemen never did anything to save Islam from its enemies. They were ever thoughtful of saving their own skins. The fact is that if Ali (a.s.) had not been there, Islam would have disappeared a long time ago. Thus, what is the matter that after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S), Ali (a.s.) is made to obey and submit, and a person like Abu Bakr who had no connection with any sort of bravery, should be made the ruler, even though he had no right to be the successor of the Messenger of Allah (S)?

Please note that in this battle, even the Helpers fled against their normal practice. Those who participated in the battle were the same who were put to shame by the Holy Prophet (S). The absconding of non-Bani Hashim was a regular feature, what is surprising however is the presence of Abu Sufyan in the battlefield.

The Banu Umayyah who had recently converted to Islam were present in the battlefield. But they were not fighting. They stood aside and watched the fighting and laughed at the difficulties suffered by the Muslims. In this battle, the chief of Bani Umayyah, Abu Sufyan was present. But they did not help the Messenger of Allah (S) even in a small measure. He continued to watch the spectacle, laughing in merriment. These were the new Muslims and it was their first test of having accepted slam. The fact was that this person had become a Muslim under duress since the conquest of Mecca. He had accepted Islam only when he had realized that Islam had become powerful and there was no other way.

If this person had been a true Muslim, he would not have remained a spectator, laughing at the combat. He would have accompanied the holy warriors and helped the religion of Allah if he had been a sincere believer. His behavior shows that inwardly he desired the defeat of Muslims. If the situation had turned against the Muslims and they had been routed, he would surely have rushed to the tribes of Saqifah and Hawazin to congratulate them for their victory.

Indeed, to refer to Bani Umayyah as Muslims is a one-sided affair. The fact is that Abu Sufyan and his men were hypocrites. They had apparently become Muslims because they were subjugated. This tribe seems despicable from all aspects. If this tribe had not been there, the battles of Badr, Uhud and Khandaq had not occurred. The religion of Islam had spread in peace and the lives of so many innocent people had not perished. Abu Sufyan and his people had left no stone unturned to harm Islam. If the Almighty had not appointed Ali (a.s.) as the defender of Islam, there would have been no way to protect this faith.

Apart from this, the Bani Umayyah were notorious for their moral decadence and famous for their evil deeds. It is but natural for every righteous person to despise this tribe. Thus, it was not without cause that the Holy Prophet (S) had hated this tribe. Ali (a.s.) was aware of the Prophet’s dislike of this tribe, and since he obeyed and followed the Messenger of Allah (S) to perfection, after the passing away of the Prophet, he never let the Bani Umayyah near him.

Thus, after the Holy Prophet (S) passed away and the matter of Caliphate was decided, Abu Sufyan came to Ali (a.s.) with a special intention and said: “O Ali (a.s.)! You remained silent and the affair of Caliphate is decided? If you want, I can fill the land of Medina with soldiers of Mecca and overturn the Caliphate.”

Ali (a.s.) said: “You used to create mischief during the days of Ignorance and now even after becoming a Muslim, you have not given up your habit.”

Getting this reply Abu Sufyan went on his way, and in whichever direction he saw gains he went that way. The readers should note how this reply of Ali (a.s.) informs us of his foresight and hidden wisdom, because it is well known that Abu Sufyan was the chief of Bani Umayyah. This tribe had continuously faced failures during the lifetime of the Prophet and it had also suffered much discomfiture by the sword of Ali (a.s.), himself, as apparent from the accounts of the battles of Badr, Uhud, and Khandaq etc.

In such a condition, neither this tribe could be loyal to the Holy Prophet (S) or to the progeny of the Messenger of Allah (S). If this tribe had any love for the Holy Prophet (S) would they have remained mere spectators, laughing at the scene in the Battle of Hunayn?

Thus, Abu Sufyan’s offer to Ali (a.s.) to overthrow the Caliphate was not based on good intentions. Ali (a.s.) understood that this person wanted personal gain and benefit his tribe through Ali (a.s.). He had no sincere intention to benefit Islam or Bani Hashim. Thus, Ali (a.s.) replied to him the way he did. This reply of Ali (a.s.) shows that Abu Sufyan was a transgressor and a mischief monger.

Hence, neither Ali (a.s.) could accept his advice nor take his help. So what else could he have replied?

Also, Ali (a.s.) knew well that the Messenger of Allah (S) despised Bani Umayyah. Thus, how could he openly cultivate relationship with them? If Ali (a.s.) had gained proximity and cooperation of Abu Sufyan, it would have been against the practice and policy of the Holy Prophet (S). The policy of the Prophet was indeed the best policy, that the evil-doing tribe of Bani Umayyah should always remain subjugated. This tribe was subjugated after much struggle and after a long time.

In addition to the above, if Ali (a.s.) had accepted the offer of Abu Sufyan, he would have been under an obligation to repay this in form of some position in the Islamic government. In such circumstances, Abu Sufyan and his tribe would have gained more strength. Thus, by remaining aloof from Abu Sufyan, Ali (a.s.) saved himself from the two accusations mentioned in the previous paragraphs and also avoided the blame that he would have got from the consequences of the rulership of Bani Umayyah and the tribe which had weakened during the tenure of the Messenger of Allah (S) would have received a new lease of life. After Abu Sufyan got a rebuttal from Ali (a.s.), he busied himself in intrigue and finally obtained the governorship of Syria for his family. He also obtained the right to 25% of the booty from the conquests that Muslims made in the surrounding area of Syria.

After getting Syria, Abu Sufyan said that since he had become old and did not like to leave Mecca, his elder son, Yazeed bin Abu Sufyan should be appointed as the governor of Syria. This was effected. As soon as Bani Umayyah gained this rulership, their tribesmen who were lying in a degraded position, set out for Syria. And in a brief time, they regained their lost wealth and position and rather, exceeded it. The whole area of Syria came under the rulership of Bani Umayyah. Bani Umayyah and none else occupied every low and high governmental post of Syria while the Bani Hashim were not to be seen anywhere.

This was impossible, because even at the Islamic capital not a single Bani Hashim had even the lowest post in government. Thus, whatever reverses Bani Umayyah had suffered during the lifetime of the Prophet were soon reimbursed by the courtesy of Abu Bakr and Umar. Yazeed Ibn Abu Sufyan ruled Syria for four years till his death. After him, his younger brother, Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan was appointed as his successor. He was an example of his tribe and was more clever and superior to his brother in every way.

It seems to be out of context to describe the affluence and progress of Bani Umayyah during the reign of Muawiyah. He continued to rule Syria for a long time and became so powerful that when Ali (a.s.) became the Caliph and deposed him from governorship, he refused to be deposed and took to confront the Caliph of that time. Rather, the Caliph of that time was so busy with battles that he hardly had time for other activities demanded by his office.

The tenure of Imam Ali’s Caliphate was four years and some months, after which Imam Hasan (a.s.) became the Caliph. Imam Hasan (a.s.) had to abdicate within six months. After this, instead of Medina, Damascus became the seat of Caliphate. Though Bani Hashim had weakened greatly after the passing away of the Prophet, the loss of this Caliphate relegated them to the position of worldly degradation and Bani Umayyah became most powerful. How astounding that the tribe, which was despised by the Holy Prophet (S) and one which the Messenger of Allah (S) had after great efforts weakened and subjugated during his lifetime, should gain strength immediately after his death. And gradually it should have gained the rulership of Syria and finally the dominance of all the Islamic lands.

But as for the Bani Hashim, the clan of the Prophet, the tribe that every Muslim was obliged to respect, was subjugated and degraded. Thus, after becoming the Caliph, Muawiyah was always busy in strengthening his position and he also arranged so that Caliphate should remain in his family. To this end he made the nomination of his successor just as Abu Bakr had nominated Umar. And in order to achieve the oath of allegiance of his wanton son, he left no stone unturned.

The Bani Hashim had become weak, but its two chiefs, that is Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (a.s.) were still alive, from whose side Muawiyah was not content. After sometime, he became content regarding Imam Hasan (a.s.). That is, he had him poisoned by intrigue. This incident also occurred in the reign of Muawiyah.

The historian, Abul Fida writes in Tarikhul Mukhtasar fi Ahwaalul Bashar that regarding the poisoning of Imam Hasan (a.s.), it is said that it was Muawiyah, who had him poisoned and it is also said that the heir of Muawiyah, Yazeed had done it. Anyway, whichever is correct, the poisoning of Imam Hasan (a.s.) removed one chief of Bani Hashim from the way of Muawiyah.

The writer of Tarikh Khamis says that when Muawiyah received the news of poisoning of Imam Hasan (a.s.), he rejoiced. Upon this, his wife, Faqhta said: “O Muawiyah! You rejoice at the death of the Prophet’s son?” Muawiyah said: “I am not happy because of the death of the Prophet’s son, but for the contentment that my heart has achieved.”

Doubtlessly, the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (a.s.) had imparted great comfort to Muawiyah, but still one of the chiefs of Bani Hashim, Imam Husayn (a.s.) remained; and because he was also brave and valiant like his father, Muawiyah was fearful of him. But the murder of this Imam (a.s.) could not be carried out during Muawiyah’s lifetime. Therefore, it was effected during the reign of his son. Thus, the main cause for the killings of Bani Hashim was the fresh lease of life that Bani Umayyah had received.

If it had not been so, the family of the Prophet and Bani Hashim would not have suffered such calamities. Indeed, Ali (a.s.) had a great foresight that he paid no heed to the offer of Abu Sufyan. Otherwise, the tribulations of the Prophet’s family and Bani Hashim would have been attributed to Ali (a.s.).

It is clear that if Ali (a.s.) had accepted the help of Abu Sufyan, he would have been obliged to repay it in a substantial way. It would have become necessary to give Abu Sufyan some official position and this would have led to the empowerment of Bani Umayyah. In that case also, they would have carried out all the activities that they subsequently did. While there would have been no harm to the family of the Prophet and the Bani Hashim if Abu Sufyan and Bani Umayyah had loved them truly. But the true colors of their love for Holy Prophet (S) and the Bani Hashim had already been revealed in the Battle of Hunayn.

The fact is that Abu Sufyan and his tribesmen had been inimical to the Holy Prophet (S) since ages. The Prophet has not accepted any truck with Abu Sufyan because of his insincerity. Abu Sufyan had a personal benefit in it, which Ali (a.s.) had correctly surmised. That is why Ali (a.s.) repulsed him with an acerbic reply. This compelled Abu Sufyan to go to Abu Bakr and Umar, and he was finally successful in his machinations. The fact is that Abu Sufyan was a man of determination. He had thought that if Ali Ibn Abi Talib’s support was obtained, it would have given him much respect among the Muslims.

But Ali (a.s.) did not allow any such thing and thus continued on the practice of Holy Prophet (S). Ali (a.s.) thus remained safe from blame, which were the consequences of the fresh empowerment of Bani Umayyah, for which Abu Bakr and Umar are naturally held accountable. In the end, the writer wishes to state that the senior companions of the Holy Prophet (S) had performed such deeds that become clear subsequently. One is that the Holy Prophet (S) was a brave and steadfast Prophet, as an Ulul Azm Prophet (who brings a new Shariat) should be. He participated in all the battles and exhibited the quality of an expert military general. He never receded his steps from a battle and he never showed any cowardice. He faced many tight corners, but his steadfastness helped him in such circumstances. He proved that a true prophet (a.s.) is pure of cowardice and docility. Bravery is the best quality of Prophethood and Imamate. The Prophet and Imam must never be a coward.

Secondly, to strengthen the roots of Islam, the Almighty Allah had created Ali (a.s.). That is why his courage was incomparable. Thus, all the feats that he performed in the battles and military campaigns show that he was the recipient of divine help and an undefeated warring lion of Allah, the performer of astounding feats etc. Such achievements he had that one stroke his was more than all the good deeds of all Allah’s creatures together.

Doubtlessly, except for him no one has the right to be the Caliph of the Prophet. A Caliph must be like the Prophet, brave and helpful to the religion of Allah.

The fact is that Abu Bakr and Umar or rather, the three Caliphs had no connection with bravery. The two of them used to run away from the battles, just like the common people fled for the fear of their lives.

Flight from the battlefield was their common habit. Both of them, rather, all three of them showed such cowardice on the battlefield that every modest person would prefer not to look at their acts. It is really astounding how those gentlemen could become so brave that finally they became Caliphs.

The fact is that during the lifetime of the Prophet, none of them had a single achievement to their credit in helping or defending Islam. Every time they were busy in saving their own skins. No feat of theirs was shown in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq or Hunayn. But after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S) they occupied with shamelessness, the position of the Prophet’s vicegerency, which was rightfully deserved by Ali (a.s.) due to the services he had rendered with the power of his arms. Their occupying the Caliphate and usurpation of Ali’s right is one matter.

In addition to this, Abu Bakr and Umar became instrumental in promoting and empowering a tribe that was detested by the Messenger of Allah (S) and weakened by him to a great extent on the basis of some hidden wisdom. That tribe had not a bit of right to gain any benefit from a successor of the Prophet, because it was deadly inimical to the Messenger of Allah (S) and the religion of Allah. And it had greatly harmed the Holy Prophet (S) and the divine faith.

But Abu Bakr and Umar helped this tribe, due to which it became powerful and consequently wreaked untold havoc upon the family of the Prophet. The depriving of Ali (a.s.) from Caliphate was a one-sided affair. More than this, was their empowerment of Bani Umayyah. This caused Islam to go into the hands of those who knew nothing of faith except their selfish motives.

(54) The sun returned for Ali (a.s.) just as it had stopped on the command of Yusha (a.s.). The stopping of the sun due to the prayer of Yusha (a.s.) is recorded in Taurat. In this way, the coming back of the sun is proved by correct traditions. In the book of Tahawi, Mushkilate Hadith, there is a tradition of Asma binte Umais and also in the book Muntaqa to this effect. Shah Waliullah has also included it in Izalatul Khifa.

The writer of Tarikh Khamis has also included it in his history. The denier of this tradition is only Ibn Jauzi. He was a great opponent of Ali (a.s.), so his denial cannot be regarded authentic. It is obvious that if the returning of the Sun had not been in connection with Ali (a.s.), this person would not have considered it unauthentic. But the denial of the enemies does not in any way harm the status of Ali (a.s.).

Anyway, the incident of the return of the sun is that one day, revelation was descending on the Holy Prophet (S) and his respected head was in the lap of Ali (a.s.). It was in that position for such a long time that the Sun set and the Asr (afternoon) prayer of Ali (a.s.) lapsed. When the revelation was complete, the Messenger of Allah (S) asked: “O Ali! Did you perform the Asr prayer?” He replied that he had performed it only by gestures. Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) said: “O Allah! Ali was in Your obedience and the obedience of Your Messenger. Thus, You send back the sun for him.”

Asma binte Umais who is the narrator of this tradition and one who had been guaranteed Paradise by the Holy Prophet (S) says: “We had indeed witnessed the setting of the sun and then saw it rising again, and its light was seen spreading on the earth and the mountains.”

O dear readers, this narration shows a great merit of Ali (a.s.). First of all, at the time of revelation, the head of the Prophet was in the lap of Ali (a.s.).

Secondly, when the Holy Prophet (S) prayed for the Sun’s return he said: “O Allah! Ali (a.s.) was in Your obedience and the obedience of Your Prophet (S).” Thirdly, the prayer of Ali (a.s.) was considered so important that the sun was made to rise again for it to be performed. Here, we remind the readers that the above tradition indicates such a great significance of Prayers.

Those who being Muslims do not give importance to Prayers, will realize what a great significance Prayer has. If it had not been so, the Holy Prophet (S) would not have prayed for the return of the sun. There are many Muslims who live among Muslims and inherit property like them, but they consider Prayer a despicable thing. They should read the above tradition. Not being steadfast in Prayer is one thing but considering it unimportant is another. Such a person can hardly be called a Muslim. He is an apostate and atheist. This is for those who call themselves Muslims and befool the people by their claim.

There is a sect, which calls itself Muslim but denies miracles. According to them, splitting of the moon, returning of the Sun and the curing of the leper are all impossible acts. They think that a supernatural occurrence is impossible. The fact is that these people are narrow-minded. They have considered only such things possible as are in the scope of their understanding. Here, the writer shall only discuss their response with regard to the miracle of the Sun’s return.

People who deny the miracles of the Prophets (S) have always said that miracle is nothing, because it is an unnatural occurrence. Thus, the affair, which is unnatural, is impossible. Apparently, this unnatural occurrence seems to be unacceptable, but this type of statement shows lack of determination. This can be considered true only if the miracles of the Prophets (a.s.) could be thought to be beyond the intellectual capacity of the Prophets (S).

Apparently, the deniers have considered them as such. Although, all the miracles recorded in books are having an aspect of possibility. None of them seem intellectually impossible. Not a single miracle has been related about the Messenger of Allah (S) about which one could find an excuse of its impossibility by reason. Rather, all the miracles are against our daily experiences of life. But they are not impossible theoretically.

For example, none of the Prophets have made a part greater than its whole. Now if the deniers deny these miracles, it is due to their lack of understanding. Now we shall explain why the miracle of the Sun’s return was not illogical. Let any denier of miracle tell us if this miracle is scientifically or logically impossible. Except that they seem incompatibility with daily occurrence. That is just as much as the denier has experience, he will consider only as much possibility of a miracle. But if the miracles had been identical to daily occurrence, why they had been called miracles?

Readers should note that the deniers have denied the miracle of the Sun’s return, because everyday we see the Sun setting in the west but we do not see it coming back. Because it is against nature that such a miracle was shown by the Prophet. It seems the deniers had not distinguished between impossible and irrational occurrences, otherwise, they would not have expressed such improper views. We should know that occurrences like rising of the Sun from the west is not an irrational thing. It is possible for the Sun to return from the west, to stop midway etc. Such occurrences are not beyond reason. Such things seem impossible to us, because we don’t know of their reality. If we tell someone, who has no knowledge of astronomy, that four thousand years ago, the North Star was not actually the North Star, and that the North Star of today was the star named Thauban, that person will not consider our statement correct on the basis of his personal experience.

In the same way, we can present hundreds of such strange facts about the Universe after which the return of the Sun or its stopping will not seem a great occurrence. Allah knows, since when this world exists but the occurrences of the last 400 years are not any lesser astounding. All these revolutions have an aspect of possibility. Only those consider them impossible, who have no rational thinking.

Thus, the deniers of the miracle of the sun are not correct in their views and do not deserve any attention. We should deduce the other miracles of the Prophet from this basis. And we should know that all the miracles performed by the Prophets (a.s.) were not beyond possibility. That is why they cannot be said to be against nature. Although, in the circle of the experience of deniers it does not seem possible, but this itself is in conformity to the requirements of a miracle. Because if there had been scope of such ordinary possibility, a miracle would not have been a miracle.

(55) Ali (a.s.) had received the titles of Yadullah (hands of Allah) and Asadullah (Lion of Allah). The reason is that on the night of Ascension (Meraj), the Holy Prophet (S), at one stage saw a lion. The Messenger of Allah (S) put his ring in the mouth of that lion. Then at the spot of Qaba Qausain (Two bows) when a hand appeared, it was wearing that same ring. When the next morning, after the night of Ascension, the Holy Prophet (S) saw Ali (a.s.), he saw that he was wearing the same ring. From that day he was given the titles of ‘the Lion of Allah’ and ‘the Hands of Allah’. Those who are narrow-minded may ignore this fact, but it is the true background of those titles of Ali (a.s.).

(56) The Messenger of Allah (S) presented Ali (a.s.), as per the commands of Allah, the saintly dress of Ascension. The reason behind this was that he had the same quality of concealing defects. In recompense of this quality, he was given the dress of Ascension. Why should Allah had not given him that? Ali (a.s.) had always concealed the defects of the sinners.

(57) On the night of Ascension, the Holy Prophet (S) saw the following written on the heaven: There is no god except Allah. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (S). Ali is the helper of Muhammad.

(58) Ali (a.s.) was the author of the saying: “Ask me!” Mulla Jami writes in Shawahid that Ali (a.s.) said in a sermon: “Whatever anyone desires to inquire may ask me. Except the news of the Arsh (throne). The knowledge that I have gained is from the saliva that the Messenger of Allah (S) made me suck.”

(59) Ali (a.s.) said: “I am the slave of Allah, the brother and legatee of the Messenger of Allah (S).” And also said: “I am the husband of the chief of ladies, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (S). I am the chief of the legatees of Prophets and the seal of the legatees of the Prophet. I am such, that except me, if anyone claims these virtues, the Almighty will punish him.”

(60) Ali (a.s.) caused a spring to flow from a place near a monastery. Upon this, the monk asked him if he was a prophet or an angel. Ali (a.s.) replied that he was the successor of the Prophet of the Last Age. Upon this, the monk accepted Islam and recited the formula: “I witness that there is no god except Allah. And I witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (S). And I witness that you are the legatee of the Messenger of Allah (S).”

The above is also recorded in the Shawahid of Mulla Jami.

(61) That Ali (a.s.) was the legatee of the Messenger of Allah (S) is also proved from the couplets of Imam Shafei: “Love of Ali is an armor. Distributor of Hell and Paradise. Truly he is the legatee of Mustafa. The Imam of men and Jinns.”

(62) Ali (a.s.) was the one who showed the correct path and restrained from misguidance. Hakim in Mustadrak has recorded a tradition related from Zaid bin Arqam that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “One who wishes to live like me and die like me and to stay in the Garden that Allah has promised me, should love and obey Ali (a.s.) who shall show you the correct path and never allow you to go astray.”

(63) One who befriends Ali (a.s.) shall go to Paradise and one who denies him shall go to Hell. In Hakim’s Mustadrak there is a tradition related by Ammar in which he reports that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “O Ali! Tuba (Congratulations) for those who love you and testify for you and Wayl (fie) is for one who angers you and falsifies you.”

(64) It was revealed to the Holy Prophet (S) that Ali (a.s.) is chief of the believers, Imam of the pious ones and the leader of those who flee from ignorance? Abdullah Ibn Abbas relates from his father that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Three things were revealed upon me regarding Ali (a.s.). (The same points, mentioned above).”

(65) Looking at the face of Ali (a.s.) is worship. Hakim records in Mustadrak from Abdullah Ibn Masood that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Casting a glance at the face of Ali (a.s.) is an act of worship.”

(66) On Judgment Day, Ali (a.s.) will be the bearer of the heavenly standard, Liwaul Hamd. Its brilliance will be visible on his head as a crown.1

(67) Abusing Ali (a.s.) is abusing the Holy Prophet (S). In the book of Mishkatul Masabih, in the Chapter of the Merits of Ali (a.s.), there is a tradition narrated by Umme Salma that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “One who abused Ali (a.s.) is as if he has abused me.”

It is not unexpected for people who are not very familiar with traditions to be terrified on reading this tradition. He would think that Ali (a.s.) was really a close confidant of the Holy Prophet (S) and deserving of respect. He was also a close relative of the Prophet so why should anyone abuse him. But the fact is that Ali (a.s.) was the target of abuses for a long time. The Holy Prophet (S) being the Prophet had known that a time would come when people will abuse Ali (a.s.). That is why he had made such a statement.

Obviously, who had the courage to abuse Ali (a.s.) during the lifetime of the Prophet? But after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S), the abusing and imprecation occurred. The one who initiated the cursing of Ali (a.s.) was Muawiyah. Not only did he curse Ali (a.s.), he also instigated his followers to perform this ‘good deed’. Thus, the custom gained popularity during the reign of Muawiyah because he was considered the rightful Caliph of his time, as is the belief of Ahlul Sunnat.

It is not an unknown thing that Muawiyah emphasized so much on the cursing of Ali (a.s.) that when Imam Hasan (a.s.) made a treaty with him, he included the condition that cursing of Ali (a.s.) will be stopped by Bani Umayyah, but Muawiyah did not honor it. At last, Imam Hasan (a.s.) had to propose that imprecation of Ali (a.s.) shall not be done in his presence. Anyway, whatever may be the view of Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan, the followers of today should note that the Holy Prophet (S) considered the cursing of Ali (a.s.) to be equal to cursing the Prophet himself as mentioned in the above tradition.

(68) When Ali (a.s.) returned after breaking the idols of Saqifah and Hawazin, the Holy Prophet (S) expressed his happiness and conferred with Ali (a.s.) in seclusion for a long time. The conference was so prolonged that Umar remarked that the Messenger of Allah (S) had that day conversed with his cousin for a very long time. The Holy Prophet (S) replied that he himself had nothing to say to Ali (a.s.), but there were many divine secrets that had to be conveyed to Ali (a.s.).2

The curiosity of Umar was not baseless. In spite of being with Ali (a.s.) day and night, he was not aware of his high status. In any case, this secluded conference clearly shows that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was the custodian of the secrets of Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S); and except for him none of the companions had this honor.

(69) Ali (a.s.) was always the recipient of the beneficences of the Prophet. But in the incident mentioned below, the Holy Prophet (S) made such a statement about him that it implies that he had appointed Ali (a.s.) as his successor or it showed his desire that Ali (a.s.) should be his legatee. People of justice have not but to confess to this fact, the followers of Caliphate may say whatever they like.

The First Incident: Before migration to Medina (Hijrat), the Holy Prophet (S) invited his clan for a feast. After dinner, he told them that he has been sent for all the people, but especially for them. And they had well seen his behavior with them. Now it was incumbent on them to help him like a brother, but no one volunteered to do so, except Ali (a.s.) who, in spite of his young age stood up. The Holy Prophet (S) told him to move aside. The Messenger of Allah (S) repeated this thrice and every time only Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.) arose. Finally, the Holy Prophet (S) thumped Ali’s shoulders and said:

“I have appointed my cousin as my successor.” The above tradition is recorded in Khasais of Nasai and Shah Waliullah has written it in his book Izalatul Khifa with explanation and commentary.

Also, Abul Fida, the historian, has also recorded it in his book Tarikhul Mukhtasar fi Ahwaalul Bashar. This historian writes that the Holy Prophet (S) addressed his clan and asked: “Who is it that could be my brother, my legatee and my successor?” No one responded, except Ali (a.s.), who happily offered himself to become his brother, helper and Caliph. Upon this, the Prophet told Ali (a.s.): “You are my brother, my legatee and my Caliph.”

Please note that the above proves the falsity of the alleged tradition: “We, the prophets don’t leave inheritance.” And the fact is that it is unacceptable as it is against nature. The next notable point is that the time when this occurred, the age of Ali (a.s.) was eleven years only. Since that time, Ali (a.s.) showed absolute loyalty and helpfulness to the Holy Prophet (S). He always strove to please the Prophet and he did not even prefer his life over the safety of the Messenger of Allah (S).

At the time of migration, he slept fearlessly on the bed of the Messenger of Allah (S) and in every battle he exhibited such valor as was not found in anyone else. The fact is that he fulfilled the promise of his childhood steadfastly throughout his life. After the demise of the Holy Prophet (S) also, he did not accept the cooperation of Bani Umayyah. The fact is that all his life, he had fulfilled to the maximum, the saying of the Prophet when he had called him the ‘legatee and brother’.

The Second Incident: On the day of migration, the Holy Prophet (S) had appointed him on his behalf to restore the trusts placed with him by Meccans, and especially made Ali (a.s.) sleep on his bed and had him covered with his covering. His selection for this position seems to be a significant matter. It was such a serious responsibility that it could be fulfilled by only the one who had the position of legatee and brother of the Messenger of Allah (S).

Evidently, this is the matter that indicates the appointment of Ali (a.s.) to be the legatee of the Holy Prophet (S). In such crucial circumstances, only such a person can take the place of the Holy Prophet (S) as one whom Allah has appointed to be the brother, legatee and the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S). Obviously, such a feat cannot be accomplished without divine help. Thus, Ali (a.s.) was created to perform this astounding feat. And it was so, because he has been appointed by divine instructions, the brother, legatee and the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S). This also shows that since he had been appointed as such by Allah, there was no need for him to be appointed a Caliph by the people. The Almighty Himself has praised this feat of Ali (a.s.)3

“And among men is he who sells himself to seek the pleasure of Allah and Allah is Affectionate to the servants.”

The Third Incident: In the year when the allegiance of Rizwan occurred, some people of Quraish came to the Holy Prophet (S) to ask for the return of some slaves. The Holy Prophet (S) told them: “O people of Quraish! The Almighty will appoint on you a person whose faith He has already tested. That person will make you follow the religion strictly and kill some of you.” When the companions asked the Messenger of Allah (S) about the person he said. “It is the one repairing my sandals.”

At that time, Ali (a.s.) was stitching the sandals of the Messenger of Allah (S). The statement of the Prophet that he would make them follow the religion and kill some of them indicates that the Caliph of the Prophet is having authority in the religion as well as the secular affairs of the community. This implies that Ali (a.s.) was the true Caliph appointed by the Messenger of Allah (S). People who misconstrue meanings may interpret this statement of the Messenger of Allah (S) in any way they like.

The Fourth Incident: The Holy Prophet (S), at the time of announcing the verses of Surah Baraat under divine instructions, considering Ali (a.s.) as having position like himself, sent him on this mission and he delivered the commands of Surah Baraat to the people of Mecca. The following tradition is mentioned in the books of Elamul Wara and Habibus Sayr: “But Jibraeel descended with the command that no one will fulfill this duty except you, yourself or someone who is like you. And the fact is that Ali is from me and I am from Ali. He is my brother, my legatee, my successor and my Caliph. After me, he will fulfill my rights in my family, my people and will promote my religion. And none shall fulfill my rights except Ali (a.s.).”

Shah Waliullah has also mentioned this incident in Izalatul Khifa. This clearly proves that Ali (a.s.) was the Caliph of the Prophet and the executor of religious and secular affairs. What could be clearer than these words of the Messenger of Allah (S)? The Prophet designated Ali (a.s.) in his lifetime as his brother, his legatee and his successor and also said that Ali (a.s.) will manage his religion after him.

But after the demise of the Prophet, the nation did not allow Ali (a.s.) to be the Caliph. Umar denied that he was the brother of the Prophet. Abu Bakr attributed a saying to the Holy Prophet (S), which implied that the Messenger of Allah (S) had no inheritor. What an allegiance they had given to the Prophet! They disregarded all the sayings of the Messenger of Allah (S)!

The Fifth Incident: One day, the Holy Prophet (S) stated that Ali (a.s.) was the chief of the Arabs, thus ‘A’ysha narrates in Mustadrak and Shah Waliullah has recorded it in Izalatul Khifa. ‘A’ysha says that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Call for me the chief of the Arabs. ‘A’ysha asked him if he himself was not the chief of the Arabs? He replied that he was the chief of the Children of Adam (human beings) and Ali (a.s.) is the chief of the Arabs.”

Despite being the chief of the Arabs, the people did not allow his chieftaincy to remain established. They created the turmoil of Saqifah and did not allow him to become the apparent chief of the community. What a loyal nation it was of the Messenger of Allah (S) that it could not even act upon this command of the Holy Prophet (S)!

The Sixth Incident: The Holy Prophet (S) had stated that Ali (a.s.) is the chief of the believers, Imam of the pious and the leader of the nobles? The Holy Prophet (S) used to speak very highly of Ali (a.s.), but when did the Ummah cut off his neck, and not denied that Ali (a.s.) was the brother of the Prophet. It is obvious that any believer cannot address the chief of the believers in such a rude manner.

The Seventh Incident: The Holy Prophet (S) told Ali (a.s.) that after the Messenger of Allah (S), he was the chief of every believing man and woman. But after the demise of the Messenger of Allah (S) Umar, Abu Bakr, Muawiyah, ‘A’ysha, Talha and Zubair did not accept him to be the chief of the believers. Anyway, this tradition is recorded in Izalatul Khifa from Abdullah Ibn Abbas. It is as follows: “O Ali! You are the Guardian (Wali) of all believers after me.” Obviously, the meaning of Wali is chief and Imam. It cannot be friend or helper etc. because the words ‘after me’ cannot imply anything else. Even then, the opponents of Ali (a.s.) do not refrain from deriving inappropriate meanings. Indeed, bigotry blinds the people.

The Eighth Incident: In a great crowd, as commanded by revelation, the Holy Prophet (S) declared that all the doors opening into the Prophet’s mosque must be closed except that of Ali (a.s.). This was put into effect and this caused many people to be jealous. This incident is mentioned in the book of Jazbul Quloob. And the tradition is seen in Sahih Bukhari.

In the same way, the Prophet told Ali (a.s.): “Except for you and me, this mosque is not allowed for anyone in the state of ritual impurity.” Then the Messenger of Allah (S) gave the example of Moosa (a.s.) that he was ordered by Allah to construct a mosque where none but he and Haroon could live. Both these virtues are such that except for Ali (a.s.), it could not be obtained by anyone else from the non-Ahlul Bayt people.

The second virtue was that Ali (a.s.), like the Holy Prophet (S), even in the state of ritual impurity could enter the mosque. This proves the infallibility of Ali (a.s.) because without infallibility, a person cannot be absolutely pure. Thus, just as the Messenger of Allah (S) was infallible, in the same way, Ali (a.s.) was also infallible. In this condition, no one but Ali (a.s.) can be the successor of the Holy Prophet (S). The successor of an infallible should be infallible too. This merit also proves that immediate successorship of the Prophet belonged to Ali (a.s.).

The Ninth Incident: The Holy Prophet (S) appointed Ali (a.s.) as his representative and successor by tying a turban to the head of Ali (a.s.) and after that he made him sit on a camel and sent him to the infidels. And also said that even if one person accepts Islam at the hands of Ali (a.s.), it would be better than the entire world and whatever is in it. Side by side the Holy Prophet (S) also prayed: “O Allah! Make his tongue firm and guide his heart.” The Messenger of Allah (S) also said: “Ali is the most judicious among you!”4

Tying of turban is a sign of appointing as a successor. Till today, only the turban is tied on the head of one who is appointed as the successor. The tying of turban to Ali’s head and making him sit on a camel to depart by the Holy Prophet (S) shows that he alone deserved the position of the Prophet’s successorship. The truth is also that except for him, no one was qualified for it.

The Holy Prophet (S) knew that by tying the turban on Ali’s head and sending him to the enemies of Islam would not be useless, because Ali (a.s.) will remain steadfast in facing the enemies. He will definitely not flee from combat. People who value justice should see if the Prophet has treated anyone of the three Caliphs in this way. When it had already been proved by past experience that none of them had such ability.

The Tenth Incident: When Khalid bin Walid instigated some people to complain to the Holy Prophet (S) regarding the distribution of Yemen booty by Ali (a.s.), the Messenger of Allah (S) became infuriated.

The writer of Madarijun Nubuwwah says that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Do not think bad of Ali (a.s.), because he is from me and I am from him and he is your guardian. Of whomsoever I am the master, this Ali is his master too.” The words of Wali (Guardian) and Maula (Master) clearly imply the rule that no one from the Muslims can ignore his commands. The Holy Prophet (S) implied that of whosoever he was the ruler, in the same way was Ali (a.s.). Thus, whatever is his decision regarding the war booty, ‘the same would have been my decision. You have no right to complain against it.’

The obvious meaning of Maula is as mentioned above, but the opponents of Ali (a.s.) have contrived new connotations to this words, which shows nothing but the expression of their actual feelings.

Here, it seems appropriate to mention a few things about Khalid Ibn Walid also only because it is possible that he may not be mentioned in this book again. Khalid Ibn Walid was a well-known chief of the Bani Makhzum tribe. The first time Islam encountered him was during the Battle of Uhud. He had come with Abu Sufyan to confront the army of Islam and was a brave soldier. He began his activities against the army of Allah.

The Holy Prophet (S) had posted fifty archers at the mountain pass but they left their position and indulged in collecting the booty. Khalid saw the loophole and he descended from the heights and attacked the Muslims. Due to Khalid’s attack, the Muslims were defeated after having the upper hand. This also resulted in the martyrdom of Hamza, who was killed by a javelin thrown by Wahshi, the slave of Hind. After that, Khalid accepted Islam after a period of time.

At the time of the conquest of Mecca, the Holy Prophet (S) sent Khalid to confront the Bani Jazima. They accepted Islam and surrendered their weapons. In spite of their acceptance of Islam, Khalid treated them with cruelty and killed a number of their men. When the Holy Prophet (S) heard of this, he began to tremble by the fear of Allah and began to plead: “O my Lord! I dissociate with this misdeed of Khalid. And I seek Your refuge.” After this, the Messenger of Allah (S) immediately sent Ali (a.s.) with a lot of money and gold so that he could remove Khalid from there and reconcile the people whose kin were slain by Khalid and that they could be paid blood money.

Thus, Khalid was always inimical to Ali (a.s.) because the latter differed with him in many decisions. This had finally led Khalid to instigate people to complain against Ali (a.s.). The result was as mentioned above. Khalid remained famous as a ferocious warrior even after the passing away of the Prophet. Those who consider him equal to or braver than Ali (a.s.) should know that the bravery of Khalid was of a ferocious, wild kind. While the valor of Ali (a.s.) was never devoid of mercy and kindness. None is equal to Ali (a.s.) from the aspect of valor and forbearance. Khalid was so hot tempered that even a hot tempered person like Umar used to be dissatisfied with him. We don’t know how Khalid was conferred the title of ‘Sword of Allah’. It was definitely not gained during the lifetime of the Prophet.

The Messenger of Allah (S) was absolutely not pleased with him. It seems that during the conquests of Syria etc., the Muslims came to refer to him with this title. It is well-known that the title of ‘Sword of Allah’ is the exclusive appellation of Ali (a.s.), as the writer has shown in the foregone discussions. Apparently, it seems that Ahlul Sunnat have forcibly applied this title to Khalid. In this time also, there are people who call themselves descendants of Khalid. They are proud to say that they are the progeny of the ‘Sword of Allah’.

The Eleventh Incident: When the Holy Prophet (S) was going to Tabuk, he appointed Ali (a.s.) as his representative in Medina. This appointment was a matter of great pride for Ali (a.s.) but the hypocrites spread the calumny that the Prophet was angry with him; that is why he had left him in Medina and gone to Tabuk. So Ali (a.s.) asked the Holy Prophet (S) why he was leaving him as a Caliph on women and children while he had not been shortcoming in the five previous battles. Upon this, the Messenger of Allah (S) gave the example of Haroon and Moosa (a.s.). He said:

“You are to me as Haroon was to Moosa.”

It should be clear that the example is based on an incident when Moosa had left for the Miqat (place of meeting the Lord), he had appointed Haroon as his Caliph. The tradition regarding this incident is given below. Shaykh Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlavi has also quoted it from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: “You are to me as Haroon was to Moosa, except that there is no Prophet after me.”

Doubtlessly, this tradition tells us a lot of the high position of Ali (a.s.), but the opponents of Ali (a.s.) claim that there is nothing special in this tradition, because the Prophet had appointed him the Caliph on his family and not on all people of Medina. First of all, the saying of the mischievous people is itself invalid, because when the Prophet quoted the example of Haroon and Moosa, the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) over whole of Medina was proved. Secondly, when he was made the Caliph on the family of the Prophet, then what was the position of the common people of Medina? That any excuse could be sought for him being their Caliph.

It seems that these people do not consider the family and progeny of the Messenger of Allah (S) to be superior to the common people of Medina. That is why they are presenting such lame excuses from their side. Glory be to Allah, what a respect of the Prophet’s family! These people definitely degrade the Messenger’s kinsfolk by considering them at par with common people. The fact is that selfishness is a bad habit.

Sayyid Ali Hamadani writes in Mawaddatul Qurba that the Holy Prophet (S) had repeated the following tradition on ten different occasions: “You are having the same position to me as Haroon was having with Moosa (a.s.).” This does not only prove that he was a Caliph for the Prophet’s family when the Holy Prophet (S) had gone to Tabuk. Rather, it implies that he was the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S). This tradition is a great proof of the rightfulness of his Caliphate.

The writer of Ittilaaf says that most scholars have accepted this tradition except Amadi, who was expelled from Syria due to his contorted beliefs as mentioned by Zahabi in Mizanul Etedal in detail. The best tradition to prove the appointment of Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph is the Relation (Manzilah) tradition. Shah Abdul Aziz has written in Tohfa: “We, Ahlul Sunnat accept this tradition as correct. This tradition proves the Imamate of Ali (a.s.) in his own time.” After this, the Shah says: “Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) enemies (Nasibi) have denied this tradition.” We, Shias also agree to the view of Shah. But the limitation of “in his own time” is not correct.

Rather, it should be said that this tradition proves the immediate Caliphate of Ali (a.s.), while such a kind of tradition is not found for any of the three Caliphs. It is also stated by Nawawi, the commentator of Sahih Muslim and Ibn Hajar in Fathul Bari and Maqrizi etc. How beautifully the Shah has limited it to “his own time”! It is as if the Holy Prophet (S) has missed the phrase. No, the Holy Prophet (S) did not lay any condition to the acceptance of the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.). He did not say that after Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have been Caliphs, after this Ali (a.s.) must be taken as Caliph.

It is apparent that the Shah has applied this condition only to justify his Sunni faith. The Holy Prophet (S) never implied it. What a great selfishness that the Shah is blinded by the look of three Caliphs. He says that Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) enemies oppose this tradition and he himself has opposed it after a few lines. It is not a mature behavior; but selfishness blinds one in discriminating between right and wrong. At least the respected Shah who had the power to discern truth from falsehood should not have followed the bigots.

The Twelfth Incident: In 10 A.H., the Holy Prophet (S) announced that he was going for Hajj pilgrimage and whoever wanted to perform Hajj should come to Medina and accompany him. Upon hearing this news, 120000 people of the Arab tribes gathered in Medina.5 And the Holy Prophet (S) departed to Medina with the great crowd.6 Ali (a.s.) was in Yemen at that time. He also reached Mecca and joined the Holy Prophet (S). The Holy Prophet (S) fulfilled the rituals of Hajj and also delivered a brilliant and an eloquent sermon.7

He also said in the sermon that his death was near and the call of the Almighty may come anytime and he would have to respond. Thus, he was leaving among them two things: One of them being greater than the other and they shall not separate from each other till they join him at the cistern of Kauthar. If the people follow them and remain attached to them, they shall never go stray, and the two weighty things are the Quran and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.)

Tirmidhi has related the following tradition from Jabir as follows: On the day of Arafat, the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Indeed, I leave among you those that if you hold to them firmly you shall not go astray. They are the Book of Allah and my progeny.” The Messenger of Allah (S) was astride his she-camel, Qassa. This tradition is also related from Saad bin Abi Waqqas. In Tohfa, Shah Abdul Aziz has mentioned it as follows: “I leave among you two weighty things; if you hold to the two of them you will not go astray after me. One of them is greater than the other. The book of Allah and my progeny.”

Shah Waliullah has also quoted the same in Izalatul Khifa an Khilafatul Khulafa and this tradition is authentic and Mutawatir (related by a large number of narrators). No one has any objection to it. Anyway, when the Holy Prophet (S) completed the Hajj rituals, he headed back to Medina. On the way, he reached a spot named Ghadeer Khumm on the 18th of Zilhajj at the time for noon prayers. Jibraeel, the trustworthy, descended with the following command from the Almighty:

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered this message, and Allah will protect you from the people, Surely, Allah will not guide the unbelieving people.”8

On receiving this divine command, the Messenger of Allah (S) halted at that place and gathered all the people again. We should know that this Ghadeer Khumm was the place from where different roads diverged in different directions. When the people reached this spot with the Messenger of Allah (S) they began to go on their respective ways. The Holy Prophet (S) sent messengers to call back the people who had gone ahead and waited for those who were following behind.

When the people gathered, the Messenger of Allah (S) led the Noon Prayer and then got on a platform constructed of four camel saddles. Then he asked: “Don’t you know that I am better for the believers than they are for themselves?” All the people replied that they indeed agreed to this.

The writer of Madarijun Nubuwwah explains the meaning of the Prophet’s words as follows: “That I do not command any of the believers to perform any such act which is against their well-being and success of the world and the Hereafter. While the selves of the believers sometimes are prone to mischief and corruption.” However, the brief and clear meaning of this statement is that: “Am I not better and higher than the believers?” There can be no doubt that all the audience replied in one voice that it was true. Anyway, after this the Holy Prophet (S) said:

“I am leaving among you two important things and one of them is greater than the other. They are Quran and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). You must be careful with regard to them that how you behave with them and how you fulfill their rights. These two shall not separate from each other after me, till they meet me at the cistern of Kauthar.”

After this, the Messenger of Allah (S) said: “Allah is my Master and I am the master of all believers.” Then he held the hand of Ali (a.s.) and said: “O Allah! Of whomsoever, I am the master, this Ali is his master too. O Allah! Befriend one who befriends Ali (a.s.) and be inimical to one who is inimical to Ali (a.s.). Help one who helps Ali and degrade one who disrespects Ali (a.s.) and desert one who deserts Ali (a.s.), and turn the truth to whichever direction Ali (a.s.) turns.”

After this, he commanded Ali (a.s.) to sit in a tent and accept congratulations of believers for mastership of believers. Thus, the respected wives of the Prophet went to his tent to congratulate him.9 Abu Bakr and Umar also congratulated him with fervor and said: “You have become the master of all the believing men and believing women.” Umar even said: “Congratulations! O Abal Hasan, today you have become my master and the master of all believing men and women.” All this is true, but what a pity that Abu Bakr and Umar did not recall their congratulatory statements in Saqifah. It is unlikely that they had forgotten these statements.

Rather, the fact is that they had made those statements as matter of policy without any sincere feelings. If it had been otherwise, Abu Bakr would not have disregarded Ali (a.s.) within a few days and himself became the master of believers. Apart from the congratulations, poets composed panegyrics and couplets in praise of Ali (a.s.). Thus, the most famous of these panegyrics is one composed by Hassaan bin Thabit. Below we present the translation of a few couplets of this panegyric:

“On the day of Ghadeer the Messenger of Allah (S) called the people and gathered them.

It was a voice that all those with hearing capability could hear.

The Holy Prophet (S) asked the people who their chief and master was? Everyone replied and at that moment did not show blindness.

That Allah is the master of you and us, and you are our ruler and today no one can disobey you.

The Messenger of Allah (S) made Ali (a.s.) stand up and said: Indeed, I have appointed you Imam and guide after me.

Thus, all the people should remain his true helpers like slaves.

After stating this the Messenger of Allah (S) prayed and said: O Allah love those who love Ali (a.s.) and be inimical to one who is inimical to Ali (a.s.).”

Poor Hassaan did no know that the opponents of Ali (a.s.) will distort the meaning of Maula. And after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S) how they would make ineffective all the proceedings of Ghadeer Khumm. The couplets of Hassaan also indicate that the Messenger of Allah (S) had appointed Ali (a.s.) as the ruler of his people and designated him as his successor. It was definitely not that the Messenger of Allah (S) had appointed Ali (a.s.) only as helper and beloved. It is surprising that those who derive such absurd meanings do not feel ashamed.

There is no power and strength except by Allah.

Modesty is a part of faith. Why did they act so shamelessly? Thus, after the sermon of Ghadeer, the following verse was revealed:

“This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion.”10

Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, one of the four Imams of Ahlul Sunnat says that after this verse, the Messenger of Allah (S) said: “Praise be to Allah for the perfection of religion and the completion of favor and His pleasure by my Messengership and the guardianship (Wilayat) of Ali (a.s.) after me.” We should know that the tradition of Ghadeer is narrated by a large number of companions, their followers and other traditionists.

Two hundred and fifty Shafei scholars have also recorded the tradition of Ghadeer Khumm. In addition to them, Allamah Maghribi has composed a beautiful panegyric (Qasida) in praise of Ali (a.s.) with reference to Ghadeer Khumm. The incident of Ghadeer seems to be very significant in the history of Islam and if you study its parts, you will realize an important point.

It seems that the Messenger of Allah (S) had desired to make some arrangement in his own lifetime and he definitely did not imply an insignificant matter. That Ali (a.s.) is the helper and the friend of believers, as Ibn Hajar and other scholars construe it to mean. If the Holy Prophet (S) did not mean to say that Ali (a.s.) is appointed the executor of all religious and seculars, why did the Almighty command the Messenger of Allah (S) to make such an announcement? Why should Allah say:

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message; and Allah will protect you from the people...”

Here the phrase: “Allah will protect you from the people...” is also worth noting. It seems that the Messenger of Allah (S) was not feeing safe from mischief mongers and hypocrites and he was expecting trouble from them. That is why Allah promised him safety. Why, also, did the Holy Prophet (S) stop the people and made a pulpit of saddles and ask: “Whether I am not superior for you than yourself?” When they replied in affirmative, he stated the attachment of the book of Allah and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Then he said that Allah was his master and he was the master of all believers. Then he caught the hand of Ali (a.s.) and said:

“Of whomsoever I am the Master, this Ali is his master too...”

If the intention of Allah and His Messenger was merely to inform about the friendship and helpfulness of Ali (a.s.), then indeed no ruler and leader in the world has performed such a fiasco. Not only this, afterwards, people came to congratulate Ali (a.s.). Abu Bakr and Umar congratulated him too.

In the words of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, the Holy Prophet (S) said: “By my prophethood and by the guardianship (Wilayat) of Ali (a.s.) after me.” We should know that only one who lacks faith is prone to quote the words of Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S) without any significance.

Please note that the above incident clearly indicates the immediate successorship of Ali (a.s.). Though the incident of Tabuk was also clear, the event of Ghadeer is much more clear. The opponents of Ali (a.s.) and the bigots may view it in any way they like, but the followers of Ali (a.s.) consider this, a clear proof of the Imamate of Ali (a.s.). From all the discussions presented by the writer in the foregone pages, it is proved that there was no one equal to Ali (a.s.) from the Ummah of the Messenger of Allah (S).

Rather, there was no one even from the past nations.

All the points mentioned so far are sufficient to prove that in the view of Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S), Ali (a.s.) was the best and most superior of all the believers. Though Ali (a.s.) possessed uncountable merits, his bravery and piety was such that there was none his equal. His bravery was such that through it, Islam was established. His steadfastness in the battles and military campaigns was such that more steadfastness is impossible. To compare him with the three Caliphs, from the aspect of valor, is meaningless.

Secondly, his worship was such that in the words of the Messenger of Allah (S), the worship of all the past, present and future people cannot compete with it. In this way, to compare Ali (a.s.) with the three Caliphs or any righteous person is useless. These two qualities are sufficient to prove the superiority of Ali (a.s.), so there is no need for me to compare Ali (a.s.) to the three Caliphs from the aspect of other qualities.

These two qualities alone prove the immediate successorship of Ali (a.s.). Anyone lacking in these two qualities cannot be superior to Ali (a.s.). And while Ali (a.s.) is there, someone else could not be appointed as Caliph. Keeping in mind all the qualities of Ali (a.s.); especially these two virtues, no equitable person will accept anyone other than him as the successor of the Prophet. Bigotry and falsehood is another matter!

Readers should note that we have presented here the details about Ali (a.s.) because there is significant connection between the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) at Karbala’ with the non-appointment of Ali (a.s.) to the seat of Caliphate. That is, if he had been accepted as the Caliph, immediately after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S), Abu Sufyan and Bani Umayyah had not become strong. They would have remained in the lowly state, the Messenger of Allah (S) had left them.

The fact is that the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) is a result of the usurpation of the right of Ali (a.s.). Not only did it cause the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.), it was responsible for the martyrdom of Ali, Fatima and Hasan (a.s.) and all the calamities that befell the family of the Messenger of Allah (S). It won’t be long when the opponents of the Prophet’s family (a.s.) suffer the consequences of their deeds.

________________________

1.Ref. Maarijun Nubuwwah

2.Ref. Maarijun Nubuwwah, Part 4, Pg. 269-270, and also Sahih Tirmidhi

3.Ref. the 207th verse of Surah Baqarah

4.Refer Shaykh Abdul Haqq Dehlavi’s Maarijun Nubuwwah, Vol. 2, Pg. 229, 230

5.Ref. Maarijun Nubuwwah

6.Tafseer Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 58.

7.Tauzihud Dalail of Shahabuddin Ahmad and also Marakatul Arasha, of Salamatullah

8.Surah Maidah 5:67

9.Tazkeratul Khawas of Sibte Ibn Jawzi; Seerate Rasool of Ibn Ishaq, Maarijun

Nubuwwah; Rauzatul Safa and Habibus Sayr

10.Surah Maidah 5:3

 

 

 

We should know that the tragedy of Karbala’ is the natural consequence of some unnatural factors that the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) had to face from the last moments of the Holy Prophet (S). The writer has already shown in brief, what the tradition of Two Heavy things (Thaqalayn) demanded and why the change in this command distanced Bani Hashim from rulership, which caused their worldly leadership to be lost and finally their religious leadership was also gone.

This reduced their honor to such an extent that they began to be included among the common people. Thus, after such factors came into action, a tragedy of the magnitude of the Tragedy of Karbala’ was not entirely unexpected.

It is a decided matter that if after the Messenger of Allah (S), Ali (a.s.) had been accepted as the Caliph, the Tragedy of Karbala’ would never have occurred. Indeed, if he had become the Caliph, he would never have bestowed official positions and economic concessions to Bani Umayyah. This is what that seems apparent. Bani Umayyah would have remained in the basal position in which the Messenger of Allah (S) had left them.

Doubtlessly, if Ali (a.s.) had been accepted as the successor to the Holy Prophet (S), he was the one to have conformed to the style and method of the Holy Prophet (S). It was not possible that Ali (a.s.) would have deviated from the policy of the Holy Prophet (S). The first mistake was that the Muslims opposed Bani Hashim. And the second mistake committed by them was that this opposition made the Bani Umayyah very strong. Not only were Bani Hashim hurt by this, even the world of Islam had to bear untold damages, as will be shown by future discussions.

We have already described the process of the empowerment of Bani Umayyah in the first volume of our book Kashful Haqaiq. But here also, we shall mention in brief, the account of Bani Umayyah’s rise to power. We should know that immediately after the formation of Caliphate, Bani Umayyah were presented with excellent opportunities to gain power, which this tribe had never even dreamt of. From the beginning of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, the Bani Umayyah began to become powerful and within two years, the Syrian area was populated by the people of this tribe. Each and every member of this clan shifted from Mecca and Medina to Syria, and they gained their worldly desires as much as they had craved.

When rulership of Syria was gifted to Abu Sufyan, he did not opt to go there himself. His son, Yazeed Ibn Abu Sufyan took over the position gained by his father and departed to Syria. This gentleman was the governor of Syria for four years: Two years during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and two years during the Caliphate of Umar. Yazeed bin Abu Sufyan was not a very capable person, so his brother Muawiyah used to assist him in administration.

After the death of Yazeed bin Abi Sufyan, Muawiyah succeeded him as the governor of Syria. He was very cunning and crafty. Though he had no sort of religious capability, he possessed extraordinary manipulative power from the worldly aspect. As soon as he became the governor, the atmosphere of this country was transformed. In a brief time, Syria became a powerful and superior part of the Islamic kingdom.

Although Syria was considered to be under the control of Caliphate, Muawiyah had a free hand to do as he wished. In spite of this, Muawiyah never acted in a rebellious manner with the Caliphate. Rather, Muawiyah used to accord great respect and regard to Umar, the second Caliph. And why shouldn’t he had been so polite, when all that Muawiyah had achieved was due to the kindness of Umar?

The period of Umar’s Caliphate is said to be ten years but actually it was twelve because the two-year Caliphate of Abu Bakr was only in name. During this period of twelve years, Bani Umayyah became rulers and when the Caliphate of Uthman arrived, even the Caliphate became the property of Bani Umayyah, because the third Caliph was also from Bani Umayyah. At this time, the whole Islamic world seemed to be only Bani Umayyah. The pomp and show of Bani Umayyah at this time was beyond imagination. The land of Shaam (Syria) was filled with Bani Umayyah. They held all official positions in government and they were preferred for every post. This was the position of Bani Umayyah.

Now let us see the condition of Bani Hashim, which denotes the family of the Prophet. The head of this family at this time was Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and there did not remain any honor for Bani Hashim. They were completely out of power. A member of this clan did not even have a menial post in government. Bani Hashim had become distanced from public respect.

Their private economic conditions had also deteriorated due to the loss of Fadak. With the loss of their worldly position, there did not remain with them even religious leadership, as we have already explained in the foregoing pages. Apparently, there remained no sort of superiority for Bani Hashim and in the near future also there was no hope of any considerable change in their status. Yes, after the death of Uthman, somehow Ali (a.s.) was appointed to the Caliphate.

But the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.), which lasted for four years, was mostly spent in wars. First of all, due to the rebellion of Muawiyah, ‘A’ysha fought His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) at Jamal with Talha and Zubair. After this, Muawiyah continuously fought with the Caliph of the age. All these machinations of Muawiyah and his rebellious activities are considered ‘errors of judgment’. The writer has not understood till today, what this ‘error of judgment’ is? And if Allah wills, it shall never ever become clear to him, because a just mind cannot accept such a thing. This is beyond the comprehension of the writer, because neither this humble one has the same mentality as Muawiyah, nor has any sort of interest with his activities.

Anyway, after becoming the Caliph, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) could not exalt Bani Umayyah, just as before this the Holy Prophet (S) had never allowed Bani Umayyah to gain supremacy. It could not be expected from Ali (a.s.) that he would allow Bani Umayyah to retain their undeserved power. The same Bani Umayyah, who were merely a tribe during the time of the Messenger of Allah (S) had now become the Sultans of Islamic dominions.

Anyhow, the brief Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) ended with his martyrdom. Bani Hashim could not achieve any official positions during his tenure. After him, Imam Hasan (a.s.) succeeded to the post of his father. Immediately after the appointment of Imam Hasan (a.s.) as the Caliph in Kufa, Muawiyah marched to Kufa with an army 60,000 strong. Imam Hasan (a.s.) abdicated the Caliphate and Muawiyah became the de facto Caliph. Due to this achievement of Caliphate, Muawiyah became one of the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat. Thus, Muawiyah got the Caliphate by force and coercion and this method came to be accepted as a valid method of gaining Caliphate according to Ahlul Sunnat as is well-known among the educated people.

After abdication, Imam Hasan (a.s.) became a pensioner of Muawiyah and returned to Medina to live with his brother, Imam Husayn (a.s.) in a way that content people live. Although there remained no political value of Bani Hashim at this time, Muawiyah was not feeling safe from Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (a.s.).

Somehow, Imam Hasan (a.s.) was removed from the scene by poison. It is well known that Muawiyah had got Imam Hasan (a.s.) poisoned. Abul Fida, the historian says: “Some say it was Muawiyah and some think it was Yazeed who had done this.” This writer believes it was Muawiyah who had Imam Hasan (a.s.) poisoned. His son was not capable enough to have Imam Hasan (a.s.) martyred while he himself sat in Damascus. Yazeed was a weak person having no determination.

Apart from this, due to his sensual habits, he had no intelligence and the fact is that he had inherited none of the craftiness and cunning of Muawiyah. If he had even the slightest awareness, he would not have forced Imam Husayn (a.s.) to such an extent to give the oath of allegiance.

Muawiyah would never have employed such forcible methods. He never demanded allegiance from Imam Husayn (a.s.). Muawiyah just needed the kingdom to rule and he was not interested in the allegiance of Imam Hasan (a.s.). If Muawiyah had insisted for allegiance, in spite of his magnanimity, Imam Hasan (a.s.) would have refused. And then Muawiyah would have needed the same forcible methods that later became necessary for his son, Yazeed, against Imam Husayn (a.s.).

Thus, when the news of the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (a.s.) reached Muawiyah, he was much relieved according to his own admission.1 But Imam Husayn (a.s.) was still alive. This was a great danger that lurked upon Muawiyah. He used to tell his son that he must not yet consider his kingdom safe. “Husayn Ibn Ali was yet living. He has the courage of his father. And till he is alive, you must not feel safe from his side.” Doubtlessly, these statements of Muawiyah show a great foresight. The son did not have any such foresight. Anyway, to strengthen the Caliphate of his son, initially Muawiyah used persuasive methods. And only after this, he began to take the oath of allegiance of Muslims in favor of his son.

Thousands of Muslims paid allegiance to Yazeed. Taking allegiance in Syria was not at all difficult. It was also taken from many people of Mecca and Medina, but the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet remained aloof from all this. If Yazeed had any sort of understanding like his father, he would not have been so severe in obtaining allegiance from Bani Hashim and would have left them on their own. But this use of force finally led to the clear refusal of Imam Husayn (a.s.) to give allegiance, and as a result of which he had to face the tragedy of Karbala’, due to which Yazeed began to be remembered as an evil Satan even by some Ahlul Sunnat.

Before we discuss the events of Karbala’, we would like to show how this incident can be viewed from different points of view. According to our research, this event has only two aspects: One of its aspects is that Imam Husayn (a.s.) was on the right and that is why he was martyred unjustly.

The second view is that (we seek Allah’s refuge) Imam Husayn (a.s.) was a traitor and his killing was a lawful act on the part of Caliphate, because the Imam was neither oppressed nor killed a martyr. The sect which considers Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the oppressed one and a martyr, rather, it considers this martyrdom to be a part of faith, it is necessary for the sect to consider Caliphate to be a divinely ordained office. And it should believe in the infallibility of the successor of the Prophet. To have a belief opposite to this implies that Husayn (a.s.) was a traitor and hence his killing should not be considered martyrdom. Thus, from this aspect, it is only the Imamiyah sect that believes in the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

The non-Imamiyah have no right to consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) an oppressed one and a martyr. Some non-Imamiyah people in India, who are seen accepting the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and also some of them who even participate in Azadari (mourning ceremonies) are actually doing something against the basic principles of their faith, because according to their principle, Yazeed was a rightful Caliph and thus Imam Husayn (a.s.) becomes a traitor. That is why his refusal to give allegiance cannot make him a martyr.

Doubtlessly, it is only the right of Shias of the family of the Holy Prophet (S) that they consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the rightful successor of the Prophet, and a martyr. And it befits only them to mourn the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.). The just people should note that when infallibility was no longer considered a condition for Caliphate, then what doubt could there be in Yazeed’s Caliphate? Didn’t Yazeed get even two people from non-Bani Hashim to fulfill the condition of consensus? The condition of consensus was most appropriate for Yazeed. Leave alone two, Yazeed had obtained Caliphate by the consensus of two hundred thousand people.

Apart from this, the condition of forcible obtaining of Caliphate also applies to Yazeed. It was that, through which Muawiyah had obtained Caliphate from Imam Hasan (a.s.). The same condition was applicable to Yazeed. In addition to this, the condition of appointment by the predecessor was also in favor of Yazeed. Muawiyah had clearly appointed Yazeed as his successor.

As we have mentioned above, Muawiyah appointed Yazeed as his successor and made utmost efforts to obtain allegiance for him. He was also successful to a large extent. The condition of consultation committee (Shura) was also in favor of Yazeed. The Caliphate of Uthman was entrusted only to six people. The whole of Syria was the Shura committee for Yazeed. Without any doubt, those who do not believe infallibility to be a necessary condition for Caliphate, consider Yazeed the rightful Caliph.

The teacher of this writer, Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Gul Sahab Jalalabadi had a firm belief in the rightfulness of Yazeed’s Caliphate and his view was most appropriate, due to which he did not consider the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) to be a martyrdom. In the same way, some other scholars of the province had the same kind of belief and it is possible that they still do.

But in Afghanistan there are some Ahlul Sunnat who are very particular about this belief. In the view of the writer, such people do not deserve to be criticized, because when infallibility is not a condition of Caliphate and Yazeed had all the necessary conditions of Caliphate, then why shouldn’t he be considered a rightful Caliph? It is nothing but injustice that after having all the conditions of Caliphate, Yazeed shouldn’t be accepted as Caliph. Even when I did not believe in infallibility to be a necessary condition of Caliphate, I used to consider Yazeed a rightful Caliph, and without any doubt, I was right in having such a stand.

Every scholar that did not accept infallibility as the condition of Caliphate, considered Yazeed a rightful Caliph. In the view of the writer, such a stand is worth admiration, because these people are loyal to their own principles. It seems that Abdullah Ibn Umar also considered Yazeed a rightful Caliph. If it had not been so, he would neither have given his allegiance to Yazeed nor encouraged other people to give it. The son of such a great Caliph, and himself an intelligent man, cannot commit an evil act!

Indeed, he considered the Caliphate of Yazeed, a valid Caliphate. And why shouldn’t he have considered it so? When no excuse can be found in his Caliphate and it had all the necessary conditions. Abdullah indeed did not consider infallibility as the necessary condition of Caliphate. If he had thought so, he would have considered unlawful and false the Caliphate of the three Caliphs and Muawiyah.

However, Husayn Ibn Ali (a.s.) considered infallibility to be a necessary condition of Caliphate. That is why he did not accept Yazeed as the rightful Caliph and opposed him and he did not even hesitate to lay down his life.

___________________

1.Ref. Tarikh Khamis

 

 

 

When Muawiyah died, there was no one in Syria and Hijaz who could oppose the succession of Yazeed to his father’s seat of Caliphate. Muawiyah had arranged the Caliphate of Yazeed in his own lifetime. Thus, Yazeed, at last, occupied the throne of Caliphate. Damascus, which is presently in Syria, was at that time the Capital of the Islamic Kingdom. After the Righteous Caliphs, Muawiyah had named it the seat of Government. It remained that seat of government for all Bani Umayyah rulers. All the offices from Medina were shifted to this city.

During the reign of the Abbasids, the same were transferred to Baghdad. After the rule of Bani Abbas, the Arab Kingdom itself was finished and even Baghdad became an ordinary city like Damascus and Medina from the political aspect. Anyway, Yazeed became the Caliph of the time and began to take allegiance from the masses. It was not a difficult matter in other cities of Syria. Thousands in Medina also paid allegiance at the hands of Yazeed, but he was not assured regarding Imam Husayn (a.s.), so he ordered Walid bin Uqba, the governor of Medina, to take allegiance from Imam Husayn (a.s.) on his behalf. Also, that if Imam Husayn (a.s.) refused, his head should be cut off and sent to Damascus.

Walid continued to shun this extreme step, but Marwan was always nagging him to execute Yazeed’s orders. This is the same Marwan, who was ordered by the Holy Prophet (S) to be externed from Islamic territories, he was also the son-in-law of Uthman and he belonged to Bani Umayyah. When Uthman became the Caliph, Marwan was recalled to Medina.1 The text is as follows: “Marwan Ibn Hakam was banned in Medina by the Holy Prophet (S) but Uthman recalled him and appointed him as his scribe.” The reason for his being recalled is that he was a close relative of Uthman and Uthman had called him to act on Quranic verses that exhort us to be kind to relatives and orphans.

Marwan was mischief personified and a perfect example of his clan. Now he came to Medina and became the close confidant and adviser to Uthman. But he gave such advices to the Caliph that at last he had to wash his hands off his life. When the crow is a leader of a people, it is very likely that they shall be doomed to perdition. In any case, Marwan resided in Medina during the Caliphate of Uthman and continued even after Uthman was killed. When the orders from Yazeed reached Imam Husayn (a.s.), Marwan always tried to see that the orders of the Caliph are carried out, but Walid did not like to cut off the head of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and Imam Husayn (a.s.) safely departed for Mecca. The going away of Imam Husayn (a.s.) to Mecca was not detrimental to him. He had at least escaped the mischievous hands of Marwan.

Imam Husayn (a.s.) went from Medina to Mecca on Friday night, 4th Shaban in 60 A.H., taking his family and children with him and he finally reached Mecca, where the people showed a lot of support for him. The governor of Mecca, Saad bin Aas saw this and ran away to Medina. On reaching Medina, he wrote a letter to Yazid: Imam Husayn (a.s.) has come to Mecca and the people of Mecca are supporting him. This letter was sent to the Caliph in Damascus. When the Caliph learnt of this, he deposed Walid from the governorship of Medina because he had failed to deal with Imam Husayn (a.s.) and in his place appointed Ibnul Ashdaq. Although the people of Mecca had shown their support to Imam Husayn (a.s.) initially, Mecca was not beyond the control of the Caliph.

The command to take allegiance for the Caliph reached here too. In case he didn’t give allegiance, it was commanded to cut off his head. Now his opponents began to taunt and tease and were ready to attack in any way they could. It was very likely that Mecca would become the battlefield of Karbala’. In such a condition, Imam Husayn (a.s.) did not consider it suitable to complete the rites of Hajj. He changed his Hajj into Umrah (lesser pilgrimage) and left Mecca as soon as possible. During this time, many letters had arrived from the people of Kufa. So Imam (a.s.) decided to head towards Kufa. But consultations were held and it was decided that first the Imam’s cousin, Muslim Ibn Aqeel, should go to Kufa and study the situation, only after this should the Imam (a.s.) himself proceed.

Muslim reached Kufa after a lot of difficulties with his two young sons. The people of Kufa welcomed Muslim and more than forty thousand people gave oath of allegiance to him. Seeing this, Muslim wrote a detailed letter to Imam Husayn (a.s.) that he could come to Kufa from Mecca. More than a hundred and fifty letters from the people of Kufa had already reached Imam Husayn (a.s.), so there was nothing, which should hold back Imam Husayn (a.s.) from Kufa.

Getting such a letter from Muslim, Imam Husayn (a.s.) packed the baggage for the journey and with relatives and family members left for Kufa on 9th Zilhajj, Tuesday, 60 A.H. All his family members and friends who had accompanied him in this journey were but a few people. And if there were more, they gradually left the company of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

Finally, on reaching Karbala’, very few people were left with the Imam. Then, on the day of martyrdom only seventy-two remained and if at all they were more, they could not have been more than eighty-two. When on his way, he reached Ramalah, he sent a letter to the people of Kufa through his foster brother. But Ibn Ziyad already knew that Imam (a.s.) was heading for Kufa. That is why he had already arranged to waylay him. The foster brother was arrested and Ibn Ziyad martyred him.

It should be clear that after Muslim wrote the letter to Imam Husayn (a.s.), calamities began to befall him. Ibn Ziyad wreaked strange cruelties on Muslim and his sons and from one aspect he did not do any wrong because after all he was following the ‘commands’ of the ‘Caliph’ of that time!

Anyway, according to the views of Shias, after facing torture, Muslim was martyred and both his sons also achieved martyrdom at the hands of a Kufaite. Although in the beginning, the Kufaites had welcomed Muslim, but when the severity of the Caliph’s officers weighed on them they could not support Muslim and that is why the affair did not come about as was expected. The government is all-powerful and the common people cannot confront the government. In brief, Muslim did not get a chance to inform Imam Husayn (a.s.) about the changed behavior of the Kufaites and the oppression of the rulers.

Thus, Imam Husayn (a.s.) gradually moved closer to Kufa. When he reached Thalebiya, Bakr Asadi who was coming from Kufa, informed Imam Husayn (a.s.) about the real situation and the havoc that Ibn Ziyad had wreaked. He broke the tragic news of Muslim and his sons. The martyrdom of Muslim was on the day when he had started from Mecca to Kufa. When Imam Husayn (a.s.) heard this tragic news, he was shocked. The companions advised that he should return to the hometown.

Now, first of all, what left for him in the home country? It was also under the rulership of Yazeed. Secondly, the relatives of Muslim asked what was there to live for, till they do not take revenge of Muslim from the Kufaites. Keeping this in mind, Imam Husayn (a.s.) again headed for Kufa. On the way, he came across Hurr Ibn Riyahi who was send by Ibn Ziyad to stop Imam (a.s.). He intercepted Imam Husayn (a.s.) but could not bring himself to arrest him; but since he was helpless before the command of Ibn Ziyad, he led Imam Husayn (a.s.) to Kufa. Hurr had told Imam Husayn (a.s.) that when the caravan halted for the night he should go away in any direction he liked. When it was night, Imam Husayn (a.s.) quietly moved away. But at daybreak he was forced to halt at the land of Karbala’.

The Imam pitched his tents there and to defend them dug a trench around them. Soon Ibn Ziyad’s army also arrived and camped at a distance from the tents of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). First there were talks of reconciliation between Imam (a.s.) and Ibn Ziyad. But without allegiance to Yazeed there was no possibility of peace and hence Imam (a.s.) prepared to lay down his life. When fighting ensued, one by one all, from the Imam’s side were martyred hungry and thirsty, except Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.). Imam Husayn (a.s.) bore every kind of atrocity but did not agree to pledge allegiance to Yazeed. Before his very eyes, his brother, Abbas, nephew, Qasim, his son, Ali Akbar, his nephews, Aun and Muhammad, Ali Asghar, his infant son, all of them were martyred. Hurr also repented and came to the side of Imam (a.s.) and finally attained martyrdom in the way of Allah.

Only Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.), who was ill at that time, survived. He accompanied the women and children and they were taken as prisoners to the Caliph at Damascus. This incident tells us of the extraordinary qualities of Imam Husayn (a.s.). It tells us that he had no attachment or expectation from the world and this life. There was nothing, which could equal his patience and steadfastness. Doubtlessly, he had all those qualities that are necessary in an infallible Imam and the successor of the Prophet. Let the enemies of the Progeny of Muhammad (S) say whatever they like, but the fact is that his praiseworthy qualities themselves tell us that he was a rightful successor of the Messenger of Allah (S).

Here, we call your attention to an incident with Hurr that shows the astounding perfection of the selflessness of Imam Husayn (a.s.). When Hurr stopped Imam (a.s.) from moving to Kufa, Hurr and his entourage were almost dying of thirst. Hurr requested Imam (a.s.) for water. Imam (a.s.) had sufficient stocks of water that was offered to Hurr and his entourage. After that, Imam (a.s.) said the horses of Hurr were also thirsty and they should also be watered. Some people from his group suggested they exercise restraint in using the stocks of water, because it was a scarce commodity and there might be shortage in near future. Imam (a.s.) said that it was not a right thing that human beings should drink water and animals remain thirty.

In brief, Imam (a.s.) gave plenty of water to the enemies and their beasts, and he did not deprive them in view of his future needs. O Allah! What an occasion that within a few days, the same Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his followers very subjected to sanction against water. Why shouldn’t it be so? He was an infallible Imam. Who other than an infallible can act in this way? The fact is that it behoved him to act in this manner and his enemies had to act in the opposing manner. The same situation had occurred with the father of Imam Husayn (a.s.), Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.). It is when Ali (a.s.) had to face Muawiyah in battle, a situation arose when the army of Ali (a.s.) had no access to water.

The Euphrates was under Muawiyah’s control. Ali (a.s.) tried to seek the permission of the enemies to draw water from Euphrates. Muawiyah who never knew to be kind to his opponent, rejected this request of Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.). After this, Ali (a.s.) inflicted military defeat to Muawiyah’s army and gained the control of Euphrates. Then Muawiyah helplessly requested Ali (a.s.) for access to water. Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.) at once issued the permission and said: “River is such a thing in which the beasts and birds all have the right to fulfill their needs. No one can be restrained from it.”

People of justice can very well conclude from this action of Ali (a.s.), how aloof he was from the material world. He had never confronted Muawiyah for gaining any material benefit. Doubtlessly, such an action could only be possible by an infallible person. Such situations that were encountered by Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his father do not have any equal in the world. And these are such situations that clearly present the infallibility of the Imams of the family of the Prophet.

O Allah! Bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

What a pity that Imam Husayn and Imam Ali (a.s.) acted so benevolently but an opposite stand was taken by their respective opponents, Yazeed and Muawiyah. These situations present the vast difference between an infallible and a non- infallible person. Thus, when Imam Husayn (a.s.) supplied water to the foe’s army, it is not surprising. He was following the example of his respected father. If he had not acted in this way, what else could he have done? Indeed, how can Bani Umayyah or other people compare with the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet? They are exact opposites.

The Ahlul Bayt of Prophet performed such feats at every step, pondering on which we could realize that Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) are very much different from others. The difference between an infallible and fallible is at once obvious. In order to realize this difference, we need a clear heart. But those whose hearts are filled with animosity of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) could not discern this.

At this time, there are thousands of defective people whose eyes cannot perceive the merits of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Each one to his own fortune. O Allah! What Providence! Hurr was also from this same group of oppressors. But when he realized the truth, he gave up all the material wealth and position and walked the path to martyrdom and salvation.

Yet Ibn Ziyad, Ibn Saad, Khuli and Hurmala continued to be blind to this reality. They fell into the chastisement of Hell like blind people. The fact is that a person can become a devotee of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) only when the Almighty bestows him with good sense (Taufeeq) of this devotion. The writer himself remembers his own time when during his student days, he considered Imam Husayn (a.s.) a traitor against the Caliphate.

And since Allah gave divine good sense to him, he began to believe in the Imamate of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) after considering them infallible. Allah gave this great divine sense (Taufeeq) to him in the same way as Hurr was given. The situation of the writer was more serious, because although he was a descendant of Bani Hashim and yet he harbored enmity with the Progeny of the Prophet. Curse be on such education, which does not allow one to realize the rights of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

Praise be to Allah and Praise once again that Allah gave us the good sense to research facts on the basis of which we were prevented from being counted among Bani Umayyah and their cohorts.

Indeed, the tragedy of Karbala’ was an astounding occurrence and Islam was very much in need of it. This incident has proved the veracity of Islam. It has shown how the Quranic teachings of patience and contentment could be transformed into actions. How we can be away from material greed that is criticized in the Quran. Many of the merits of the Holy Quran were unveiled by this incident. It has shown what is religiousness and how it is different from worldly matters. It has shown that religiousness is such a courage that cannot be in the share of a materialist. It has shown us that pulling out the sword in the way of Allah is different and arranging rows in greed for kingdom is different.

The same incident has shown how a man of the world can remain steadfast on the way of Allah. How he prefers the will of Allah and how he considers the life of this world worthless.

In brief, Imam (a.s.) has expounded the merits of the Holy Quran. Now if some evil-minded person has not realized it, it is his misfortune.

_________________

1.Refer Tarikh Tabari

 

 

Scholars have written that the Almighty Allah had bestowed every type of excellence on the Holy Prophet (S), except for the position of martyrdom. This exception is explained in the way that if he had been martyred directly, it would have been somewhat disrespectful for his stature. Therefore, this martyrdom was saved for his sons. In the view of the writer, this is a defective opinion.

First of all, how can martyrdom be disrespectful to any prophet? Secondly, if martyrdom is in anyway related to respect, how is it possible that it should apply to the Prophet but not for his grandsons? If martyrdom was a cause of disrespect for the Prophet, it should in the same way for his grandsons. According to the writer, this is not a valid explanation of the martyrdoms of Imams Hasan and Husayn (a.s.). Because, the fact seems to be that the martyrdoms of the grandsons was intended by Allah to prove the veracity of the Holy Quran.

Thus, this martyrdom proved the truthfulness of the claim of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (S). Imam Hasan (a.s.) showed to the whole world the beautiful patience that the Quran has prescribed and Imam Husayn (a.s.) practically showed all the teachings of the Holy Quran.

O Allah! Bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

 

 

It should be clear that the incident of Karbala’ is as explained above. Now you can see it from any point of view that you like. Only those people consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the martyr who consider him infallible and the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S). But those who do not consider him infallible and the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S) cannot believe that he was a martyr. In such a situation, they cannot believe that he was oppressed. Thus, to consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as a martyr, it is must to believe in his infallibility and rightful successorship of the Prophet.

It is evident that when infallibility was not accepted as a condition of Caliphate, what doubt can there be that Yazeed was a rightful Caliph? In such a situation, what can Imam Husayn (a.s.) be considered, except a traitor of Caliphate? How can anyone support this traitor and how can his killing be martyrdom? We are very surprised on those who believe in the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) but deny his infallibility. It is a sect that does not keep in view the final outcome. Their mourning the calamities of Imam Husayn (a.s.) is a meaningless act. Such people may weep at their own misfortune, but they have no right to weep on Imam Husayn (a.s.).

There are also some who consider the Holy Prophet (S), the twelve Imams and Lady Fatima (s.a.) to be infallible. And only Shias perfectly believe in the guardianship (Wilayat) of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), though Ahlul Sunnat believe only in the Caliphate. These people consider the three Caliphs to be rightful, but act according to the practical laws of Ahlul Sunnat faith. This is a strange sect, which is neither completely Shia nor Sunni.

They do not understand that if the infallibility of the fourteen Infallibles is a fact, the Caliphate of the three Caliphs becomes meaningless. In such a situation, Ali (a.s.) being infallible, becomes the immediate successor of the Holy Prophet (S). Since even Ahlul Sunnat did not regard the three Caliphs as infallible, their superiority cannot be valid in comparison to Ali (a.s.). It is apparent that an infallible cannot be inferior. Thus, when on the basis of infallibility, Ali (a.s.) was superior to the three Caliphs, how can the three be regarded as rightful Caliphs?

It is surprising that one should believe that Ali (a.s.) was infallible and the three were not, but that in the matter of Caliphate one prefers the three Caliphs to Ali (a.s.)! Preferring a fallible person to an infallible one is against reason. It seems to be a very irrational matter that the successor of an infallible person like the Messenger of Allah (S), should also be fallible. In this way, the superiority of Abu Bakr and Umar is completely disproved. Although none of Ahlul Sunnat oppose this belief of superiority.

Doubtlessly, the Sunni sect that accepts the infallibility of the fourteen infallibles is a very weak sect. Without any doubt, the acceptance of infallibility of the Imams entails invalidation of the three Caliphs. The belief of the infallibility propounded by Shias is incompatible with the belief of the Caliphate, as followed by Ahlul Sunnat.

The Sunni sect that confesses to the infallibility of the fourteen infallibles seems to be devoted to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) but they hardly follow the beliefs or practical law of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). They do not follow even a single practical law of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), their followers or their scholars. It is indeed a strange thing, that this sect gives much importance to the guardianship (Wilayat) of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) but they have no regard even for namesake, to the beliefs or worship acts of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

This sect usually follows the Hanafite School of law but some people of this sect follow the Shafei School. It is well known that this sect has got nothing to do with the roots and branches of faith of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) even though they always chant their names and make noise on the atrocities inflicted upon them.

We should know that a Muslim can either be a Sunni or a Shia but he cannot follow a religion between the two. The principles of Ahlul Sunnat religion are distinct from those of Shia faith. Both are faithful to their principles. But this sect has a strange admixture of both. It believes in the infallibility of Fourteen Infallibles, but in the matter of Caliphate, believes like Ahlul Sunnat do. How can these opposite beliefs find a place in the mind of a single person? It is beyond the understanding of this writer.

 

 

 

The situation of these people is indeed surprising. Shias cannot call them Shias, and Sunnis seem disinclined to call them Sunnis. The Tafzeeliya sect considers Ali (a.s.) superior to Abu Bakr and Umar. These people, like Shias, also believe in the five holy beings (Panjetan Paak). Apparently, it is a very weak faith.

It is well known that Shia and Sunni sects are particular about the principles of their religion, but the Tafzeeliya sect does not seem to follow any particular faith. I would like to present an example of the absurdity of this sect. It is well-known that the Tafzeeliya sect has special faith in Abdul Qadir Jilani like Ahlul Sunnat people, whereas Shias believe in Ali (a.s.) as the remover of difficulties. Sunnis invoke Ghaus Paak1(Pure Refuge) just as Shias invoke the name of Ali (a.s.) during difficulties. It seems that Sunnis believe that Pir Dastagir (Helper Saint) accompanied the Holy Prophet (S) to Ascension.

On this night, the Holy Prophet (S) stepped on his shoulders and said: “My foot is on your shoulders and your foot is on the shoulders of all the saints (Awliya).” Apparently, this proves his superiority even to Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.) because the Holy Prophet (S) had made Ali (a.s.) climb his shoulders to break the idols as Ali (a.s.) was incapable to bear the weight of Prophethood. But in Ascension, the Holy Prophet (S) stepped on the shoulder of Piranepir (saint of saints), which shows that he had the strength to bear the weight of Prophethood. Also in addition to this, it is related that Pir became the Buraaq on the night of Ascension.

Another proof of his superiority mentioned in writings, is that one night Imam Hasan (a.s.) saw in dream the progeny of his brother, Imam Husayn (a.s.) that nine of them were to be Imams, while in his own progeny there no sign of any Imam. He was saddened due to this, but the Almighty Allah told him that he must not be sad and that from his progeny will come a person who shall be superior to the nine Imams from the progeny of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

And this was the same Abdul Qadir Jilani. We should know that this Tafzeeliya sect accords great respect to Abdul Qadir Jilani. But in the matter of his commands, they completely oppose him. He says in Ghaniyatu Talibeen that Ahlul Sunnat should believe that the Ummah of the Holy Prophet (S) is the best of all Ummahs.

Then they are best who have seen the Holy Prophet (S) and believed in him, testified him and followed him and fought with him against the infidels and sacrificed their lives and properties for Islam. Among them the best are the people who pledged allegiance to the Prophet at Hudaibiya, which is known as the Allegiance of Rizwan. They were 1400 persons in all. From them the best are the people of Badr. They were 313 people equal to the companions of Talut. Of them come the best forty who are known as Ahlul Darul Khizran,2 which after including Umar, come to forty.

Then of them are the ten, whose salvation was foretold by the Holy Prophet (S). They are: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali (a.s.), Talha, Zubair, Abdul Rahman Ibn Auf, Saad, Saeed and Abu Ubaidah Jarrah. Of them the best are the four righteous Caliphs. The most superior of the four is Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman and then Ali (a.s.). The writer has remained content with the translation rather than give the original Arabic quotation to maintain brevity. Those who wish to refer to the original text may see it on Page no. 86 of Ghaniyatu Talibeen.

It should be clear that this is the actual belief of Ahlul Sunnat and Pir Dastagir (Abdul Qadir Jilani) also believed in this. Now the Tafzeeliya should tell us how they could consider Ali (a.s.) superior to Abu Bakr? The writer can show thousands of such examples how the Tafzeeliya sect opposes the commands of Ghausul Aazam (Abdul Qadir Jilani). The fact is that there is no limit to absurdity of the Tafzeeliya sect. The limit is that when they are defeated in debates, they at last say that the book of Ghaniyatu Talibeen was not written by Ghaus.

But the proof that it was indeed written by him as mentioned in numerous Sunni books. Even though the Tafzeeliya may deny it was so, the authentic books of Ahlul Sunnat like Fathul Ghaib, Kashfuz Zunoon and Sharh Fiqhul Akbar mention it. We should also know that this book is of scholarly level and I have referred to it as a majestic book, because this book of Ghaus explains in detail, the principles of Sunni faith. That is why it is absolutely opposed to the beliefs of Tafzeeliya. In brief, this book is exactly as a scholarly book of Ahlul Sunnat should be.

_____________________________

1.Abdul Qadir Jilani, also called Piranepir

2.People of the bamboo house.

 

 

Recently a Sunni has written in his magazine about an amazing miracle of Pir Dastagir. He says that since he was a Hasani Sayyid, his spiritual effect is such that all Hasani Sadaat (descendants of Imam Hasan) are all Sunnis while the Sayyids (descendants) of Husayn (a.s.) are Shia. When a person is a bigot, he is blind and deaf. First of all, Abdul Qadir Jilani was not a Sayyid. It is a false claim and also that other Hasani Sadaat were Sunnis.

It is written in Umdatul Matalib that Pir Dastagir was not a Sayyid and he never even claimed thus. His sons also did not make such a claim. His grandson was first to claim it, but he could not prove his claim. Even if Abdul Qadir had been a Sayyid, he could not have the power to make anyone Shia or Sunni. Except Allah, no one has the power to make anyone a believer or infidel. Even the Holy Prophet (S) had no power to forcibly convert infidels into believers. Just as the Holy Quran says:

“Surely you cannot guide whom you love.”1

Such vain thoughts are possible only in such people. If a writer is not unbiased, he cannot write the truth. The claim that all the past and present Sadaat Hasani were Sunnis is false. There is nothing to prove that Hasani Sadaat should only be Sunnis and Husaini Sadaat only Shia. At present there are many Hasani Sadaat (descendants of Imam Husayn) who are Shias and many Husaini Sadaat who are Sunnis. The same had been in the past. Since disunity occurred in Sadaat, they never followed one and the same religion, as we have proved in the foregoing pages.

There was a tribe that descended from Imam Hasan (a.s.) and resided outside Medina. They were all Shias, but it seems the writer of Zujarul Awaam is unaware of this. This tribe still follows Shia religion even though Sunnis of Medina accuse them of various falsehoods, but they are not prepared to forgo their ancestral faith. Since they are Shias, Sunnis of Medina oppress them in various ways. Even the Turkish government did not accord them any respect. Except for menial and laborious jobs, these Sadaat do not have any gainful employment. They live in very difficult conditions, yet they do not wish to go away from there. If someone offers them Khums money, the Medinites snatch it away from them and the Turkish authorities are mute witnesses of this. Why do the heavens not crash at such atrocities on these Sayyids? It is nothing but the consequence of Umar’s words: “We have the Book of Allah with us.” Allah says in the Holy Quran:

“Say, I do not ask from you any recompense except the love of my family members.”2

And the Prophet said: “I leave among you two heavy things.” But the commands of Allah and His Prophet were not obeyed. The statement of ‘We have the Book of Allah with us’ became more powerful. Now I wish to ask whether such things have an iota of truth? The fact is that no miraculous power can make any Sayyid a Shia or Sunni, although it is very unlikely that a Sayyid should become a Sunni, but when the factors are such that can make him a Sunni, he becomes a Sunni. There are mainly three causes that can make a Sayyid, Sunni. They are as follows:

(1) The first cause is ignorance. That is, he doesn’t know what is the religion of Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.) and what is the religion of Zaid Ibn Thabit. He thinks the religion he is following was the same as the one his ancestor, Ali (a.s.) had and all Bani Hashim were believing in the same religion. Most of the time he has this misconception and the truth is never revealed to him.

But if he learns that the religion of his ancestor was distinct from the Farooqi religion or that the name of his ancestor has been removed from Quran, as we have shown above, he would not remain a Sunni for a moment. The same thing happened to this writer, who after studying the books had to give up the deviated religion.

(2) The second cause, which is not less powerful than the first one, is worldly position and power. When Ahlul Sunnat were in power, Shias had to observe dissimulation (Taqayyah) and thus they pretended to be Sunnis. Their children and descendants thus became Sunnis and still continue to be.

(3) The third cause is social influence and education. Usually many Sayyids at a young age are influenced by Ahlul Sunnat company and themselves become Sunni. They never give up their ancestral religion after research and study. It would not be surprising if one day such people were to become Jews or atheists due to the influence of company.

Similarly, due to education and training, there is a distance from ancestral religion. A good example is that of Sayyid Mahdi Ali Khan Sahab, Mohsinul Mulk. He was a Sadaat from a high family. His family religion was Imamiyah, but he left it and died on the faith of Ahlul Sunnat. I used to be astonished at his giving up his ancestral religion. But one day I heard him in a speech at Bankipur and from that day my astonishment ended. It seemed from his statements that beyond his grandfather, they were of a famous family. They were leaders of religion being Sayyids and they also had worldly power. But during the time of his father, they underwent difficult times. In his own words, they could not even afford five rupees a month to pay for a tutor.

In such a state of poverty, he was forced to go to Barabanki at the age of eight, where a royal personage took him under his care. He gained education and finally got a job under the British. Since he was very brilliant, he worked hard and soon he rose to a good administrative position and finally became the Deputy Collector.

Obviously, if the Nawab had continued to live with his family, he wouldn’t have got the chance to gain such education and to become a collector. What else could he have done rather than opt for the religion of the collectors, because he did not get any chance to get religious training at home? If he had gone under the care of a Padre, he would have become a Christian. There is no doubt that his family religion was Shiaism, but he did not get any teaching of Shia faith.

On the other hand he got training in the Hanafite School. The first impression is the most powerful one, so it was not unexpected from him. Thus, being a boy from a Shia family, he left his religion. His relatives used to be very surprised at this, but he did not do anything unexpected. He followed only the religion whose teachings had been inculcated in him. And that was also the religion of his benefactor who had taken him under his care and had done everything to provide him shelter and education. The Nawab used to remember his benefactor with gratitude.

It is well known that Nawab Mohsinul Mulk reached the position of collector and was based in Mirzapur. At that time, other Sunni officers like Imdad Khan served in the capacity of Deputy Collector. Though he was not a religious person, the Nawab took care to follow the exigencies and during his stay in Mirzapur, he wrote his book, Aayatul Bayyinah. The quality of this book is well known to all those who are well-versed in Ilmul Kalam (Scholastic Theology). Here we do not wish to evaluate his book. It is sufficient for us to prove that education and training in wrong hands can make a boy from a Shia family a Sunni.

___________________

1.Surah Qasas 28:56

2.Surah Shura 42:23

 

 

It should be clear that Ahlul Sunnat Caliphate includes Imamate and in fact, Caliphate cannot be separated from Imamate. They consider it as an affair of people while Shias consider Caliphate as an affair ordained by Allah. Since Mir Anees1 was also a Shia, he also had the same view regarding Caliphate. That Caliphate which includes Imamate, is an affair ordained by Allah and in no case can it be an affair decided by the people.

All the elegies (Marsiya) of Mir were based on this very belief and all Shia Marsiya writers follow this belief in the past and still are. If the reader is not aware of this matter that Shia consider Caliphate a divine affair, which means that the Holy Prophet’s Caliph cannot be man-made because the Holy Prophet’s Caliph should be like the Holy Prophet (S), an infallible, this unaware person cannot gain any benefit from these Marsiya writers. For example if any person is not aware of the Christian belief of Trinity, he cannot appreciate Milton’s Paradise Lost.

Thus, the reader of Shia Marsiya must keep this in mind that as per the belief of Shias from the fourteen divine personalities, the personality about whom he is reading the Marsiya, is indeed infallible. Allah makes his infallibility obvious and only Allah has made him infallible, and if he is from the Twelve Imams, he is the Caliph and Imam from Allah’s permission and people have not selected him.

It is seen in the writings of Shia Marsiya writers that all these Shia poets consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the rightful Imam and the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S). They all confess to his infallibility. They consider his military action as Jihad and his killing as martyrdom. It is obvious that these views have no compatibility with Sunni faith.

The principles of faith of Ahlul Sunnat state that Imam Husayn (a.s.) was neither the Caliph of the Holy Prophet (S), nor the Imam of the time or infallible. His battle against Yazeed was an uprising and that is why his killing cannot be considered martyrdom. As mentioned by them: “Husayn engineered an uprising and was killed by the sword of his grandfather.” It is well-known that this statement was of Pir Dastagir Abdul Qadir Jilani in Ghaniyatu Talibeen. But it cannot be found in the printed version of this book.

But there can be no doubt that it is the statement of Abu Bakr Ibn Gharbi as Nawab Siddiq Husayn Khan Bhopali writes in his book Hujajil Karamah and the words are as follow: “There is no doubt that from the aspect of demand of religion of Ahlul Sunnat, the belief of Abu Bakr Ibn Gharibi is not inappropriate. It is a necessary thing that from the aspect of roots of belief, only this should be the belief of Ahlul Sunnat, but those Sunnat who have a contrary belief, are indeed unprincipled.”

In short, to read the Marsiya of Shia, it is necessary for the reader to be aware of Shia beliefs. Otherwise, he would not be able to fully understand the principles of Shia faith and nor would he be able to derive any pleasure from them. It should be clear that Ahlul Sunnat of Bihar who follow the Hanafite religion and who are safe from the influence of Wahhabis, look at the tragedy of Karbala’ as viewed by Shia. They consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the oppressed one and believe that his killing was martyrdom. Though they may be opposed to the rituals of mourning as practiced by Shias, they have no difference of opinion regarding the tragedy of Karbala’ itself.

According to the belief of Shias, Imam Husayn (a.s.) was infallible like his grandfather, the Holy Prophet (S) and his father, mother and brother were, like the Holy Prophet (S) also infallible. And his successors from Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) to Imam Sahibul Asr (a.s.) are considered infallible. The Imamiyah consider these fourteen infallibles to be pure from small and great sins and to be immaculate in all aspects.

This however is not the belief of Ahlul Sunnat. But since Shia Marsiya writing is based on Shia beliefs, Imam Husayn (a.s.) is mentioned as an infallible in Shia Marsiya and his Imamate is considered a divinely ordained affair. On the basis of his infallibility and divine appointment, Shias ascribe to the belief in his oppressed position and his death is considered a martyrdom.

Thus, if the matter of infallibility and divine office is taken away, the structure of Marsiya writing crashes to the ground. Sometime ago, a book was published by Maulavi Nazir Ahmad Dehlavi, which shows that the writer had no connection with the belief of infallibility. That is, he did not even ascribe to the belief in the infallibility of the Holy Prophet (S).

_________________

1.A very famous Urdu poet of India.

 

 

 

From the topic of his writing, it seems to be devotion, but he says: “We consider the Holy Prophet (S) to be having all the human weaknesses and regard him as human.”1 If this statement is correct, the Prophet cannot be in any way considered superior to Isa (a.s.) and from this statement, the infallibility of the Holy Prophet (S) is nullified. Indeed, being a prophet, Isa (a.s.) was infallible just as his followers agree to his infallibility and on the basis of his infallibility, he was away from all human weaknesses. In this way, the non-infallible cannot be superior to an infallible.

Now the Christians would know that a well-known Ahlul Sunnat scholar has made a statement, which testifies to the claim of the Christians and falsifies the claim of the followers of Muhammad. It is correct that: The people are on the religion of their rulers. Thus, the writer has only supported the religion of his masters, the British, who were ruling the country during this time, so it was not unexpected from him. The writer has, by his writing, repaid the favors of his British masters, especially, Sir William Mayer, who was the Lieutenant Governor and a well-known anti-Muslim personality. The Maulavi has written similar things about the Chief of the Lady of Paradise, Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.), which shows that he had no regard for the infallibility of the great lady.

On page 99 of his book, he writes: “In spite of the fact that Fatima was not denied her rightful share of Fadak, she, on the basis of her enmity with Abu Bakr took a negative stance. She stopped speaking to Abu Bakr and made a request that she must be buried at night and these people should not be allowed to participate in her funeral. What a severe anger she had!”

We seek Allah’s refuge! O Maulavi fear Allah! You have written such a statement about the Chief of the Lady of Paradise! And accused her of anger? Can such words be justified for a daughter of the Holy Prophet (S) like Fatima (s.a.)? Except for an everlasting unfortunate person, such a misdemeanor cannot be performed by anyone. Whether Fatima (s.a.) rightfully expressed her dislike for Abu Bakr and Umar or not is beyond the scope of this discussion. Here, we just point out the disrespectful attitude of the Maulavi. Indeed, such a statement about the chief of the Lady of Paradise can only be issued by one who is an opponent of the family of the Holy Prophet (S). It seems that the writer had no manners at all, though he considered his style to be liberal.

There is no strength and power except by Allah.

Another example of the same type of misdemeanor is presented below. The Maulana says: “It was all the better for Islam that the male issues of the Holy Prophet (S) did not survive. Only a daughter survived him and due to her progeny, the Muslims were divided into Sunnis and Shias, who are forever fighting each other. If a male child had survived, he would have proved to be like the son of Nuh (a.s.).”

O Muslims! Is such writing according to Islamic etiquette that he is expressing satisfaction that the Holy Prophet (S) did not leave a male issue? First he said that his son would have proved to be like the son of Nuh (a.s.), then he expressed regret that his surviving daughter had issues and progeny. He wished that she were issueless. How can a Muslim pen such words? Or can be pleased with such writings? If such writings are not considered vile, what is?

Apparently, it seems that just as the Maulana is pleased at the absence of male issues of the Prophet, he was also unhappy that Lady Fatima had issues. If the Maulana had been present during the time of the Prophet, he would have congratulated the Prophet for his not having any son and he would have also expressed condolence on the birth of his grandsons. The statement of Maulana clearly shows that he is indeed hateful to the Sadaat, and he wished that all Sadaat became extinct. But when cruel people like Muawiyah and Yazeed could not destroy the Sadaat how can this Maulana succeed in his aim?

When the wretched infidels began to address the Prophet as childless, the divine command affected the spread of the Prophet’s progeny to such an extent that Muawiyah, Yazeed and all the Caliphs of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas got tired of killing the Sadaat, but they did not succeed in their mission. How can the Maulana be considered in any way effective in this matter?

The Maulana writes that if a son of the Prophet had survived, he would have been like the son of Nuh (a.s.). This is indeed a strange statement. It is not necessary that the son of every Prophet should be like Nuh’s son. However, one thing is certain that if the Prophet had left a son, he would also have been treated like the other members of the Prophet’s family at the hands of people like the Maulana.

The next example of this disrespect is on the page 99 of his book where he writes: “On one side was Fatima (s.a.) that she died but did not reconcile and on the other was ‘A’ysha, much more than this. In our country there is a belief that women are extremely stubborn and the same qualities were found in these two.”

Whatever the Maulana has written about Fatima (s.a.) will be recompensed by the Prophet but whatever he has written disrespectfully about ‘A’ysha caused consternation among Sunnis and after this he was greatly criticized by Ahlul Sunnat intellectuals. Apparently, Shias do not say anything because this sect was used to such disrespectful acts.

Now in the end, I am giving another statement of the Maulana by which we realize the devotion of the Maulana to the family of the Messenger (S), especially with regard to Imam Husayn (a.s.) and the tragedy of Karbala’. In the same book, on page 94, he writes: The Prophet willingly spent his life in poverty and hunger and he preferred it. He always prayed for such a life for himself: “O Allah! Make me live among the poor and count me among the group of the destitute.” And for his progeny he used to pray: “O Allah! Appoint the bare minimum sustenance for the progeny of Muhammad.”

The Progeny members could not remain content on their sustenance and they began to dream of kingdom and even lost their demeanor. How many conquests did His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) obtain when he was on the seat of Caliphate. Poor man! He could remain a Caliph only for four years and nine months. And in the beginning itself an internal war erupted. When he was free from it, Muawiyah usurped the Caliphate and he was just a Caliph for namesake.

After his death, his son, Hasan, tried his best to obtain Caliphate but within a period of six months, he had to forgo Caliphate and the power of governance completely came into the hands of Muawiyah and after his death this continued in his progeny. At that time, the Prophet’s progeny should have remained patient and content like their respected grandfather. But Husayn, the second son of Ali, did not accept the Caliphate of Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah. And reaching Kufa, he took allegiance of the people for his own Caliphate. Everyone knows the consequence of this. The future progeny of Fatima (s.a.) should have derived a lesson from this incident. But the greed of kingdom never allowed them to sit in peace.

In the view of this Maulana, Muhammad’s Progeny had no contentment and they were greedy for rulership. If Husayn Ibn Ali (a.s.) did not accept the Caliphate of Yazeed, it was a very unsuitable act. And when he did not do so, he had to suffer the consequence of his deed. This shows that the Maulana does not consider Muhammad’s Progeny worth honoring. Apparently, in his view, Muhammad’s Progeny was selfish and greedy. If the Maulana had only half the love for Muhammad’s Progeny that he has for their enemies, he would not have written such a book.

Patience, contentment and thankfulness were imbibed in the very souls of Muhammad’s Progeny and they had no desire for rulership. Imam Husayn (a.s.) had opposed Yazeed for religious factors. He considered it illegal to give allegiance to Yazeed and he also believed that the allegiance of Muslims for Yazeed was incorrect. Imam Husayn (a.s.) knew that he was the rightful Imam and the Caliph appointed by Allah. That is why he gave his life on the path of truth with absolute patience and satisfaction. The view of Maulana that Imam Husayn (a.s.) lost his life for greed of material world, could only be the belief of the followers of Yazeed and it cannot be a belief of any Muslim. The views of a person are in consonance with his character.

Here, I am reminded of an incident, which is very suitable at this juncture. A person who had become rich by chance, told a friend of mine that Husayn (a.s.) gave his life in pursuit of material wealth. If he had no greed of wealth and kingdom, he would not have rebelled against Yazeed. My friend replied: “Because you are prepared to lay your life for worldly wealth, always busy in selfish pursuit of wealth and spend a life of selfishness, you consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) like yourself. Indeed, one considers others like oneself.

I know what type of a person you are. Providence has not given you the ability to discern the merits of Imam Husayn (a.s.). Your internal make up is like Bani Umayyah and you are created only for the worldly life. How can you understand the benevolence, courage, magnanimity and other praised qualities of Imam Husayn (a.s.)?” One who considers Caliphate and Imamate as divinely ordained affairs could not have a view like that of the Maulana. It is a pity that on the basis of false beliefs, Muslims used to consider Muhammad’s Progeny as ordinary people. They should look at them with an impartial view. How can the Maulana call himself a Muslim and refer to Imam Husayn (a.s.) in such words?

While a German scholar has contrary views. He writes: “Imam Husayn (a.s.) certainly did not undergo the hardships of Karbala’ for greed of wealth. It was for the defense of his grandfather’s religion that he suffered such tribulations.” The same scholar has penned a seven-volume book on Islamic Politics. The followers of truth must appreciate his impartiality and truthful view and gain divine rewards for this. He writes: “On one hand, Imam Husayn (a.s.) saw that Yazeed has become the heir apparent and Bani Umayyah has got the rulership of Muslim lands. They were slowly gaining influence over the religious affairs of the Muslims. It was certain that in the due course, they would destroy the faith of Muslims and deviate them from the religion of his grandfather.

On the other hand, Imam Husayn (a.s.) was certain that due to ancestral enmity, Yazeed will destroy Bani Hashim whether he was given allegiance or not. This was the reason why he decided to start a revolution against Bani Umayyah. From the time Yazeed became the successor of Muawiyah, Imam Husayn (a.s.) considered it obligatory for himself to deny his obedience. He did not even conceal his opposition from anyone. And on the same basis, Yazeed was in pursuit to extract allegiance from him and to make him subservient. Imam Husayn (a.s.) moved towards martyrdom and established a superb example of revolution.”

Anyone who is aware of the historical realities of that time and the kind of carnage unleashed by Bani Umayyah and the way they had started distorting the religion of Muhammad (S) would indeed confess that if Imam Husayn (a.s.) had not laid down his life at Karbala’, the Muslim Ummah would have had quite a different Islam than what they are having now. It was the initial period of Islam and hence it was possible that its rituals and rules would have been destroyed completely. Imam Husayn (a.s.) had seen the character of Bani Umayyah during the Caliphate of his father, Ali (a.s.) and his brother Imam Hasan (a.s.), that is why immediately after Yazeed came to the throne, Imam Husayn (a.s.) traveled from Medina so that he may propagate true Islam in major Muslim areas. Wherever he went, people developed hatred towards Bani Umayyah.

Yazeed was also not unaware of these subtle factors. He knew that even if Imam Husayn (a.s.) got the support of people at any minor town and raised the standard or revolt due to the hatred of people towards Bani Umayyah and their love for Imam Husayn (a.s.), he would gain influence over all the kingdom of Islam and Bani Umayyah will be annihilated; that is why immediately after assuming the throne, Yazeed made a firm intention to kill Imam Husayn (a.s.). This was the only cause due to which Bani Umayyah contributed to their own eradication from the face of the earth.

The greatest proof that Imam Husayn (a.s.) willingly moved to martyrdom is that he was well aware of the military prowess of Bani Umayyah since the time of his father and brother. He was certain that he would be martyred and this was often stated after the martyrdom of his father. This proves that he had no ambition for rulership. He had time and again reiterated since he left Medina that he would certainly be killed. If it had not been a willing step, he would not have rushed to it, knowing fully well the military prowess of Bani Umayyah.

He also stated this to the people who had accompanied him, so that if any among them were after material benefits, they may leave his side. If Husayn (a.s.) had desired to save his life, he would have tried his best to collect an army. But instead of mobilizing forces, he was constantly beseeching his companions to leave him if they wanted to live. Knowing that it was the first step towards a revolution, Imam Husayn (a.s.) let himself be martyred in the most pitiful manner, so that people may be more affected by his sorrowful plight.

Obviously, if Imam Husayn (a.s.) had exploited the devotion that the people had towards him, he would have succeeded in raising a huge army. But if he were killed in those circumstances, it would have been said that he died for greed of wealth and rulership and the oppressed position that heralded the magnificent revolution would not have been achieved. Thus, except for whom it was impossible to leave; that is the sons, brothers, and nephews; he told them to leave him, but they did not agree. They were also such people whose piety and honor was much valued by the Muslims. Their martyrdom with Imam Husayn (a.s.) lent more effectiveness to the tragedy.

On the basis of his knowledge and diplomacy, and on the basis of the animosity of Bani Umayyah towards Bani Hashim, be left no stone unturned to highlight all this. Imam (a.s.) knew that after his martyrdom, the women and children of Bani Hashim, who were Muhammad’s Progeny would be made prisoners and would be taken from one place to another. This incident would spread in the Arab world and have such an effect as cannot be imagined. Thus, the way the prisoners were taken around, was in no way less cruel than being killed. Similarly, it created the same effect on Muslims as the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) had.

In these incidents, the enmity of Bani Umayyah to the Prophet’s family and their beliefs regarding Islam and their treatment of Muslims has been clearly brought out. This was the reason that Imam Husayn (a.s.) used to clearly tell those of his friends who restrained him from this journey that he was going for being killed. It was because their thoughts were limited and they had no idea of Imam Husayn’s aim, which is why they used to restrain him. The last reply of which was that he was going because it was the Will of Allah and his grandfather had ordered him to take the step. The people used to say that since he was going to be killed, he should not take women and children with him. On this Husayn (a.s.) used to reply that it was the Will of Allah that his family should be made prisoners.

The words of Imam Husayn (a.s.) were unique from the aspect of spirituality and apparently he did not take these steps to obtain rulership or power. And he also did not step into this great danger without being aware of consequences. The proof is that a year before this tragedy, he used to tell his close confidants who had an enlightened heart and perfect reason to comfort them that after his martyrdom, the Almighty Allah would prepare a group who would separate truth from falsehood. And who would visit their graves and weep on their tribulations and destroy the enemies of Muhammad’s Progeny. These people would follow the religion of his grandfather. He and his father would love them and on Judgment Day, they shall be raised with Muhammad’s Progeny.

O readers! What should be done! It is surprising that a scholar of non-Muslims is relating the incident of Karbala’ in such a way that informs of the great status of the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) while a Maulana of Delhi in spite of his claim for being a Muslim, lays false allegations on Imam Husayn (a.s.) that are not possible in any respectable people. No one can say that the Maulana was insane, but it is certain that his blind greed for worldly status had deprived him from the wealth of the love for Muhammad’s Progeny.

________________________

1.Ummahatul Aimma, Pg. 33, line 7.

 

 

It should be clear that the incident of Karbala’ is such a tragedy that has attracted the attention of writers, philosophers, historians and all intellectuals. From the aspect of religion and ethics, it is such an incident in Islam that its equal is not found. Rather, if it is compared to other such incidents that are often recorded in war poems, we shall see that it does not have any equal. Since it is a factual incident, it is very much clear which people constituted the opposing groups and which group was on the side of Yazeed and which one sided with Imam Husayn (a.s.).

 

 

 

1. Imam Husayn (a.s.), the chief of the martyrs.

2. Muslim, paternal cousin of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

3. Aun and Muhammad, sons of Zainab binte Ali (a.s.).

4. Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.).

5. His Eminence, Ali Akbar who was brought up by Lady Zainab (S).

6. Ali Asghar, the six-month infant of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

7. Lady Zainab and Umme Kulthum, daughters of Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (s.a.) who loved Imam Husayn (a.s.) greatly.

8. Fatima Sughra, the younger daughter of Imam Husayn (a.s.) whom the Imam (a.s.) had left in Medina because she was unwell.

9. Fatima Kubra, who had come to Karbala’ with Imam Husayn (a.s.).

10. Sakina, another daughter of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

11. Lady Laila and Umme Rabab, the respected wives of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

12. Qasim Ibn Hasan.

13. Abbas Ibn Ali, standard bearer of Imam Husayn’s army, who was the half brother of Imam Husayn (a.s.), but was greatly devoted to the Imam (a.s.). He had no equal in his sincerity and sacrifice.

14. Hurr who was previously the commander of Yazeed’s forces, left them and joined the ranks of Imam (a.s.) and achieved the wealth of martyrdom.

15. Habib Ibn Mazahir, who was the childhood friend of Imam Husayn (a.s.). He was martyred in Karbala’ while he was of an advanced age.

16. Fizza, the maidservant of Lady Fatima (s.a.); after whose martyrdom she continued in the service of Lady Zainab.

17. Hind, the wife of Yazeed and who was devoted to the prophet’s family. She had no information of the tragedy of Karbala’ but when the prisoners were brought to Damascus she came to meet them in prison. It is not inappropriate to include her among the partisans of Husayn (a.s.).

18. Wahab Ibn Abdullah Kalbi and Zohair Qayn.

These exalted personalities are mentioned in the elegies (Marsiya).

 

 

 

1. Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah, the ruling Caliph.

2. Ibn Ziyad, son of Ziyad who was made a brother by Muawiyah. At the time of the tragedy of Karbala’, Ibn Ziyad was the governor of Yazeed in Kufa.

3. Umar Ibn Saad, Commander-in-Chief of Yazeed’s army.

4. Shimr, who mounted the chest of Imam (a.s.).

5. Khuli, who beheaded Imam Husayn (a.s.).

6. Hurmala, who martyred Ali Asghar by shooting an arrow at him.

7. Naufal.

8. Hakim Ibn Tufail.

 

 

All the above oppressors and also those unfortunate ones who participated in the killing of Husayn (a.s.) either died or were killed during three or four years. None of them survived to bear the sorrows of this world. Yazeed himself died within three and a half years of this incident. Indeed, the people who helped Yazeed and acted on his orders will be raised with him and they all would be recompensed like him and abide in Hell forever.

 

 

 

It is well known that wisdom is of two kinds: religious and practical. Practical wisdom is of three types:

1. Good manners

2. Determination

3. Diplomacy.

The first of these is the personal trait of every person. The second is applicable to his relationship with his family members and the third is concerned with the affairs of the nation. All three of them are discussed with relation to the tragedy of Karbala’.

 

 

 

This is the first type of practical wisdom. Every human being is concerned with this, though he may be of any class or creed. Being human, if one has no human manners, one is not considered a human being. It is well known that the Almighty has bestowed human beings with two types of existences. An apparent existence that is evident from his physical body that includes flesh and blood, organs and nerves. The next is his internal existence that includes his moral capabilities.

Moral capabilities are of two kinds: One is natural perception and the other is responsibility. The former are such that if they had not been in control of human beings, they would have never got superiority over other animals. The latter is opposite to these. If they are not paid attention to, human beings can be worse than animals. We must know that moral training is concerned with the first type. After considering the incident of Karbala’, it becomes evident that from the ethical point of view, it is a great matter of moral values.

That is, it is a great treasure of moral ethics. The good moral points are: helpfulness, faithfulness, bravery, charity, patience, satisfaction, forbearance, concealing of defects, forgiveness, mercy, favor, worship, meditation, piety, modesty, loyalty, sincerity, truthfulness and openness. In the same way, bad qualities are greed, anger, wrath, enmity, falsehood and jealousy etc.

It is necessary for man to cultivate good morals and to control bad habits and he must always strive in this direction. Another name of this practice is moral training. The incident of Karbala’ is such a great event that by considering its events, one can achieve moral perfection in full. Just as the partisans of Husayn (a.s.) present such interesting examples of moral perfection, the partisans of Yazeed exhibit the abased characteristics.

For examples, if Imam Husayn (a.s.) shows benevolence to the army of Hurr and his animals, the army of Ibn Ziyad repaid this kindness by preventing them the water of Euphrates. Rather, in return of the request of water, Hurmala shot an arrow at the six-month infant of Imam (a.s.), Ali Asghar and martyred him.

In the same way, we can present hundreds of examples from which we realize the good morals of the people of Husayn’s side and the evil nature of Yazeed’s partisans. Mir Anees, with his astonishing narrative capability, beautifully presents the picture of the morals of the two parties. Mir has shown how good were Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his followers.

And how evil were Yazeed and his cohorts. How far were Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his companions from material desires and how Yazeed and his compatriots were more inclined to wealth and pelf. Imam Husayn (a.s.) refused to pledge allegiance for the sake of religion and Yazeed for the sake of worldly life, was demanding allegiance of Imam Husayn (a.s.). For the sake of religion, the followers of Imam Husayn (a.s.) were his followers and the people followed Yazeed for material greed.

Mir Anees has realistically explained the benevolent qualities of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his side; including, Aun, Muhammad, Akbar, Abbas and Qasim. Hurr’s love for truth and the way he confessed to truth and how he changed sides when truth had become manifest to him. In the same way, Mir Anees has presented the admirable qualities and lent beauty to his composition. On the other hand, his poetry brought out the evil qualities and vicious traits of the partisans of Yazeed. In the knowledge of this writer, it is the natural duty of every person that he must study the elegies of Mir Anees from the aspects of moral values because the event of Karbala’ is extremely edifying and Mir Anees has described these events in a natural manner and in a beautiful style.

The statement of the Maulavi that Imam Husayn (a.s.) arose to gain power, informs about the evil thinking of this writer. Imam Husayn (a.s.) was certainly not a discontented person. Imam (a.s.) indeed did not arise for kingdom and greed of wealth. Imam (a.s.) considered himself the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S) and hence he refused to give allegiance to Yazeed.

The allegation of the Maulana for Imam Husayn (a.s.) that he was greedy, is no less than the atrocities committed by Ibn Ziyad and Shimr. Anyone who makes such allegations against the noble personality of Imam (a.s.) cannot be called a follower of the Holy Prophet (S). What type of Islam is it that is based on the enmity of Muhammad’s Progeny?

I am extremely regretful for the Maulavi and Mirza Hairat Dehlavi. Destiny has made these two gentlemen opponents of Muhammad’s Progeny, whereas the allegation perfectly fits the character of Muawiyah, because as per the command of the Holy Prophet (S): “This person will never be satiated by eating.”

It is justified that this allegation is concerned with the family of Yazeed. May Allah be merciful to this Maulana and people who have similar view and bestow them the ability to realize the merits of Muhammad’s Progeny. Their situation seems to be serious and we sincerely pray for their guidance.

Obviously, when a person considers Imamate and Caliphate as divine affairs, he cannot blame Imam Husayn (a.s.) for greed and discontentment. To consider the office of Caliphate an affair decided by the people is the first step towards the dishonor of the noble personages. Such people can never believe in spirituality. Till the time of his death, such a person will remain a materialist and nothing else. Thus, for these people, all are same: The Holy Prophet (S) and Abu Sufyan, Muawiyah and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). They are all equal in the view of those who have no spirituality.

 

 

 

It is a trait that is concerned with the family and society of the people. The first type of this wisdom as mentioned by us, is connected with the being of every person. No one is free from it. If a person lives in a corner of the world alone, then its relationship cannot be broken. But the next type, which in the terminology of rulership, is determination, it is clearly related to the children, friends and neighbors etc. This type informs us of their rights and how we should live among them. It is necessary for us to first improve our morals. And then we should become habitual of determination for achieving our aim. The tragedy of Karbala’ is also concerned with this type of moral quality.

We should know that the behavior of Imam (a.s.) with Lady Umme Laila, Umme Rabab, Lady Zainab, Fatima Sughra, Fatima Kubra, Sakina, Abbas, Ali Akbar, Ali Asghar, Aun, Muhammad, Habib Ibn Mazahir, Hurr and with all the participants of the event of Karbala’ informs us of the perfection of Imam’s morals. The behavior of the husband with the wife, the behavior of the brother with the sister, the behavior of the father with the son, the behavior of the uncle with the nephew, behavior of the friend with friend, of the master with his servants. All such ideal behaviors are explained through this great event in a beautiful manner.

Mir Anees, by divine help he received in composing the elegies (Marsiya), describes the events most eloquently. There is no doubt that the Mir has also, through his poetry, presented a study of moral science by this incident. The elegies of Mir only from these two aspects are such that ordinary people to whichever faith they may belong, must not deprive themselves from their study. Indeed, it is a misfortune not to get the chance of reading the Marsiyas of Mir Anees.

If Mir Anees were born in a European country, the educated public of that time would have sung his praises. But it is a pity that he was born in such an ignorant land, where his presence did not make any difference. The limit of ignorance is such that due to this carelessness, his literary compositions were printed on such cheap paper that even mediocre verse is printed on better material. The work of Mir Taqi Mir is printed in a beautiful edition. It is only so because it has reached the hands of those who have literary values and they could not publish it in any way less respectful. The writer is certain that when the Europeans realize the literary values of the compositions of Mir Anees they would definitely not leave any stone unturned in according it the respect that it deserves.

 

 

 

This is the third type of moral ethics. It is the quality that is clearly related to the nation. All the efforts of the governments of the world are busy to find out these principles. In Europe, there is such a great demand for this that it is beyond the comprehension of we, Indians.

The incident of Karbala’ also has great cultural aspects. It is so much concerned with moral values that every kind is related to this event. Some of the cultural aspects of these events are discussed below.

 

 

 

The Holy Prophet (S) migrated (did Hijrat) and settled down in Medina and with the help of Helpers (Ansar) he was able to establish a religious government in the city. Although Bani Umayyah and other tribes, from time to time launched attacks against Medina, so that this religious government is destroyed, but enemies of Allah were always unsuccessful. Bani Umayyah continued to confront Muslims in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Hunayn and Khandaq, but except for suffering losses, they did not gain anything.

And in a period of ten years, they became so weak that they had no more strength to raise their heads. The Holy Prophet (S) was able to subdue Bani Umayyah after great efforts. To raise their status was with ulterior motives. First of all, this tribe was irreligious, transgressing, sinful and wayward; and hence it was greatly deviated.

Secondly, in its well being the well being of Islam was not expected. Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) with great tact, in his own time, subdued this tribe to such an extent that not only Islam, rather, all Bani Hashim was also protected from its mischief. It is not unknown how much help the Prophet received from Ali (a.s.) in this matter. But Bani Umayyah had to become strong after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) and the tragedy of Karbala’ had to occur. Immediately after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S), Abu Sufyan the chief of Bani Umayyah, easily because the ruler of Shaam (Syria). Although he himself did not leave Mecca for Shaam, he sent his son over there.

In the beginning, Bani Umayyah ruled Shaam under the command of the three Caliphs and later gained power over whole of the Islamic lands. They ruled for 83 years. On one hand, Bani Hashim were degraded but Bani Umayyah continued to get every type of material well-being. To bestow Bani Umayyah with such undeserved honor immediately after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) was a clear mistake of Caliphate. If Caliphate had been left to Ali (a.s.) from the beginning, Bani Umayyah would have remained as weak and helpless as the Holy Prophet (S) had left them.

If, after becoming the Caliph, Ali (a.s.) had also proved to be a supporter of Bani Umayyah, the blame of the tragedy of Karbala’ would have been upon him. But indeed Ali (a.s.) could never consider support to Bani Umayyah as lawful, because Ali (a.s.) did not have the slightest difference with policies of the Prophet. That Ali (a.s.) did not get Caliphate, not only resulted in the Prophet’s family being subjected to trouble, but the face of Islam also changed to a great extent from the Islam of the Prophet’s family.

At the time, when the tragedy of Karbala’ occurred, the Islam of the people of Shaam and other Islamic territories was that which was established by the compilations of Ibn Masood. Bani Hashim were aloof from this religion. It is very much possible that if Ali (a.s.) had been accepted as the sole successor of the Prophet, the Umayyad religion would not have come into being. Only that religion would have been followed in the whole of Islamic lands, which in the words of Shah Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlavi and other Sunni scholars, is called the religion of Ali.

Indeed, the tragedy of Karbala’ implies great destruction faced by Bani Hashim but the evil seed of this incident was sowed just after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S). That is the statement: “We have the book of Allah with us.” By which the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) could not be willed in writing. When Bani Hashim lost the opportunity for Caliphate, Bani Umayyah began to rise in power. Just as the matter proved harmful to Bani Hashim, it was beneficial to non-Bani Hashim.

As we have stated, due to the loss of Caliphate, Bani Hashim lost their economical as well as religious position. As a result, Bani Hashim weakened greatly and became ordinary citizen and the Bani Umayyah became powerful and became the rulers of Islamic lands. The tragedy of Karbala’ is a clear-cut consequence of that deprivation of Caliphate. In the same way, there were hundred of consequences of that deprivation that the Bani Hashim encountered at that time and those, which are still seen today, though neither the Imam of that family is apparent nor Bani Hashim of that age.

The status that Bani Hashim had, at the time of the Prophet would not have made them to expect that after the Prophet, their tribe will be distanced from government. But the action of Umar easily served that purpose. A study of the prevailing situations of that time makes us feel that Umar really despised the family of the Prophet and Ali (a.s.) also had no sort of attachment with Umar. It is a historical misconception that Ali (a.s.) and Umar were fast friends. Ali (a.s.) and Umar were of opposite temperaments and friendship is not possible between people of such opposite temperaments.

In such a condition, Umar could not make Ali (a.s.) the Caliph and he considered himself becoming the Caliph against hidden wisdom. So he apparently made Abu Bakr the Caliph and gave him oath of allegiance. Though Umar had no military exploits to his credit, as seen in the battles of Badr, Uhud, etc. it is true that he had cunning for political manipulations. He made Abu Bakr the Caliph after great manipulations. First of all, this action distanced Bani Hashim from kingdom.

Secondly, the appointment of Abu Bakr was actually the appointment of Umar as the Caliph.

Thirdly, this course of action served as a defense of his selfishness.

Fourthly, due to the old age of Abu Bakr, it was clear that the time of Umar’s Caliphate was not far off. Thus, within a period of two years Abu Bakr made Umar the Caliph and left the mortal world. History shows that since the time of passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) till the time he himself died, Umar continued to make political machinations, but Ali (a.s.) did not resort to any such machinations. Whenever the Caliph’s court was held, he reiterated his rights and kept silent. But the separation from government was very sorrowful for Bani Hashim.

But when Abu Bakr was declared the Caliph, they became sad and kept quiet and were not able to do anything. The reason was that Ali (a.s.) did not resort to violence at the appointment of Abu Bakr as the Caliph. Apart from this, Bani Hashim had hopes that Ali (a.s.) was young and after sometime he would surely become the Caliph, but their hopes were dashed when Abu Bakr made Umar the Caliph by bequest.

Indeed, the appointment of Umar as Caliph by Abu Bakr was an act of returning the favor. Now the Bani Hashim were certainly distanced from rulership. Since Umar was not aged like Abu Bakr there was no hope that the seat of Caliphate would fall vacant in near future. Umar occupied the seat of Caliphate for ten and a half years. If he had not been killed, he might have continued for another ten years at the helm of affairs. But these ten years were not in any way less for Bani Hashim and the fact is that even after these ten years, Ali (a.s.) was not able to gain the seat of Caliphate. Before his death, Umar left the appointment of Caliph an undecided matter. It was a political trick by which Ali (a.s.) had very remote chances of success. Rather, there was also an aspect for Ali (a.s.) to be killed.

Then after Umar, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) could not become the Caliph by the Consultative (Shura) Committee. Uthman became the Caliph. He was a weak- willed person and his tenure witnessed many upheavals and though his period of Caliphate was the longest among the three Caliphs, his Caliphate was mired in controversies. During his time, Bani Umayyah gained more power. It were already flourishing in Shaam and now the Caliph was also from their clan. In Medina also, Marwan and other Bani Umayyah continued to bleed the Islamic treasury.

After Uthman’s murder, Ali (a.s.) reluctantly accepted the responsibility of Caliphate. As soon as Ali (a.s.) became the Caliph, opponents began to gather means of war. Talha and Zubair who were from the ten special people according to the belief of Sunni, who were guaranteed Paradise, paid allegiance to Ali (a.s.) but soon broke their pledge and joined the ranks of ‘A’ysha. In this battle, ‘A’ysha suffered defeat and these two gentlemen were also exterminated. When Ali (a.s.) got reprieve from these people, Muawiyah rose up in revolt against the rightful Caliph of his time; that is Ali (a.s.).

According to Ahlul Sunnat, this revolt of Muawiyah was an error of jurisprudence (Ijtihaad). Whatever error it might be, the short period of Ali’s Caliphate passed in these conflicts. During the 5th year of his tumultuous Caliphate, Ali (a.s.) was martyred and Imam Hasan (a.s.) was appointed the Caliph. He also had to abdicate within a period of six month.

Now Muawiyah became the de facto ruler of Islam and continued in this position for a long time till his death. In his place, his beloved son assumed the seat of Caliphate. During this period, Muhammad’s Progeny were massacred at Karbala’. Only Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) remained, through whom the progeny of Sadaat continued and the name of the Prophet’s family lived on.

That Ali (a.s.) became the Caliph after Uthman did not in any prove beneficial to Bani Hashim. Bani Hashim had apparently lost religious authority in addition to material losses. Even the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) did not help them to regain their religious or economical power. Rather, day by day they were hated more by materialist people. Till the time the tragedy of Karbala’ occurred, and after the tragedy, the killings and oppression of Sadaat continued and even today it is seen that these people are hated and people are aloof from them and their faith.

Indeed, all these are the fruits of the statement, “We have the book of Allah with us,” which has effectively invalidated the tradition of the Two Heavy Things (Thaqalayn).

 

 

 

It is the writer’s belief that the Holy Prophet (S) was infallible and all the prophets that have passed, were also infallible. Their successors and their legatees were also infallible like them. Reason dictates that the legatee of an infallible cannot be fallible.

From this point of view, it is necessary that the successor of the Holy Prophet (S) must also be infallible. According to our belief, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was infallible and inerrant in every way. He never worshipped idols, never indulged in polytheism or drinking wine and never disobeyed the divine commands. He was always steadfast in the battles in company of the Holy Prophet (S). He never fled from the battlefield.

He never left the Holy Prophet (S) in danger to save his own skin. He helped Islam with his sword in such a way that in its absence, Islam would not have gained stability in Medina. He is included in the verse of Purification (Quran 33:33) and the verse of Malediction (Quran 3:16) and there are many verses that are with regard to his merits. He had clear Quranic nomination to the post of Caliphate before the Caliphate of the three Caliphs and even today, he holds the same position near Allah.

The Holy Prophet (S) has mentioned his creation along with the creation of Ali (a.s.) to be from a single radiance (Noor). Even from the aspect of tradition of Two Heavy Things (Thaqalayn), since he is from the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet, he is deserving of attachment. And from the point of view of the same tradition if Ali (a.s.) is not superior to Quran, at least he is equal to it. The Holy Prophet (S) had stated that Ali (a.s.) was his soul, flesh and blood.

What more can be said to prove his infallibility? If the Holy Prophet (S) was infallible, his successors must also be infallible. Anything else is bigotry and an unfortunate thing. The Holy Prophet (S) has stated that Ali (a.s.) is the gate of knowledge. In the same way, he said:

“Ali is with Quran and the Quran is with Ali.”

In brief, it is beyond reason and understanding to consider him non-infallible. Anyone who is unbiased and his heart is pure of his enmity, will indeed consider him infallible. In brief, the writer, from the aspect of his belief, considers Ali (a.s.) and the rest of the eleven Imams as infallible, like the Holy Prophet (S). The consequence of this belief in their infallibility implies that the Caliphate of these infallibles was a divinely constituted affair. It cannot be a matter decided by the people.

Thus, from Ali (a.s.) to the Master of the Age (a.j.), all these Holy Imams (a.s.) were successors of the Prophet who were appointed Caliphs and Imams by Allah. This belief is in all respects, his spiritual style. From the aspect of this belief, Ali (a.s.) has the right to be considered the successor of the Holy Prophet (S). Even if we forgo this aspect and view it from a political lens, we again have to agree that only Ali (a.s.) should be the successor of the Prophet. The political expediency dictated that Muslims would have selected only Ali (a.s.) as the successor of the Prophet. The below discussion deserves our attention.

Generally, Sunni belief is not that Abu Bakr became the Caliph of the Prophet through Quranic injunction or prophetic tradition. According to the religion of Ahlul Sunnat, Abu Bakr became the Caliph on the basis of consensus. This is the fact, and majority of Sunnis confess to it. However, some people also present Quranic proofs in support of the rightly guided Caliphate. If Allah wills, we shall investigate this point of view in the future.

But just for the time being, it can be said that this consensus, which had many defects, cannot be construed to be an election. Because an important tribe of Muslims to which the Prophet himself belonged, was not represented in this consensus and neither was it able to exercise its opinion. Rather, this matter of Saqifah was conducted in such a hurried manner that Bani Hashim had no news of it.

Apparently, it seems that even if Bani Hashim had received information, they still would not have been able to attend the gathering, because they were busy in the last rites of the Holy Prophet (S). It was not possible for them to leave the Prophet and attend the election of Saqifah. But if the Bani Hashim had been able to attend the election, Abu Bakr would not have become the Caliph so easily.

At that time, Umar, who had great political cunning, hurriedly decided the matter of Caliphate. This election, which did not follow any principle of election, informs us of a certain defective course of action. At the time of the passing away of the Prophet, Medina alone did not constitute Islamic territory. The religion of Muhammad had spread to the whole of Hijaz. For a perfect election, it was necessary that all the chiefs of all the areas must be gathered.

But this did not happen. In this haste, leave alone the people of Hijaz, even all the respectable personalities of Medina could not be summoned. The people of decision will themselves decide to what extent is correct the claim of Ahlul Sunnat that Abu Bakr became the Caliph by consensus.

Indeed, this weak claim of the supporters of consensus is defective was well known to even those people. But for the need of religion they consider it rightful. The believers of consensus have also believed that consensus is correct even if two people other than Bani Hashim take part in it.

On the other hand, if thousands of Bani Hashim effect a consensus, it shall not be accepted as valid. Obviously, these types of bigotries create many disconcerting views in the minds of unbiased and just people. There is no need to mention them. Those who claim it was an election, must see it with absolute sincerity was it really a fair election that was effected in a hurried manner at Saqifah Bani Saada?

Though we confess to the cunning of Umar, who easily wrested Caliphate from Bani Hashim so easily that they could not do anything. Though Bani Hashim were once considered indispensable for Caliphate. If he had desired, Umar could have passed on the benefit of this consensus to Ali (a.s.) but he did not like Ali (a.s.) due to a number of factors. That is why in the absence of Ali (a.s.), he made Abu Bakr the Caliph.

Although Umar and Ali (a.s.) had such opposite traits that friendship between them is unimaginable, but apparently it seems that Umar had extreme hatred towards Fatima (s.a.). Thus, he could not bear any good for Ali (a.s.). The cause of this enmity seems that Umar had once desired to marry the Lady of Paradise, but the Holy Prophet (S) on the basis of his hidden wisdom, married her to Ali (a.s.).

Umar very well knew that Abu Bakr had no merit in comparison to Ali (a.s.), but he pledged allegiance to him and other people at Saqifah were also compelled to do the same. The other people did not hesitate in giving allegiance to Abu Bakr. They did not even ask why any member of Bani Hashim was not present. Without considering if Abu Bakr had any superiority to Ali (a.s.), they followed Umar in giving allegiance. This definitely did not prove beneficial to Islam.

As shall be clear from my further analysis, the preference of Umar towards his personal affairs instead of the general good of the people was most unbecoming for Umar. It was also not that Umar was ignorant of the merits of Ali (a.s.). In spite of having no knowledge of Quran, he still knew that Ali (a.s.) was included in the verse of Purification and the verse of Malediction. The verses of Surah Insan1 were also applicable to Ali (a.s.).

In addition to this, there are many other verses that are revealed to highlight the merits of Ali and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Apart from this, at the time of the passing away of the Prophet, the position of Ali (a.s.) as the successor of the Holy Prophet (S) was well established. The name of Ali (a.s.) was indeed included in the Holy Quran at many places and the word of Aale Muhammad (Muhammad’s Progeny) was also present therein, as we have shown above. Umar knew that the Prophet had said about Ali:

“Quran is with Ali and Ali is with Quran and I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate and your self is my self and your soul is my soul and your blood is my blood and your flesh is my flesh and I and Ali are from one single radiance (Noor), and you are to me like Haroon was to Moosa.”

And many other similar traditions are there that describe the merits of Ali (a.s.). Umar knew full well that Islam owed a lot to the sword of Ali (a.s.). If Ali (a.s.) had not been there, the Islamic Medina would have been annihilated by the attacks of Meccan infidels. And without the sword of Ali (a.s.) the establishment of Islam would not have been possible during the time of the Prophet. Umar knew that Ali (a.s.) was firm-footed in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, Hunayn and Khaybar.

Rather, the success in all these battles was due to the unique valor of Ali (a.s.). Umar knew how much the Holy Prophet (S) loved Ali (a.s.) as proved by the tradition of the Roasted Fowl (Hadith Tayr). Umar knew that in addition to excellent knowledge, the Almighty had also bestowed Ali (a.s.) with great piety. Umar knew that after the Holy Prophet (S) it was Ali (a.s.) indeed, who was the chief of Bani Hashim tribe and the Bani Hashim was the most superior tribe of Arabs from many aspects.

First of all, from the ancient age, this tribe was the leader of Arabs. Secondly, the Holy Prophet (S) was a chief of that very tribe. Umar knew that Abu Bakr belonged to a nameless tribe. Bani Teem could not be in any way compared to Bani Hashim. Umar knew that Ali (a.s.) was the husband of the Lady of Paradise. Apart from this, he was a close cousin of the Holy Prophet (S). The Holy Prophet (S) had no son and Ali (a.s.) had the status of the son of the Prophet. Umar knew that although Abu Bakr migrated to Medina with the Holy Prophet (S) his predicament could not be more meritorious than the risk that Ali (a.s.) faced after the Prophet’s departure. It was a time that the infidels of Mecca could have martyred Ali (a.s.) mistaking him to be the Holy Prophet (S).

But Ali (a.s.) did not care for his life and continued to lie on the Prophet’s bed all night. Umar knew that Ali (a.s.) was the first to agree to the help and obedience of the Holy Prophet (S). He was the first to believe in the Holy Prophet (S), he never worshipped idols; he was always aloof from polytheism. Umar knew that after the Holy Prophet (S), Ali (a.s.) was the chief of the tribe in which Prophethood has been sent. Umar knew that the Holy Prophet (S) made elaborate arrangements at Ghadeer Khumm and declared Ali (a.s.) as the master of all believers.

Umar himself at that time had congratulated Ali (a.s.) saying, ‘Bakhin Bakhin’ (congratulations) and confessed that Ali (a.s.) was indeed his master and the master of all believers. It is surprising that in spite of knowing all this, how Umar gave preference to Abu Bakr? And after appointing Abu Bakr as the Caliph, he made such haste in allegiance. If Umar had even the slightest attachment to Ali (a.s.), he would not have turned his face away from him and paid allegiance to Abu Bakr.

If it is said that Ali (a.s.) was not capable of Caliphate, as some ignorant people say, and thus Umar made Abu Bakr the Caliph. This statement is absolutely incorrect. Ali (a.s.) was more capable of being a Caliph than Abu Bakr. The defect of old age was not less in Abu Bakr. The reality is that if Umar had not remained at the side of Abu Bakr, he would not have been able to perform any caliphal function.

Though apparently Abu Bakr had become the Caliph, it was actually the Caliphate of Umar. This seems to be the greatest cause why Umar did not make Ali (a.s.) the Caliph. Umar knew that Ali (a.s.) was an independent person having his own opinions. He would never allow any interference of Umar in the matters of Caliphate. So he kept Ali (a.s.) away from Caliphate and behind the veil of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, himself became the Caliph. The interference of Umar was to such a great extent that Abu Bakr was compelled to say: “O Umar! Then what was the need to make me the Caliph?” If Ali (a.s.) had become the Caliph, Umar would not have got any chance of interfering like this and would have been forced away from Caliphate.

In the view of the writer, in addition to his personal difference, this was the reason why Umar could not stand Ali (a.s.) becoming the Caliph. In brief, it was the first political blunder of Islam that Ali (a.s.) was kept away from Caliphate. This error gave rise to all sorts of conflicts in Islamic lands, whose consequences are still being borne by Muslims. If Umar had accepted Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph instead of Abu Bakr, Ali (a.s.) apparently would have remained the Caliph for a long time and performed all the duties of Caliphate because he was healthy and young.

It is likely that if Umar had accepted Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph, there would have been only one religion among the Muslims, because Ali (a.s.) was absolutely cultured, educated and an accomplished personality, so there would have been no kind of turmoil in the affairs of Islam. The opposition of Umar not only proved harmful to Ali (a.s.), it caused widespread destruction in Islam also. Umar also beautifully arranged the Caliphate of Uthman.

The third time also, though Ali (a.s.) was superior, he was again deprived of Caliphate, which was nothing but harmful to Islam. We shall discuss the turmoil of the period of Uthman’s Caliphate. At last Ali (a.s.) did become the Caliph, but the Caliphate had deteriorated to such an extent that it was one and the same whether he was a Caliph or not. What is the use of discussing the Caliphate during which conflicts like the battles of Jamal and Siffeen occurred. The one single mistake of not accepting Ali (a.s.) as the first Caliph caused numerous turmoils, and still proves to be a bane for the Muslim world.

Umar was a very clever man and he could have teamed up with Ali (a.s.) and served Islam to a great extent. If he had been a supporter of Ali (a.s.), Ali (a.s.) would have continued at the helm of Caliphate for a long time, which would have bestowed all sorts of benefits on Islam. The statement of the opponents of Ali (a.s.) that he had no capability of Caliphate is a lie. Ali (a.s.) had the same capability to conquer Shaam and Fars just as Umar had. There was no special capability required for such conquests. Shaam was a part of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman had become useless like their Western counterparts. As with all the nations, there is decadence after exaltation. The same happened to Fars. They had become accustomed to vices and pleasures.

On the other hand, the Arabs on the basis of a new faith, had fresh impetus and zeal. In such a situation, it was not a matter of surprise that Muslims conquered these territories in a short time. These conquests were not a result of any special capabilities of the Caliph. The conquests were effected when the hungry Arabs rushed to Shaam and Rome in greed of war booty. Just as Goth and Vandel conquered Rome, the Arabs conquered Shaam etc. Such conquests would have been possible even in the time of Ali (a.s.) but he didn’t get any chance. First of all, during his Caliphate, Ali (a.s.) did not get respite from mischief mongers.

Secondly, at that time, the Arabs had already accomplished all the conquests possible. In those circumstances, no scope remained for territorial expansion. If Ali (a.s.) had become the Caliph immediately after the Holy Prophet (S) all the conquests made during the Caliphate of the second Caliph would have been made during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.). Umar, instead of being the Caliph, would have become the deputy Caliph and served Islam in a beautiful way. But such a golden age for Islam was not destined and the events turned in the way they did.

It should be clear that the aloofness of the people from Bani Hashim in the matter of Caliphate proved very harmful from the political point of view. It is well known that Bani Hashim and Bani Umayyah were the two most powerful tribes of Arabs. They were at loggerheads from ages. Even before the arrival of Islam, sometimes Bani Hashim and sometimes Bani Umayyah gained the upper hand. That is why these two tribes were considered equal.

But when the Holy Prophet (S) migrated and settled down in Medina and Bani Umayyah become weak due to repeated defeats, at that time, Bani Hashim were becoming powerful in Medina, and the people of Medina used to regard them with great respect. But immediately after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S) they were unexpectedly distanced from rulership and power.

And the cause of the distancing was the ‘election’ of Saqifah. It was the great political blunder of Saqifah when they did not select Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph. Ali (a.s.) at that time, was the chief of Bani Hashim. If he were made the Caliph, the future political terror of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas would not have come into being. The result of the error of Saqifah was such that Bani Hashim had to fight for their rights with Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas and they continued to be weakened, till finally at the hands of Tartars, Muslim hegemony was completely wiped out.

This ‘election’ of Saqifah not only resulted in the massacre of Bani Hashim, but non-Bani Hashim were also mercilessly massacred. Bani Hashim continued to confront the enemies and sacrifice their lives, because in every age they considered themselves rightful claimants for Caliphate, and many Arabs also confessed that they were on the right. Apparently, the history of Islam is filled with series of uprisings by Bani Hashim and it was because they had lost the Caliphate at Saqifah at the hands of Umar.

It should be remembered that Bani Hashim was a tribe that could not be easily wiped out. This was the lifeblood of Arab nation. It had great importance like Bani Umayyah. It was in this tribe that prophethood had descended. Thus, it was not an easy job to exterminate this tribe. The honor that it had got during the time of the Holy Prophet (S) made it eligible that it must not be deprived of Caliphate.

If Umar or the people of Saqifah had the good of the Muslims in mind, instead of choosing Abu Bakr, they would have chosen Ali (a.s.). Abu Bakr was from an insignificant tribe and neither he trusted his tribesmen nor did they trust him. To bring such a person at the helm of affairs of Caliphate was a dreadful political mistake. The distancing of Bani Hashim from rulership could not have been beneficial to the country. Thus, it resulted in untold turmoil for the community.

If Ali (a.s.) had been selected as the Caliph, there would have been no division of sects. There would have been no Sunni or Shia.

In the event of Ali becoming the Caliph, Bani Hashim would have forever been released from participating in the uprisings. Due to his successorship, neither Umar nor Uthman had been killed, nor Muhammad bin Abu Bakr slain. Ali (a.s.) himself would have been safe from the battles of Jamal and Siffeen etc. Neither ‘A’ysha would have joined the Battle of Jamal nor Talha and Zubair had died.

Neither ‘A’ysha would have been killed by being thrown into the well nor Bani Umayyah had become such blatant oppressors. Neither Ali (a.s.) had been killed nor Imam Hasan (a.s.) poisoned. Neither Imam Husayn (a.s.) had to face the tragedy of Karbala’ nor would there have been the killings of Imams in the future. Neither horses had been tied in the Holy Kaaba not there would have been bloodshed at the hands of Bani Umayyah.

Neither Bani Umayyah had to face downfall nor Bani Abbas would have become powerful, nor they would have soiled their hands with the blood of people. And neither the Arab nation had been conquered by foreigners. The ‘election’ of Saqifah was responsible for all the ills that have plagued the Muslim nations till now and which still continue to do so.

In brief, the first mistake was to distance Ali (a.s.) from Caliphate but on top of that such developments were effected that Bani Umayyah were enabled to rise to the heights of affluence. Bani Umayyah had no right to become rulers of Muslim dominions. This tribe had been the deadliest enemy of Islam, since times immemorial. What right this tribe had to gain power through means created by the religion of Islam?

Yes, if Bani Hashim had become Caliph or had been made Caliph, it would not have been against wisdom, because the Prophet belonged to this tribe and in his time, he was the ruler of the Arab world. It would not have been surprising if his progeny were made Caliph or ruler. Indeed, to keep Bani Hashim away from power and to give the same power to Bani Umayyah was the worst mistake of Saqifah.

Of course, Abu Bakr and Umar gave in to the wishes of Abu Sufyan because they were helpless. It is also true that if they had not furnished the means of pleasing Abu Sufyan, all that was achieved in Saqifah would have been destroyed. But if Ali (a.s.) had been in the place of Abu Bakr, he would not have supported Abu Sufyan for many reasons. To keep Bani Umayyah weak would have been in the best interest of Islam.

No doubt, Bani Umayyah had vied for equality with Bani Hashim but the Holy Prophet (S) had weakened them. Now to make them strong again was very harmful for the mission of the Prophet. If all the factors had been sidelined, and Ali (a.s.) had been made the Caliph, it would have been absolutely appropriate according to reason.

Ali (a.s.) was not an uneducated, incapable person and he never went around sowing seeds of discord. He was a brave and guided one and had his own opinion. He very well understood the affairs of the world and was expert in understanding people. He never had anything to do with diplomacy and deceit. But he well understood the deceit of other people. He was incomparable in forbearance and maturity. He was exceedingly courageous and compassionate. He was enriched with the wealth of contentment, had incomparable divine good sense for worship; he was truthful, stable minded and gentle in words. Though his praised qualities were same as those of the Great (Ulul Azm) prophets he has also been praised by Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S). Who can dare to excel him in those qualities? According to the statement of the Holy Prophet (S), the remembrance of Ali (a.s.) is worship.2 The Holy Prophet (S) also said: “Decorate your gathering by the discussion of Ali.”3

Though this is an emphatic saying of the Holy Prophet (S), here the condition of the people is such that when they hear the praise of Ali (a.s.), their faces redden in fury. In many gatherings, it is even against wisdom to utter the name of Ali (a.s.). Anyway, if with the above merits, Ali (a.s.) had been accepted as Caliph, Caliphate would not have suffered from any lacunae or defect.

Apparently, if any mischief was to be expected, it was from Bani Umayyah and the Holy Prophet (S) had already subdued Bani Umayyah and after becoming the Caliph, Ali (a.s.) would not have allowed this tribe to gain fresh strength and in the whole of Islamic lands, there would have been nothing but unity among Muslims.

Not only Islam would have remained strong, its strength would have increased day by day. The rise of Bani Umayyah was effected due to internal strife, which led to the weakening of Arabs and at last, they had to face humiliation and at last Bani Umayyah were obliterated from the face of the earth.

The Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) would have bestowed unity to the Islamic nation. The progress of the nation would have remained in order. And the time and wealth that was spent in internal wars would have been put to some useful purpose. It is very regrettable that due to the deprivation of Ali (a.s.) from Caliphate, whatever worst that could have been expected, came to pass on the Arab kingdom.

The truth is that all the calamities that befell Muslims and Islam were rooted in the misdoings of Umar and Abu Bakr. Rather, it was especially due to Umar. Although Ali (a.s.), by his own efforts, restrained Bani Hashim from confronting the people of Saqifah, but the conflicts of the future could not be controlled. The condition was that the ‘Rightful Caliph’ sided with Bani Umayyah either due to fear or due to their attachment with them. Getting this opportunity, Bani Umayyah began to revitalize themselves.

Till the period of the first two Caliphs, this tribe had regained so much strength that no excuse remained for them to be suppressed by Bani Hashim. Though apparently they did not create any mischief against Bani Hashim during this period, when the period of Uthman arrived, this tribe made further progress. The third Caliph himself belonged to this tribe.

In his period, Bani Umayyah became so strong that if after this there was to be a Caliph from Bani Hashim in the future, Bani Umayyah would not be compelled to obey him. This is what happened when Ali (a.s.) was appointed as the Caliph and Muawiyah began to confront him.

The Battle of Jamal was through the instigation of Muawiyah alone. After that, Muawiyah came out openly in opposition to Ali (a.s.) and continued to be independent of Ali’s Caliphate. Then finally, Bani Hashim had to suffer the carnage of Karbala’. Thus, Bani Hashim and Bani Umayyah were always at war. This uprising and war of Muhammad’s Progeny continued till the time of Bani Abbas.

In view of the writer, the destruction of Muhammad’s Progeny was not an insignificant matter. Though their opponents may be pleased at it, it is very painful spiritually for the followers of Muhammad’s Progeny. Here a question could be raised that when in the tenure of the Caliphate there were two powerful tribes of Bani Umayyah and Bani Hashim, and due to their mutual enmity, there was great danger of civil war, was it not a political necessity to subdue one of them? Thus, the Caliphate sided with Bani Umayyah and strove to destroy Bani Hashim.

Therefore, from the political point of view, the Caliphate could not be blamed for supporting Bani Umayyah. The reply to this objection is that though it was necessary to subdue one of these tribes, the suppression of Bani Hashim by the Caliphate was not correct due to some reasons. First of all, Bani Hashim was the tribe in which Ali (a.s.) was born and also because prophethood was in this tribe. They should have accorded more honor to this tribe instead of degrading it. Justice, religion and ethics demand only this.

Secondly, the Holy Prophet (S) was extremely hateful to Bani Umayyah. He was so infuriated with it that he used to curse this tribe.

Thirdly, after the efforts of ten years, the Holy Prophet (S) had weakened Bani Umayyah. The Caliphate should not have acted against the policy of the Prophet.

Fourthly, Bani Umayyah did not deserve any respect and honor from the Islamic government. They were the same who had exceedingly troubled the Holy Prophet (S) and were such deadly enemies of Islam, that not only did they hinder the progress of Islam in Mecca, they continued to make efforts to destroy Islam till Medina. The battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn were such that now Bani Umayyah had completely lost hope of wealth and power.

Fifthly, Bani Umayyah were absolutely wanton people. In the days of ignorance, as well as after accepting Islam, they had the same enmity towards Islam and Ali (a.s.). A simple example of this is that when the Holy Prophet (S) had before him the Battle of Hunayn, Abu Sufyan who had apparently become a Muslim and was also with the Holy Prophet (S) in the battlefield but since in reality this battle was also between the Holy Prophet (S) and Bani Umayyah, Abu Sufyan and his supporters just stood by and watched the fighting.

When the Muslim fighters were beheaded by the swords of Bani Umayyah, Abu Sufyan and his supporters used to laugh in joy. If Ali (a.s.) had not participated in this battle, the Holy Prophet (S) would surely have suffered defeat. This incident clearly shows what type of people Bani Umayyah were.

It is very astonishing how Caliphate presented Abu Sufyan, the governorship of Shaam. It is well known what type of a person Muawiyah, the son of Abu Sufyan was. Deceit, falsehood, intrigue and bloodshed was his practice. Yazeed, the illustrious son of Muawiyah, was beyond praise!

In addition to the greatness of his grandfather and father, Yazeed had horses tied in the Holy Kaaba.4 Yazeed allowed homosexuality and incest etc. Marwan was also an excellent example of Bani Umayyah. In the same way, there are many personalities of this tribe whose detailed description is not possible here. In brief, all the misdeeds of Bani Umayyah are clear and obvious in the historical records of their age. It is not surprising that bigots consider Bani Umayyah to be praiseworthy. There is an Arabic saying: “If the eyes are pleased with someone all their defects are negligible.”

Sixthly, as Bani Umayyah were extremely bad character, in the same way, Bani Hashim were good natured and kind. Now the job was to suppress Bani Umayyah and promote Bani Hashim. But regretfully, Umar and the Rightful Caliphate acted against Bani Hashim, but they were not so weak that Bani Umayyah’s empowerment would have immediately wiped them out. The weakening of Bani Hashim was possible. Just as was clear from the actions of Righteous Caliphate, but it was not possible to wipe them out.

This is what actually happened. For a long period, Bani Hashim and Bani Umayyah continued to fight each other, but when Bani Hashim could not be wiped out easily, the causes of internal strife remained intact, through which the nation had to suffer many losses, economical as well as in terms of human lives. There seem to be two causes of the help and assistance to Bani Umayyah from the side of Umar and the Righteous Caliphate.

Firstly, the Righteous Caliphate saw it as necessary that Bani Umayyah should be kept happy. There is a Persian saying that ‘feed the dog to keep it happy’. On this principle, they were given the rule of Shaam. The fact is that Bani Umayyah was a tribe, which had exceeding greed for wealth and power. They had no aim except to gain worldly benefits. They had nothing to do with religion. They had absolutely no regard or respect for Islam. The chief of this tribe, Abu Sufyan, had apparently become a Muslim due to compulsion. When he saw that there was no gain in remaining an infidel, he accepted Islam.

When the Holy Prophet (S) passed away, Abu Sufyan decided to cash upon the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S). He saw nothing gainful in the happening of Saqifah. So he could not do anything but come to Ali (a.s.) and said that “the matter of Caliphate has been decided and you have been deprived of your right. If you say, I will fill the land of Medina with riders of Mecca and destroy this Caliphate of ‘election’.” His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), on the basis of the factors already mentioned before, became infuriated at Abu Sufyan and said: “O Abu Sufyan! You created mischief when you were infidel and now that you have accepted Islam, your mischief mongering is still there.”

After getting this reply, Abu Sufyan came to Abu Bakr and Umar and said, “You people have got hold of Caliphate and we have not got any benefit from it. If you don’t provide us with something, we will destroy the Caliphate.” Umar and Abu Bakr realized that though Bani Umayyah had weakened by the action taken against it by the Holy Prophet (S) now if they are not heeded, they will start their harmful activities against Caliphate and it would not survive. After pondering on this matter, Umar and Abu Bakr asked Abu Sufyan that if he is given a share in Caliphate, would he still oppose it?

Abu Sufyan had nothing to do with Ali (a.s.) or Umar and Abu Bakr. He had only his benefit in mind. The governorship of Shaam was given to him in a platter and now it made no difference whether the decision of Saqifah was good or bad. It is clear that this gift of governorship from Caliphate was due to compulsion. Umar and Abu Bakr had to somehow dispel the danger and they finally achieved this. The fact is that Umar and Abu Bakr were helpless in comparison to Abu Sufyan.

What else could they have done? Abu Sufyan was the chief of a great clan. It would not have been much difficult for Abu Sufyan to shake the Caliphate of ‘election’ (Ijma). Abu Bakr was not from a tribe of any distinction. He did not have any trust on his clan. Umar also did not rely on his tribesmen. The Bani Hashim were already in consternation at the happenings of Saqifah. In such conditions, how else could Umar and Abu Bakr save the Caliphate?

Secondly, Umar and Abu Bakr were not feeling safe from Bani Hashim. Both of them knew that Ali (a.s.) will not take any strict measures against Caliphate. But it was clear that Ali (a.s.) was not satisfied by the decision of Saqifah. And along with this, was the certainty that Bani Hashim were nursing a grudge. If Ali (a.s.) had not restrained them, every member of Bani Hashim tribe would have taken up arms. In such circumstances, what else could Umar and Abu Bakr have done? Whether it was due to political exigency or due to the love of Caliphate seat.

In brief, due to these two compulsions, Umar and Abu Bakr accorded respect and acquiesced Bani Umayyah. And the truth is that one mistake begets thousands. How sad that one mistake of Saqifah had wreaked havoc in the world of Islam and till now, Muslims are suffering its consequences. If they don’t reform their conditions, they would continue to suffer till Judgment Day. Now the equitable people are free to take whatever decision they like on the tragedy of Karbala’ while keeping in mind the above discussion.

Apparently, in the history of Arabs, there is no event of such significance and the causes of this event were such that any historian having an unbiased mind, can derive many useful conclusions from it. In the view of the intelligent people, the seed of this tragedy was the saying of Umar: “The Book of Allah is with us.”

The immediate result of this was the ‘election’ of Saqifah and the tree of Caliphate took root. And among the various fruits of this tree was the tragedy of Karbala’. It is not stated from the religious point of view. Rather, the fact is that those who view the history of nations with an unbiased eye, have no recourse except to conclude that this tragedy was nothing but the political consequence of the upheavals that started immediately after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S).

____________________

1.Quran 76:1 and 76:6

2.Sawaiqul Mohreqa

3.Refer to the Biography of Ali (a.s.) by Maulana Amritsari.

4.Ref. Tarikhul Khulafa of Suyuti.

 

 

 

Although Ali (a.s.) did not oppose the Caliphate of Abu Bakr by taking up arms and by which the Bani Hashim family also remained quiet, neither Ali (a.s.) was pleased with this Caliphate nor Bani Hashim. The dissatisfaction of Ali (a.s.) is clear from his sermon in Nahjul Balagha. Ibn Abil Hadid, a well- known scholastic theologian and scholar of Ahlul Sunnat, who was not from Shia sect, has written the commentary of this sermon.

Which educated person is unfamiliar with the Shiqshiqya Sermon and its commentators? A few statements of the sermon are presented below:

“Beware! By Allah! The son of Abu Qahafa (Abu Bakr) dressed himself with it (the Caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it is the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The floodwater flows down from me and the bird cannot fly up to me. I put a curtain against the Caliphate and kept myself detached from it. Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulation, wherein the grown up are feebled and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain, till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience, although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throats. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way.”

Indeed, the above words are insignificant for others; but for the followers of Ali (a.s.), they have in store, innumerable causes of sorrow. Apparently, it seems from the above statements that Ali (a.s.) considered the Caliphate of Abu Bakr forcible and illegal, and he considered himself absolutely fit for Caliphate. But keeping in mind the exigencies of the time, he did not confront Abu Bakr.

He remained patient. In his words, the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was painful for him, while he considered it a right of his, inherited from the Holy Prophet (S). Those who consider Ali (a.s.) true, may decide for themselves how the above statements are. And what effect they have on our feelings? The writer has no intention of misleading the people. The Almighty Allah has bestowed human beings with bounties of sight, hearing and intellect. If in spite of these favors, one remains deaf and mute, the Almighty is not to be blamed. The person himself is responsible if he does not prefer to derive any benefits from them.

 

 

 

It should be clear that according to the beliefs of Ahlul Sunnat that are expounded in the books of Sahih Tirmidhi, Sahih Muslim, Aqaid Nasafi, Sharh Aqaid Jalali and Sharh Nahdi, the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was not due to the appointment of the Holy Prophet (S), it was at a result of the selection by people. Thus, it could not be said to be from Allah. It was from the side of people. Those Ahlul Sunnat, who consider it to be in keeping with divine appointment, are living in a misunderstanding. Thus, it is not proper to consider Abu Bakr as the Caliph of the prophet, because the people had selected him.

In Sharh Aqaide Nasafi1 , it is written that the belief of Ahlul Sunnat regarding Caliphate and Imamate is that for it to be valid it is necessary that all the people should have consensus on Caliphate. Then there is election; that it is for people to select an Imam and not Allah according to Quran and tradition, because the Holy Prophet (S) said that one who dies without recognizing the Imam of his time, dies a death of disbelief. Due to this, after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) the companions of the Holy Prophet (S) considered it the most important duty to select an Imam. They considered the appointment of Imam to be more important than even the burial of the Holy Prophet (S).

Readers! Please note! One who dies without recognizing the Imam of his time, dies the death of infidelity. This only implies that the recognition of the Imam is obligatory and not the selection of an Imam. In such a condition, by giving preference to the selection of Imam over the burial of Prophet, the people committed two sins. One is that Abu Bakr and the other participants of Saqifah Bani Sadah were deprived of the rewards of participating in the burial of the Holy Prophet (S). Secondly, the selection of the Imam was itself an innovation. There is no doubt that innovation is deviation. The selection of Imam was an innovation because there is no proof of selection of Imam from Quran and tradition.

If it had been an obligatory duty, the Almighty would have informed about it and the Holy Prophet (S) would also have mentioned that ‘after me you may undertake election and select anyone as my successor.’ In the same way, the selection of Imam is also an illogical act because sometimes reason earns rewards and sometimes it becomes eligible for punishment. Therefore, the Almighty Allah refrained people to use reason where there was no Quranic verse or tradition regarding something.

“O Muhammad! Therefore, do not follow (your) conjectures…”2

Thus, if such a command is for the Prophet, how can the people be allowed to use their opinion for formulation of religious laws. Allah also says:

“Surely conjecture does not avail against the truth at all.”3

In other words, from the aspect of both religious text (Nass) and reason, the selection of Imam was an innovation committed by the people of Saqifah and it informs us of their deviation. Now, we have to see whether anyone can be selected by ‘election’ for the post of Prophet or Caliph of Prophet. It is well- known that since the time of Adam (a.s.), till the Holy Prophet (S) there has never been a single instance when a prophet or the Caliph of a prophet was selected by the ‘election’ of people.

Prophets and Caliphs were always appointed by Allah. The Almighty Allah made Adam (a.s.) a prophet as well as His Caliph. In the same way, the Almighty Allah made Dawood (a.s.) His Prophet and also appointed him as His Caliph. This proves that prophethood is from Allah and not from the people.

The appointment of Abu Bakr by the people was a sort of innovation and a new system. It was a pity that the Caliph of the greatest Prophet should neither be appointed by the Prophet himself nor by Allah, and that he should be selected by a group of people that did not even deserve to be called a perfect group. That is some people should gather and select him as the Caliph in a casual way.

If there had to be a real consensus for the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, if not from all the lands of Islam, at least the leaders of various Arab tribes who had embraced Islam should have been invited. Here the position was, that leave alone the tribes of other than Medina, even the tribe of Bani Hashim, which resided in Medina, was not informed, while it was also related to the Holy Prophet (S).

Umar hurriedly called for the hand of Abu Bakr and an instant ‘marriage’ was performed, thus making him the Caliph. Many companions also did not participate in this ‘election’. For example Zubair, Utbah, Khalid, Miqdad, Salman, Abu Dharr, Baraa and Ubayy, who were having some inclination to Ali (a.s.). By studying all the events, we realize that the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was neither from the side of Allah nor was it absolutely from the side of people. No one in his proper sense could call this defective Ijma ‘an election’.

Evidently, it seems that if with this haste, Umar had not made Abu Bakr the Caliph, and he had initiated a proper system of election, it would not have been possible for Abu Bakr to become the Caliph so easily. In the end, it is my humble statement that the belief of Ahlul Sunnat that the Holy Prophet (S) had not appointed anyone as his successor is an invalid assertion. The truth is that by the command of Allah, the Holy Prophet (S) had appointed Ali (a.s.) his Caliph, practically and by his statements.

But his selfish community (Ummah) rejected his choice. Though apparently the choice was of the Holy Prophet (S), actually it was that of the Almighty. There can be no doubt in its validity. Ali (a.s.) was indeed such a great person that he had no equal in the Ummah of the Prophet and his selection as a Caliph carried many advantages, as mentioned by the writer in the foregoing pages. We should know that the Prophet and Allah dictate the affair of Caliphate. The ‘election’ (Ijma) of Ummah cannot interfere in it. As we see in these words of Allah:

“And set out to them an example of the people of the town, when the messenger came to it. When We sent to them two, they rejected both of them, then We strengthened (them) with a third, so they said: Surely we are messengers to you.”4

The incident is that Isa (a.s.) sent two of his Caliphs or representative to Antioch but the people denied them both. Then the two were helped by a third representative. In this verse, the Almighty has mentioned the act of Isa (a.s.) as His own act and says: “We sent…”

Indeed, this verse clearly proves that Caliphate or representation of Prophet cannot be by anyway, except by the Prophet or Almighty Allah. Rather, this verse also proves that even a prophet is not allowed to appoint his Caliph. He has to take permission of Allah. He mentions in Surah Taha:

“And give to me an aider from my family: Haroon my brother, strengthen my back by him, and associate him (with me) in my affair.”5

This proves that Moosa (a.s.) requested Allah to appoint Haroon as his vizier. This proves that if a Caliph could be appointed by the people, what was the need of Moosa (a.s.) to pray to Allah for this? After the acceptance of this prayer, we learn that Moosa (a.s.) told his brother: You are my Caliph for my people after me.

“And Moosa said to his brother Haroon: Take my place among my people…”6

If Moosa (a.s.) did not value the permission of Allah, he would have appointed Haroon his Caliph or he would have gone to meet the Lord without appointing anyone as his Caliph and the Bani Israel could have appointed a Caliph of their own choice. Regarding the appointment of Haroon (a.s.) as the Caliph, the Almighty says in Surah Furqan:

“And We appointed with him his brother, Haroon an aider.”7

This clearly shows that only Allah has the authority to appoint the Caliph or representative of a prophet. No prophet has the right to select anyone as his Caliph or representative. May Allah be merciful on the nation (Ummah) which appointed Abu Bakr as the Caliph after the Prophet and they did not try to see the choice of Prophet and Allah. The establishment of belief by these people that Allah and the Prophet had not appointed anyone as Caliph is very astonishing. Reason cannot accept it. That the Caliphs of the previous prophets be appointed by Allah by special arrangements and the Prophet’s Ummah be not given any Caliph and it should be left like cattle to select its own Caliph.

Indeed, this Ummah has more importance in comparison to the past nations. To get such careless treatment by Allah is against reason. Indeed, Allah and the Prophet appointed Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph on Muslims, as clear from the event of Ghadeer Khumm. But the world-seeking people preferred the bounty of the world to the bounties of the Hereafter and did not accept Ali (a.s.) the Caliph.

In brief, the Caliphate of Abu Bakr cannot be in anyway from the side of Allah. It also seems to be deficient in being referred to as being from the people. When the Caliphate of Abu Bakr is such, the Caliphate of Umar cannot have any value, whatsoever. That is, his Caliphate is from such a Caliph who himself was not a Caliph from Allah, and it was even doubtful, if he could be called from the people.

Thus, the Caliphate of Umar was itself baseless. From this aspect, he was only the Caliph of Abu Bakr. To think that he was from the Messenger of Allah (S) is wrong. The tradition itself that “the thirty years…” is the period of the Righteous Caliphate is a concocted tradition. If the tradition is really from the Prophet, the total period of four Caliphates had reached 30 years. But this period of 30 years is not complete even after adding the six months of the Caliphate of Imam Hasan (a.s.). Indeed, this tradition is fabricated and it was most probably fabricated so that the Caliphates of the three Caliphs should be said to have been acceptable to the Holy Prophet (S) and thus should be accepted as the Righteous Caliphates.

Notes

_______________

1. Pg. 94

2. Surah Nisa 4:135

3. Surah Najm 53:28

4. Surah Yasin 36:13-14

5. Surah Taha 20:29-32

6. Surah Araaf 7:142

7. Surah Furqan 25:35

 

 

 

The writer has already shown the political necessity of the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.), according to which, if Ali (a.s.) had been appointed a Caliph after the Holy Prophet (S), his Caliphate would have been from the people. Just as the Caliphates of the three Caliphs is considered to be from the people, by Ahlul Sunnat. However, it is not the religious belief of the writer and Shias that Ali (a.s.) should have been the Caliph due to political exigency.

The religious belief of the Imamites is that Ali (a.s.) is the Caliph of the Holy Prophet (S) by the leave of Allah. His appointment as Caliph was not in need of selection by people. It was only Allah that had made him the successor of His Prophet in the world and in the religious sphere. It is a link of the complete series of spiritual Caliphate and Imamate. The material factors are in no way allowed to interfere in it.

 

 

 

On this point, the writer advises that a rational person should look with a critical mind, anything that is related to religion, politics and poetry or any other art. He must not be biased or bigoted. For if he sees the world through these eyes, he would not able to see the truth. There are very few truth-loving people in the world. Such are very few who could form an independent opinion. Most of the people can only follow blindly. The results of blind following does not need to be mentioned. The duty of man is to always try to unravel the truth.

First, he must work hard to do research and only then should he form an opinion. But those who look for truth and those who seek the truth and those who see the truth are very less in the world. Most of the people are such that they form an opinion without investigation and begin to act on it. Such people cannot form an opinion based on research. If their companion says that in China the crows are white, they would believe it without going to China or confirming it with a native of China or from a book of natural science. This is the condition of common people. They could not be expected to carry out independent research.

It is on this basis that the writer has no hope that this book will become very much popular. Since the writing is not aimed at common people, it is not expected that except for people of discerning minds, anyone else will like it. This book does not contain things that are required for popularity. First of all, it is not printed in colored ink. Secondly, the results of the research are not the same as the views held by common people. Thirdly, this book is different from Asian taste.

Fourthly, this book is filled with discussions of Muhammad’s Progeny. Apparently, it is not a taste of the Islamic world of this country that the merits of Muhammad’s Progeny should be propagated freely and that they should be seen in a wise way. Indeed, this book is not written keeping in mind the conditions of the present age. It is not to please any ruler, any wealthy person or a particular sect. The only aim of this book is public good. The writer does not expect any monetary benefit. He only intends to express the truth. By the praise of Allah, till date, the writing of this book has continued in the path of expressing the truth.

Obviously, the writer has no worldly greed through it that he should have deviated from the straight path. Selfishness and bigotry have never been allowed any scope therein. And why should he have deviated from the path of truth, while he had no intention to hurt the feelings of anyone or to usurp the rights of others. He considers all such things to be degrading. When the writer of this book had no desire for fame and greed for wealth or intention for gaining honor, why he should have taken up such freedoms. Anyone, who is needless of the world and the people and not dependant upon any government or authority, if even such a person cannot write the truth, only Allah can help him. Obviously, such a person would not be eligible for Divine Mercy.

 

 

 

It should be clear that the religious differences between Shia and Sunni are not that their twelve Caliphs are different. Rather, it is that Ahlul Sunnat consider their Caliphs to be appointed by people, while Shias consider that vicegerency of the Holy Prophet (S) could never be from people. It has to be from Allah. This difference clearly shows that Caliphate from the side of the people is something, which has no interference of divine revelation and neither is infallibility a requirement of it.

On the other hand, Caliphate from the side of Allah is a spiritual affair, which could not be possible without Allah’s permission. Ahlul Sunnat consider Caliphate same as selection of Presidents in democratic governments. No one can say that the Presidents of America, Europe and France have been appointed by divine revelation. Everyone knows that the appointment of such people is from the public. On the basis of this, Ahlul Sunnat consider the Caliphate of their Twelve Caliphs to be based on election or consultation or force, and consider it valid for these reasons. Obviously, all these conditions have no spiritual aspect.

In brief, Ahlul Sunnat regard Caliphate in a way that when the Prophet passed away from the world, Abu Bakr became the Caliph by consensus. When he passed away, he nominated Umar as his successor and when Umar was on his deathbed, he left Caliphate at the discretion of Consultative Committee (Shura).

Uthman was appointed as Caliph through Shura Committee. It is not clear from any Sunni book, by which principle Ali (a.s.) became the Caliph. Anyway, when it was the time of Muawiyah’s Caliphate, he became the rightful Caliph by obtaining it through force.

Obviously, it is an unscrupulous method of Caliphate, so there could not any basis for it in revelation. Therefore, we should know that the Caliphate from the side of the people is the belief of Ahlul Sunnat in particular. And due to this belief, many scholars of the sect, like Allamah Nawawi, the commentator of Sahih Muslim and Allamah Ibn Hajar, author of Fathul Bari and Imam Razi, the writer of Nihayatul Uqool etc. do not believe that the Caliphates of the three Caliphs or other Caliphs are based on Quranic or traditional injunctions.

But there are some Sunni scholars who are not completely satisfied with this mundane way of selecting the Caliph. And even in the people of that time, there was no Sunni who could prefer to consider the Caliphate of Abu Bakr an independent result of consensus. The writer has tried his best to find out the beliefs of contemporary Sunni scholars and the result that he has obtained is that they all consider the Caliphate of Abu Bakr to be in the way as Shias believe in the divine sanction of the Imamate of Ali (a.s.).

Now the matter to be investigated is, is there any Quranic verse or prophetic tradition, according to which Abu Bakr or the Caliphs after him attained their posts? These Sunni scholars have tried to prove the Caliphate of Abu Bakr with the help of Quranic verses and prophetic traditions and Shias have refuted these dissertations. There is no scope in this book to discuss the arguments of the two sects. Its aim is centered around the tragedy of Karbala’.

This book has no relation to the arguments whether the Caliphate of the three Caliphs was right or not? The writer just had to show the relationship of this Caliphate with the tragedy of Karbala’, and this relationship has already been explained. The writer has not argued with all the traditions and verses that Ahlul Sunnat use to prove the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, but he will only discuss two verses in the following pages. One of the verses is considered by Ahlul Sunnat to be particularly the proof of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and the second verse supports the Caliphate of the Rightful Caliphs. The readers are requested to study these verses and see if these verses in any way prove the Caliphate of the Caliphs?

 

 

 

Ahlul Sunnat present the verse of the cave to support the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. The complete verse is as follows:

“If you will not aid him, Allah certainly aided him when those who disbelieved expelled him, he being the second of the two, when they were both in the cave, when he said to his companion: grieve not, surely Allah is with us. So Allah sent down His tranquility upon him and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see…”1

Ahlul Sunnat people prove various merits of Abu Bakr from this verse. Even the Caliphate and rulership of Abu Bakr could be derived from this verse. The Imamites say that leave alone Caliphate, it does not prove any special quality of Abu Bakr. Rather, it seems to be just the opposite. To know the truth, we shall study the parts of this verse, there are many portions of this verse that are points of contention.

First of all is ‘Thani Ithnain’ (the second of the two), secondly, ‘Le Saahebehi’ (for his companion), thirdly, ‘Laa Tahzan Inallah Maana’ (grieve not, surely Allah is with us), fourthly, ‘Sakanatahu Alaihe’ (tranquility upon him). Below, we shall discuss each of these portions in detail. First of all, regarding: “The second of the two”, Ahlul Sunnat say that the second of the two is Abu Bakr who is the second person after the Messenger of Allah (S) who is nominated for the fulfillment of religious responsibility after the Holy Prophet (S).

The Imamites say that the second of the two denotes the Holy Prophet (S) himself and not Abu Bakr and there is no indication of conferment of religious authority in the verse. The Almighty is complaining about those people who are not helpful to his Prophet (S). They are such that either they avoid Jihad or flee from the battlefield, instead of sacrificing their life. Abu Bakr himself was one of those who had fled the battlefield. Or there were such people, who could not help the Prophet in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn and they left him and ran away. Then the meaning of “second of the two” and the “third of the three” is “one of the two” and “one of the three.” Here the “second of the two” is that same “one of the two” who was one of the two people in the cave and who was comforting the other.

Apparently, this comforting one was the Holy Prophet (S) and not Abu Bakr. This portion of the verse in no way proves the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and it has no relation to Caliphate or rulership. Although there is no cure for religious obstinacy.

Second: ‘Le Saahebehi’ (for his companion): Ahlul Sunnat say that ‘Le Saahebehi’ (for his companion) has proved the companionship of Abu Bakr. The Imamites do not deny the companionship of Abu Bakr, but they say that companionship on its own is not something that deserves to be praised, if there is absence of belief or faith. Only that companion of the Holy Prophet (S) is deserving of honor, who has faith; and mere companionship is of no use.

What is the use of such a companion, who is denounced in the words of Allah? As Allah mentions about those companions who avoided Jihad or who were the first to flee the battle, leaving the Holy Prophet (S) in danger. Apparently, this verse does not even mention those characteristics of companionship that are generally accepted by the people. Here, companion means one who was with the Holy Prophet (S) in the cave, that is Abu Bakr. This is the apparent meaning of that companion. Apart from this, the Arabic word of Sahab is not a word whose use is limited to special people. It can be used for ordinary people also, as mentioned in Surah Yusuf:

“O my two mates of the prison! Are sundry lords better or Allah the One, the Supreme?”2

It is used for people who had no sort of worldly or religious power. The Arabic word of Sahab does not prove any merit for Abu Bakr.

Thirdly: ‘La Tahzan Inallah Maana’ (grieve not, surely Allah is with us): Ahlul Sunnat say that these words prove that the Messenger of Allah (S) comforted Abu Bakr and made him his partner in receiving Allah’s help and peace. The Imamiyah say that these words do not indicate any merit for Abu Bakr or anyone else. The condition is that Abu Bakr did not give up his native place for helping the Prophet or the religion of Islam.

When he left Mecca with the Holy Prophet (S) in order to escape the enemies, the Holy Prophet (S) took refuge in a cave and Abu Bakr also entered the cave. But Abu Bakr was so nervous in the cave that he started weeping in fear of the enemies. The Holy Prophet (S) comforted him and asked why he was weeping? But despite this, he did not stop crying. Obviously, in such a condition, while the Holy Prophet (S) was inside a dark cave to escape the enemies, it was very much necessary that they should be quiet and peaceful. This untimely crying would have given them away, because the enemies had come out to search for the Holy Prophet (S).

It is surprising that when Saraqa reached the mouth of the cave, the weeping of Abu Bakr did not stop. If that enemy of Islam had entered the cave, Abu Bakr would hardly have been able to defend the Holy Prophet (S), keeping in mind that he was already crying in fear. The Holy Prophet (S) would have had to fight a duel with that enemy of Islam alone. Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) comforted such a chicken-hearted companion in the words:

“Do not grieve, certainly Allah is with us.”

So what is the merit of such a companion? Rather, it certainly indicates that the companion of the Holy Prophet (S), in spite of knowing that the Almighty will not allow His Prophet to be killed at the hands of infidels, had no faith in Allah.

We should know that as with ‘La Tahzan’ (Do not grieve…), Ahlul Sunnat prove many merits of Abu Bakr by the words ‘Inallaha Maana’ (certainly Allah is with us). They show many types of companionships with ‘Maana’ (with us).

Truly, priesthood (Maulviyat) is a strange thing. Sometimes they decorate their speeches to say that the companionship was of help and assistance and sometimes it was companionship in knowledge. In the end, they also show that the words of the Prophet prove the companionship of Allah with Abu Bakr. The Imamites say these are all wordplays. Actually, it is nothing worthy of mention that could prove any merit of Abu Bakr. The Holy Prophet (S) was comforting him not to be sorrowful, Allah is their helper and aider. ‘You think that enemies have arrived and who is it that will help you? Do not be aggrieved Allah is our helper and friend.’

The Imamites also refute Ahlul Sunnat saying, that here the Prophet has said ‘Maana’ (with us) denoting ‘Maaii’ (with me) and it is a style in Arabic to speak in plural form. In the Urdu language too, instead of singular, we speak in plurals. Thus instead of ‘I’ we say ‘We’. Is it necessary that ‘Maana’ (with us) should be considered ‘Maaii’ (with me)? The clear thing is that just as Allah was with the Holy Prophet (S), He was also with Abu Bakr and was with every creature; He was and He shall remain to be so. Thus, what merit could anyone have in this type of companionship?

Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) said ‘Maana’ (with us). This does not prove any merit of people, rather it proves the quality of Allah that He is with everyone. In my view, Shias are not required to say that ‘Maana’ (with us) is used in place of ‘Maaii’ (with me).

A Shia scholar says that if Ahlul Sunnat say regarding ‘Maana’ (with us) that we do not like to use plural instead of singular and it is necessary that instead of one, two people must be included in it, we shall say that the second person is Ali (a.s.). That when the Holy Prophet (S) asked Abu Bakr why he was weeping, as Shah Waliullah writes in Izalatul Khifa that Abu Bakr said: “I am not crying for myself. I am crying for Ali (a.s.). That he must have been killed and I am crying for you that soon you will be martyred.”

Then the Holy Prophet (S) said Allah is with both of us. This means that “Allah is the helper of me and Ali (a.s.).” On this point, both the scholars of Shia and Sunni have indulged in word play. The reply of each sect is as per the objection of every sect. On top of this is the statement of Shah Waliullah. Now I ask: O Imamites! What did you lose if ‘Maana’ (with us) includes Abu Bakr? Indeed, Abu Bakr was included in this ‘Maana’(with us). And if there had been a third, even an infidels, he would also have been included in this ‘Maana’ (with us). And Ahlul Sunnat are requested to consider what merit is obvious from the fact if Abu Bakr was indeed included in this?

The fact is that those who indulge in religious argumentation are distanced from nature, which is why they are prone to such unnatural views. Here, the arguments of the two sects are mere arguments. It is astonishing that a scholar of the caliber of Shah Waliullah should write such weak statements, as mentioned above. No sane person will give importance and consider true, such imaginative affairs. Such a person would consider the writing of Shah Waliullah to be unreliable and away from truth.

It is surprising that the Holy Prophet (S) did not weep for Ali (a.s.) in the cave, while it was Abu Bakr who wept. The condition of Abu Bakr himself was so tense that it seems unlikely he would worry about Ali (a.s.) and weep for him. Indeed, the cause of this weeping was the weak-heartedness of Abu Bakr. The truth is that he never wept for anyone. If the statement of Shah Waliullah is that he wept for Ali (a.s.) and the Holy Prophet (S), it is an ignorant action. Fear is a natural feeling. Very few people could be said to possess bravery. Thus, one who is not made brave, cannot be blamed for cowardice.

I also do not agree with the claim of Imamite writers, who say that Abu Bakr was weeping and wailing, so that enemies may learn of their presence and enter the cave. In my view, Abu Bakr never wailed for this purpose. He had entered the cave with utmost sincerity. He started crying when faced with this difficulty. It cannot be construed that Abu Bakr desired that the Holy Prophet (S) should be caught. Abu Bakr stood to gain more if the Holy Prophet (S) remained safe and sound. He was not a wealthy person nor his tribe had any superiority. He had taken up companionship of the Prophet only because through this, he would gain monetary progress.

Thus, by living in Medina, and through trade and war booty, his economical conditions improved till the time that after the Holy Prophet (S) he also became the ruler of Muslims. Abu Bakr was a very clever person. He could never desire Prophet’s death, while he was with him in the cave. Shah Waliullah agrees that the weeping of Abu Bakr was due to fear and fear is rooted in a weak heart.

Thus, this action of Abu Bakr is not deserving of any praise. In such a delicate moment, though it was indeed harmful for the Holy Prophet (S) if one wept loudly, but it was also against wisdom to weep quietly. In such a situation, it is the duty of every companion to reassure each other, rather than creating nervousness. But this incident shows that the Holy Prophet (S) was a very stable minded and a valiant person. That he kept his emotions intact in such perilous circumstances and even comforted Abu Bakr. In brief, what merit does this verse shows of Abu Bakr? Except for Ahlul Sunnat, no one has become cognizant of any such points.

Fourthly: From the words ‘Sakanatahu Alaihe’ (Allah sent down His tranquility upon him) Ahlul Sunnat show that the Almighty sent peace on Abu Bakr and this informs us of the high status of Abu Bakr. Imamites say that peace was sent by Allah on His respected Prophet. That in such a serious situation, when his companion had started weeping due to fear, it was necessary for the companion to console his counterpart.

The Almighty Allah sent peace on the Prophet (S) and helped Him with armies invisible to the human eye. People of justice may see whether the relation of this peace is with the Prophet or Abu Bakr. It is well-known that the verse refers to peace on the Holy Prophet (S). It seems from the life history of Abu Bakr that apart from that cave he never had peace of mind. It seems irrational that one should be given peace of Allah and that he should leave the Prophet and flee from the battlefield, or when he goes for Jihad, he could not face the infidels due to the weakness of heart.

In such a situation, he should always have trusted Allah and he should have faced the enemies of Allah in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn. But when he had never got that peace of heart, how he could be considered recipient of Allah’s peace in the cave or anywhere else? Truth-loving people may weigh this reply of Shias in the balance of justice and the writer does not wish to express any opinion.

It should be clear that some Ahlul Sunnat people turn the pronoun of ‘Alaihe’ (upon him) towards Abu Bakr. Nawab Maulavi Sayyid Mahdi Ali Khan, the writer of Ayate Bayyinat, and some other non-famous scholars also do it. But the greatest exegesists of Ahlul Sunnat clearly apply the pronoun of ‘Alaihe’ (upon him) towards the Messenger of Allah (S), from which the Holy Prophet (S) becomes the recipient of the peace of Allah.

Indeed, the Almighty also intended this, but priesthood is a strange thing! They always try to use the play of words in debates and discussions, even though the incident may be murdered at the altar of argumentation, but they will not change their stance. Debate means that two groups take part in a discussion and arrive at a conclusion regarding something. When it is so, what is achieved by useless contests? Now, people of justice should see that if the pronoun of ‘Alaihe’ (upon him) is turned towards, Abu Bakr, what sort of grammatical blunder is committed.

All the pronouns in this verse are applicable to the Holy Prophet (S), in between, one pronoun is construed to be for Abu Bakr. Then the pronoun after this, that is ‘Ayyadahoo’ (strengthened him) is for the Holy Prophet (S). Is there any sense in it? No, but priesthood is always indulging in such nonsense. We should see that by turning the pronoun to Abu Bakr, the beauty of the language of the Quran is lost. In brief, the verse of the cave is not related to the Caliphate or rulership of Abu Bakr or anyone else, and it is not in praise of anyone.

The meaning of the verse is just that Allah says: “O enemies of Islam! If you don’t help My Prophet, Allah helps him. He was even helped when infidels expelled him from his home and he took refuge in a cave. At that time, there were two people; he himself and his companion who was weeping and wailing.

In such a condition, the Prophet comforted him that Allah was with them. Then Allah sent peace on His Prophet and helped him with an army of angels.” This is all there is to it. But the interpretations that have deformed this verse, do not require a mention. The people of justice may themselves compare truth with untruth. We also present two additional points that are found in this incident:

First of all, even if we agree that Abu Bakr bravely accompanied the Holy Prophet (S) in the cave, even then when this companionship is compared to the action of Ali (a.s.) for sleeping on the bed of the Prophet, we realize that Ali’s action was more a feat of bravery than the companionship of Abu Bakr, because Ali (a.s.) slept fearlessly on the bed of the Holy Prophet (S). The natural bravery of Ali has no equal. He was a stable and a brave personality. It was the job of a loyal, Allah-knowing and religious person that Ali (a.s.) performed. Such a thing cannot be thought about Abu Bakr’s presence in the cave.

Despite this, Abu Bakr is given precedence over Ali (a.s.) and is said to be deserving of the Prophet’s successorship. It is a strange world where there is no justice! If there is justice, it is with Allah or it would be Judgment Day. In my view, it behoves a Muslim not to forgo justice. How can a bigot be a Muslim? The presence of Abu Bakr in no way makes him superior to Ali (a.s.).

But what would the people of justice say to that the Prophet said ‘La Tahzan’ (do not grieve): That clearly shows the dissatisfaction of Prophet (S) over an action of Abu Bakr. In such a situation, is Abu Bakr not proved to be inferior? Then to prefer Abu Bakr because of this, is very far from justice. Only Allah knows what this blind love for Abu Bakr will earn for Ahlul Sunnat in the hereafter? It is a strange unjust love that Quran, tradition, reason and understanding, all are murdered for it.

(2) Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti writes that Abu Bakr was the bravest companion. If Suyuti had just referred to Abu Bakr, it would have been something else, but to say that he was the bravest companion is an astonishing statement. Over and above, he relates a tradition of Ali (a.s.) to say that Abu Bakr was the bravest of men. That is Abu Bakr was not only braver than Ali (a.s.) and the Prophet, he was the bravest among all the people. The action of Suyuti to call Abu Bakr the bravest of the people in the words of Ali has brought out two evils: one is that Abu Bakr, who was not even an ordinary brave, is said to be the bravest.

Secondly, Ali (a.s.) and the Holy Prophet (S) who were brave in their own right, were rendered inferior. It is clear from the incident of cave that of the Holy Prophet (S) and Abu Bakr, who was braver? In the same way, it is crystal clear from the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn, how brave Abu Bakr was. Who deserves to be called braver, Abu Bakr or Ali? Till now the writer has not come to know from Quran, tradition, history, etc. how Abu Bakr was the bravest of the companions or bravest of the people. The incident of cave tells of no kind of bravery.

In fact, Abu Bakr had no experience of battles or war. But he had good experience of business. He used to go to the markets of Medina everyday and make a lot of money. It is not necessary that everyone must be a soldier. Providence neither made Abu Bakr a soldier nor Umar; both these gentlemen had different qualities. Just as Abu Bakr had business acumen, Umar was having a political mind. That is why, in the battles of the Prophet, these two gentlemen had no achievements worthy of mention. Those who fought in these battles were Ali (a.s.), other Bani Hashim and the Helpers (Ansar) of Medina. The sword of Ali (a.s.) performed great feats that are mentioned in the books of poetry and history.

If Ali (a.s.) had not been there, Islam would not have been established in Medina. The fact is that though anyone could be considered bravest, the quality of bravery was perfect only in Ali (a.s.). It is surprising that a scholar like Suyuti should also write such baseless things that are absolutely impossible.

Another inappropriate statement of Suyuti is that Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable of the companions and the most pure. Indeed, this is only applicable to Ali (a.s.) and none else. But there is no doubt that Abu Bakr was more knowledgeable than Umar and cleaner. In brief, we could say that bigotry is the enemy of faith. May Allah give good sense to people to speak and love the truth. Without recognizing the truth, man cannot achieve salvation in the world and the hereafter.

 

Notes

____________

 

1. Surah Taubah 9:40

2. Surah Yusuf 12:39

 

 

 

Let it be understood that we have, from the verse of the Cave, shown above, that it does not prove any kind of praise or Caliphate or emirate of Abu Bakr or of any other person. Now we invite the attention of the readers to a verse, which is being loudly used as proof of the serial order of Caliphate of the four Caliphs. It is:

“Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces, because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Taurat and their description in the Injeel; like as seed-produce that puts forth its sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them; Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward.”1

Supporters of Righteous Caliphate (Khilafate Rashida) say that, in this verse, ‘those with him’ means Abu Bakr, ‘firm of heart against the unbelievers’, means Umar, ‘compassionate among themselves’, means Uthman and ‘bowing down, prostrating themselves’, means His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and that the Caliphate too has come to be established in the same order.

The truth is that this statement can deceive only ignorant people. So we find thousands of Muslims who have been deceived by it. May Allah grant them the ability to see the truth. O justice loving gentlemen, this verse is very clear. Neither unknown words have been used in it, nor its grammatical construction is so complex that it be difficult to understand.

The only purport of this verse is that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and the specialty of his companions is that they are ‘firm of heart…’ etc. till the end of the verse. And doubtlessly, the companions of the Holy Prophet (S), whose hearts were clean of polytheism and hypocrisy and who were truly faithful, did have these virtues as mentioned by the Almighty Allah in this verse. This verse never conveys that such and someone was ‘compassionate…’ that somebody was an frequent bower and prostrator upto the end.

Rather, this verse gives a true picture of the true companions of the Holy Prophet (S), which brings before all, their true appearance. But, alas; instead of leaving aside the simple and plain meaning of this verse, Shah Waliullah in Izalatul Khifa, with reference to Ibn Abbas, says that “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ‘and those with him’ is Abu Bakr and ‘you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves’ is for Ali (a.s.), ‘seeking grace from Allah and pleasure’ are Talha and Zubair, ‘their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration’ are Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Saad bin Abi Waqqas and Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah.”

O just gentlemen! Can there be any answer to such nonsense? How pitiful that a scholar like Shah Waliullah can say such meaningless thing and include such weak matter in his books and allow its publication. Had such a thing been written by any non-scholar, it would have been taken as ignorance and readers would have taken no notice of it. But the appearance of such words from the pen of a great scholar, clearly shows that prejudice is a great calamity. Prejudice turns even the greatest scholar into an ignorant man.

While writing such things, Shah Waliullah did not think how meaningless things are being jotted down and, worse than that, the author takes its proof from Ibn Abbas. Ibn Abbas was a learned man who had obtained knowledge of Quran from Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.). There should be no doubt that neither Ali (a.s.) has made such a reckless change in the meaning of this verse nor Ibn Abbas. Obviously, the subject words, ‘those with him’ are subject and their predicates have come one after another and not that it is a list of different people, as seen from the writing of Shah Waliullah.

Similar explanations are found in other books of Ahlul Sunnat like Ghaniyatu Talibeen. How strange that such great scholars have come down to such an extent that they have tried to give wrong meaning to the obvious and clear words of the Divine verses! They have, with extreme selfishness, given up all rules of grammar and language. Now we throw a glance of research on each and every phrase of this holy verse and whatever comes up will be presented without any prejudice and partiality.

It should be clear that the first part of this holy verse, which has been made disputable, is ‘those with him’, which, according to Shah Waliullah, means Abu Bakr. Obviously, the Shah has taken this ‘Maahu’ (those with him) to be a reference to that Maeeyat (company) of the Holy Prophet (S), which has been discussed earlier with reference to the verse of the Cave. Doubtlessly, the companionship of the cave is no event of pride or prestige for Abu Bakr, as the writer has shown earlier with proof. Then, why should Allah remind of the company of cave in any other verse?

So, it is never likely that Allah Almighty has referred to the company of the cave in this verse. In such circumstances, stretching the meaning of the word

‘Maahu’ (those with him) upto companionship of the cave is nothing but a game of words. The fact is that searching for truth, seeing of truth and telling of truth has disappeared from the world. Actually, it is the duty of scholars to establish truth, but the deeds of some learned people appear to be quite contrary. Let these just people see as to what connection this ‘Maahu’ (those with him) has with the companionship of Abu Bakr in the cave. Had it any special relationship with Abu Bakr, then wherever the word ‘Maahu’ (those with him) is used, it would mean the company of Abu Bakr in the cave. Is this meaningful? It is the duty of man not to allow his tongue to have anything with lying or falsehood because as the Persian saying goes: “Eulogizing the word fire is the practice of Fire worshippers.”

In his book, Ghaniyatu Talibeen, Pir Dastagir says: “In the verse ‘Those with him…’ the Almighty has, very clearly, mentioned the summary virtues of the faithful companions of the Holy Prophet (S).” But Ghausal Aazam also, like other Ahlul Sunnat scholars, fixes the reference of ‘Maahu’ (those with him) with Abu Bakr.

Firstly, shedding light on the writing of the Pir, makes the grammatical construction of the Divine words appear weak, as can be easily seen by anyone who is well-versed with Arabic grammar.

Secondly, the explanation presented by him does not apply to the events of the Holy Prophet (S). According to the words of the Pir, the company of Abu Bakr with the Holy Prophet (S) is mentioned on four occasions: first company in ‘usr’ (difficulty), second companionship in ‘yusr’ (ease), third, companionship in the cave and fourth company is ‘Areesh’ (throne). Now let us see what is the truth behind these companies. ‘Maeeyat fil usr’ means the company of Abu Bakr with the Holy Prophet (S) in times of difficulty. This is not seen anywhere. Rather, many things appear contrary to it.

The first significant company of Abu Bakr with the Holy Prophet (S) is the company in the cave, as mentioned by the writer earlier. In fact, this company has no importance. A look into this company shows that it would have been better if this companionship had not been there and every nice soul would wish that the Holy Prophet (S) would have been better off without it. Shaykh Saadi has written a couplet in his famous prayer poem, Karima, that has rightly been popular all around the world, as it mentions the truth. This ‘Maeeyat fil usr’ also includes company in battles (Maeeyat fil ghazwaat).

Now, who will go into the details of Uhud, Khaybar, Khandaq and Hunayn etc. Since they are known to all knowledgeable persons, they need no repetition. In short, there is no important company of Abu Bakr with the Holy Prophet (S), which is distinct. Much can be said for the sake of saying, which is a different thing. Now we should see about ‘Maeeyat fil yusr’ (company in times of ease). The writer does not disagree with it at all. Undoubtedly, this word of the Pir is totally true which no one can truthfully contradict. The third company is the company in the cave, which has been looked into. It needs no repetition.

The last company, in the words of Ghausal Aazam is the company in ‘Arsh’. If, here, ‘Areesh’ means the throne (seat) prepared for the Holy Prophet (S) in the Battle of Badr (according to Suyuti), then in that matter too, the writer has nothing to say, as this company for Abu Bakr is like a company in ease. What has happened during the Battle of Badr was that Muslims had built a high seat of wood for the Holy Prophet (S) from where he, as the commander, could observe every activity in the war. Military top brass do need such elevated places as a general is the spirit or soul of the army, who has to keep a vigilant eye on his army’s movements. Though the fight is carried out actually by soldiers, it cannot succeed without the guidance and supervision of the commander-in-chief.

This was the position of the elevated seat, which was prepared for the Holy Prophet (S). Since Abu Bakr was not a man of war, he remained inactive with the Holy Prophet (S) upto the end of the battle. This is the fact. But Suyuti has painted the picture showing that Abu Bakr was an expert sword-wielder and he stood by the Prophet for his constant protection. Now, what Abu Bakr has to do with the sword? He was never known to be a warrior. He did not take up the sword either in Badr, or in Uhud, Khandaq, Khaybar, Hunayn or in any other battle.

The truth is that the virtue of telling the truth and only truth has been given only to the true lovers of Allah. This blessing is not bestowed on everyone. Those who have been granted this bounty look at the world in a totally different way. May Allah give this virtue of telling the truth to everyone, as it is the way to salvation.

Now we will look into ‘firm of heart against the unbelievers’ who did not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for carrying out the commands of Allah and His Prophet, who fought with the enemies of Islam wholeheartedly and who never turned back even if they had to give up their lives; who remained steadfast along with the Holy Prophet (S) in the battles for truth, who never tried to sit aside during a fight with the opponents of the Prophet, who had never fled from battlefield, were fully entitled to be called ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers).

Shah Waliullah and other Sunni scholars say that in the verse under discussion, ‘Ashiddaau’ (firm of heart) means Umar. In order to look into this claim, it is necessary to look into his life sketch. Reason demands and wisdom accepts that one can be called ‘Ashiddaau Alal kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers) only when one is brave and courageous. In this case, we must first discuss his courage; if he proves to be courageous and brave, he can be considered worthy of being called ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers).

The first thing to which a researcher is attracted is that when Umar was about to propagate a new religion, he became very angry and he remained furious for six years because of it. He was ever ready during this time, to kill the Messenger of Allah (S); but he could not achieve his ambition. However, one day he left home with a sword to kill the Holy Prophet (S) but on his way, somebody told him: “You are proceeding to kill Muhammad, but mind well that the people of Bani Zahra and Bani Hashim will take revenge from you.” Upon this, he gave up the idea. It seems that the intention was due to anger, but when he thought over its consequences, his intention changed and he gave up the idea.

Another example of Umar’s bravery, which is being hyped, is that he migrated from Mecca openly with courage and did not hide himself while going to Medina. Those who do not know the facts may wonder thinking that when the Holy Prophet (S) had to leave Mecca secretly, it must have been extraordinary courage of Umar that he could go directly and openly from circumambulating the sanctuary towards Medina. It must have needed a very brave heart; that it shows that Umar was so courageous that the people of Mecca could not dare obstruct him.

But this bravery of Umar could be considered as an exemplary courage, had his uncle Abu Jahl not given him protection, because of which no Meccan could harm him at all. This is the fact about his migration from Mecca to Medina. Now we should look at another event, wherein he had to go to Mecca from Medina but could not proceed.

The truth about it is that before the treaty of Hudaibiya, the Holy Prophet (S) had asked Umar to go to Mecca and assure the Meccan Quraish that they wanted to enter Mecca only to perform Umrah pilgrimage, but Umar could not carry out the order of the Holy Prophet (S). He replied that the Quraish would not leave him alive; that at that time, there was no sympathizer for him in Mecca. This excuse was indeed genuine, because Abu Jahl, because of whose protection he had dared to migrate from Mecca openly, had departed for Hell in the Battle of Badr. The truth is that the way in which he had courageously left Mecca, could not be adopted by him for going to Mecca again.

Everything has a time and circumstances do not remain same forever. Well, the author could not know of any other event of Umar’s courage, except these two occasions. Hence no comment is needed. Now we give below a brief introduction of his bravery in war:

Umar got opportunities to accompany the Holy Prophet (S) in some important battles. The first was in the Battle of Badr, in which his flight is not proved. Only his inactiveness is recorded, which was due to the fact that his maternal uncle, Abu Jahl, had come to fight against the Prophet. He could in no way fight against his uncle, as he did not want to tarnish his character by killing an obliging relative, so he refrained from fighting. In the battle of Khandaq (Ditch), he flatly refused to fight against Amr bin Abde Wudd.

This excuse also was not against wisdom, because that infidel was extraordinary in physique. He looked like a giant, not a man. To fight such a fellow was against reason. In the battle of Uhud, Muslims were forced into a very difficult situation when the Holy Prophet (S) was injured. Many Muslims ran away from the battlefield and Umar also was among them. When there are no guts for fighting, flight was the only way out. His confession of flight is clearly mentioned in Sahih Bukhari. So also his fleeing is proved from what is written in the books of Fakhruddin Razi and Nishapuri. It is mentioned therein that besides Umar, Uthman was also among the absconders.

Suyuti records Umar’s words about this running away: Umar himself says, “We fled from the battlefield…”Now about the flight of Abu Bakr. It is also proved from Umar’s words. What had happened actually was that when the companions of the Holy Prophet (S) ran away, leaving him alone and he fainted after being injured, someone shouted: “Muhammad has been killed, so all of you should turn back to your earlier religion (ignorance).” We find a hint of this in the Holy Quran also. It is mentioned in a verse:

“Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Many messengers had come before him. So if Muhammad dies or is killed, would you then turn back from the religion of Muhammad? So whoever turns back like this will not harm Allah at all (he would harm only himself).”2

According to Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal, when His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) asked Umar: “Did you not give out the call that Muhammad has been killed, so you may revert to your religion of ignorance?” Umar replied: “Verily, Abu Bakr made this announcement.” This shows that Umar and Abu Bakr, during their flight were near one another at some place; that they were so near that Umar could easily say that the announcement was in Abu Bakr’s voice

This event has indeed a strange color and a number of consequences do come out from it, but I leave the matter here. Besides, in the said narration of Ahmad bin Hanbal, a word of Abu Bakr is also recorded in Tarikh Khamis, which shows that on the day of Uhud, Abu Bakr had also fled. He says: “All had left the Prophet on the day of Uhud, Abu Bakr had, like other people, went off leaving the Prophet in the battlefield; but when the runaways returned, he was the first among them.” It should not be understood by this that he returned to Medina after two or three days. In short, during the Battle of Uhud, except Bani Hashim and Helpers (Ansar) of Medina, all leading Emigrants (Muhajirs) had left the battle of Uhud.

There is no need to mention the steadfastness and courage of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). A voice came from the unseen: “Laa fata illa Ali…” (There is no brave youth, except Ali…) During the battle of Khaybar, Abu Bakr and Umar had returned to the tents of the Messenger of Allah (S) after being defeated by Harith for two consecutive days and the Jews pursued them during the said two days, right upto the camp…In my knowledge, these are neither allegations not talks of timidity. Neither Umar nor Abu Bakr were created for battlefields. No blames can be put on nature.

Allah had created His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), the Lion of Allah for such courageous and brave deeds. He performed the same deeds as per Divine Wish. In Hunayn also, neither Umar nor Abu Bakr could show any martial achievement. Like all other fleeing Muslims, both ran away from the battlefield. Here also, the sword of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) saved Islam. The heroic deeds, which were to be performed for Islam, were performed by the Lion of Allah.

During fighting, the deeds of Abu Bakr and Umar were similar and the fact is that the two Caliphs were not molded like warriors. It is a lie to say that Abu Bakr was ‘the bravest of men’ (Ashja-un-naas) and Umar, a great Arab hero (Shuja-ul Arab). Neither was a man of the battlefield.

During the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (S), they did not perform any martial deed, which can make them men of war. It is because of the talk of the partisans of these two fellows that they ascribe to them the virtues they never possessed. Such baseless talks are being framed to prove that their Caliphates were legal, according to the Holy Quran. It is a vain effort to support their Caliphate.

When the fact is that all these Caliphates were established through consensus, inheritance and force and power, it is illogical to try to prove their legality through the Holy Quran. Well, it is certain that during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (S) no courage was shown by the two Caliphs that could make them ‘the bravest of men’ (Ashja-un-naas) or a great Arab hero (Shuja-ul Arab). But whatever the two Caliphs did after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S), can have no relevance with the verse under discussion.

Obviously, this verse pertains to the time of the Holy Prophet’s lifetime, not its aftermath. Now, we will look at the time following the demise of the Holy Prophet (S). No doubt, Muslims conquered many countries during the time of Umar and some also during the time of Uthman, but what is significant is that these victories were not like the victories in Badr, Khandaq, Khaybar, Hunayn… etc.

These victories of Muslims were like the victories gained by communities of Goths and Vandal against Byzantine (Roman Empire). As we mentioned earlier, the hungry Arabs came down like ants and flies on parts of the kingdom of Caesar and eastern Roman and snatched many countries from Iranians and Byzantines. There was no contribution of personal bravery of the Caliphs; any Caliph of Medina would have got these victories for Arabs. All the victories were possible at that time for Arabs. More than that was neither possible for the armies of Arabs, nor time was favorable for more.

Apparently, victories during the Caliphate of Uthman preceded that of Umar while it should have been vice versa. In short, these victories had nothing to do with the personal courage of these two persons. Of course, had the sword of Abu Bakr and Umar gained victories for the Holy Prophet (S) in the battles fought by the Prophet, no one could deny the courage and bravery of these two Caliphs.

In short, even after the time of the Holy Prophet (S), personal courage or heroism of Umar is not traceable anywhere. Thus, the virtue of bravery does not apply to him at any time. In these circumstances, how can he be considered a man to whom the virtues of ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers) can be attributed? Let just people decide. His being tough against the deniers is not established. However, since there was extremism in his nature, he never restrained himself from being tough towards the prisoners of war.

He was also very tough even with his friends, relatives, sons, sisters and family members and his extreme severity was against Lady Fatima (s.a.) and her husband as explained in detail by the writer earlier. Obviously, such extremism does not make a man ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers). However, anybody can raise any claim. Nobody can hold anyone’s tongue; but telling the truth and only truth, is a great bounty from Allah. May Allah not hold it from any of His slaves. Doubtlessly, only he is devoid of it, who is bound to taste the anger of Allah.

Now, it should be seen, whether or not there is any connection of ‘Ruhamaa Bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves) with Uthman. Basically, the life of Uthman is divided into four periods. The first part is that of disbelief, that is, the period of his life when he had not yet embraced Islam. Obviously, the praise for this part of his life cannot be seen in the Holy Quran. Ahlul Sunnah also do not claim that he was ‘Ruhamaa’ (compassionate) during that part of his life, when he had not yet embraced Islam.

The second phase of his life was the time between his becoming Muslim and the demise of the Holy Prophet (S). Verily, the captioned verse was also revealed during this period. But no distinct deed of the caliber of ‘Ruhamaa’ (compassionate) is ever seen to have been performed by Uthman in this period. Then how could the Lord ever remember him with this special virtue? No performance of any merciful deed or behavior with any of the companions of the Prophet is found. Hence ‘Ruhamaa’ (compassionate) by no stretch of imagination, can extend to him.

However, there is no doubt that in his tribe of Bani Umayyah and other Quraishi tribes who were polytheists before the fall of Mecca, Uthman did, even after his becoming a Muslim, enjoy influence and position as before, and his former relatives did maintain love for him as before. This was because he too had maintained his earlier affectionate relations with them. So he was able to move among those polytheists without any fear of life and also because of this love for them, they too loved him in reciprocation. That is why, he was a beloved man of Quraish. Otherwise, the existence of unity between a Muslim and a polytheist was unexpected.

Therefore, in view of this, a scholar says in a lighter vein; if the pronoun of ‘Bainahum’ (among themselves) is turned towards the polytheists of Quraish then of course, looking to actual events, his being ‘Ruhamaa bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves) will be established.

But if those who make such change in the pronouns in the text say that, in the word of Allah, there is no mention of Quraish in this ‘Bainahum’ (among themselves), then there is, before this ‘Ruhamaa Bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves), the word ‘al-Kuffar’ (the disbelievers). So they may gladly turn this pronoun ‘Hum’ (them) towards ‘Kuffar’ (the deniers). Then at least, he will be proved ‘Ruhamaa bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves) and it will also not go against history.

Obviously, this is a light oratory, nothing else. What Allah conveys is not ‘Ruhama bainal Kuffar’ (compassionate among the deniers). It is necessarily either Bainal Muslimeen (compassionate among Muslims) or Bain allazina maahum (compassionate among those who were with them). So this clarifies that ‘Ruhama bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves) also applies only to those whom ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers) had applied.

It applied only to those who confronted the deniers, who killed deniers and who saved Islam from destruction and helped the Prophet; who did not allow disrespect to the religion of Allah, who never hesitated in fighting for truth, who remained always steadfast, who never fled from the battlefield, leaving the Prophet and his companions; who protected the Muslims from the attacks and harms of deniers and who did not leave them to the mercy of the deniers, who saved them from being caught by the disbelievers; who did not allow attacks on women and children of the believers and left no stone unturned in serving their brothers and sisters in faith, who fought unceasingly in the Path of Allah, who confronted big giants among deniers; who never showed their back to the oppressors and who never cared for the safety of their own lives.

Such brave and courageous people were those to whom the phrase ‘Ruhama Bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves) and ‘Ashiddaau alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers) is applicable and not that one can be ‘Ruhama Bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves) but not ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers) and vice versa.

Now, it is for the wise and the just persons to decide whether Uthman was, or was not fit for being called ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers), so that he could also be called ‘Ruhama Bainahum?’ (compassionate among themselves). It has been historically proved above that he surely was never worthy of being called ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers).

So he also cannot be worthy of being attributed with the phrase of ‘Ruhama Bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves). History shows that neither Abu Bakr and Umar were worth being called ‘Ashiddaau’ (firm of heart…) nor Uthman, because all the three gentlemen are devoid of the attribute of ‘Ruhama’ (compassionate) too.

It is nothing, but sheer prejudice and undue insistence that they attach each of the attributes shown in the aforesaid verse, to one particular person; that is, they apply ‘Allazeena maahu’ (those who were with them) to Abu Bakr,‘Ashiddaau’ (firm of heart) to Umar and ‘Ruhama’ (compassionate) to Uthman.

The truth is that the clear meaning of this verse is that the virtues of the companions of the Holy Prophet (S) are ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…), ‘Ashiddaau…’ (firm of heart…) etc. and never that such and such companion has this attribute and such and such has that.

Had these virtues to mention certain particular persons, Allah would not have made general mention of interdependent attributes and which were the essential attributes or virtues of the Holy Prophet’s faithful (not hypocrite) companions. Verily, this verse applies to those who possessed all the said virtues and their reward is Divine pleasure.

The third part of the life of Uthman is that which was spent during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar. Therein, nothing is found, which can make him worthy of being ‘Ruhama’ (compassionate).

Now remains the fourth part, which is the particular part of his own Caliphate. A glance at it gives the idea of his original nature. How did he behave with common Muslims and with the companions of the Prophet is seen in the events which took place during his Caliphate. Some such events are narrated below. Let the just people decide, how much he was deserving of being called ‘Ruhama’ (compassionate).

Event no. 1: The third Caliph dismissed Mughaira bin Shoba from the post of the governor of Kufa and replaced him by Saad bin Abi Waqqas, who was one of the Ashra Musbashshera (the ten who were given glad tidings of Paradise). This gentleman might have remained on that post when the Caliph replaced him by Walid bin Uqbah. A brief introduction of this fellow is that besides being from Bani Umayyah, he also was a step-brother (from maternal side) of the Caliph.

After becoming the governor, he used to remain drunk to such an extent that one day, being intoxicated, he entered the Masjid, led the Morning Prayer, making it four units (rakats) instead of two, then vomited wine on the prayer mat and asked the follower worshippers whether he should add some more units. People replied: “No need sir, this much is enough.”

It is mentioned in Al Uyoon Fee Seeratil Ameen wa Mamoon that after this event, Ibn Masood commented: “May Allah not give good either to you or to the one who sent you to us (meaning Uthman who had appointed Walid as the governor).”

This event is also recorded in Tarikh Abul Fida and Madarijun Nubuwwah of Shah Abdul Haqq Muhaddith. There is no doubt about its factuality. It should be understood that this Walid was a habitual offender. Giving such a sinful man this appointment, appears to be an amazing deed of the Caliph in an Islamic country. Moreover, no reason of the appointment of Walid need be mentioned as he was from Banu Umayyah and he also had family relations with the Caliph. That is why a man from Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten) could be humiliated. This man had no superiority over Saad bin Abi Waqqas except for family relations. His appointment only shows a help to his brother.

But what kind of help is it, which results in oppression of Allah’s creation and deviation from the path of the Holy Prophet (S)? It is indeed very strange that a criminal and sinful fellow should be made governor of an Islamic province. But, it seems, the prejudiced people say that this vain work of the Caliph was an act of Sile Rahmi (good behavior with relatives).

A scholarly gentleman tells me: The third Caliph, Uthman, appointed his relatives to high posts according to the Quranic command of behaving nicely with blood relations. How strange it is to hear such words from a learned man! None can utter such irrelevant words unless his interior has become perverted. Dear readers, for Allah’s sake, be just and decide whether Allah has, at any place, said: “Be kind to your relatives even if others are harmed and even if the commands of Allah and His Prophet are breached, let them be, but you must practice kindness to your relatives?” Let them explain whether the order of helping relatives relates to help from one’s own wealth or from the common public treasury of all Muslims?

In short, how can anyone say that whatever Uthman did to Mughaira and Saad can be called a kind act to relatives? Can he or can he not be called an example of ‘Ruhama…’ (Compassionate…) on account of the help he gave to his brother? Let the just people judge. I need not say anything more. Let the truth- loving people look at the behavior of Bani Umayyah. Most people of this cursed tribe are like Walid bin Uqbah. He was an example of the habits of his tribe. A man of this tribe cannot remain unnoticed even among thousands.

Abu Sufyan, Muawiyah, Yazeed and Marwan etc. were such men who could be traced very easily from among thousands, as each of them reflects the entire mentality of Bani Umayyah. Individuals identify their community. Likewise, Hashim, Abdul Muttalib, Abdullah, Abu Talib, Hamza, Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (S), Imam Ali Murtadha’ (a.s.), Imam Hasan (a.s.), Imam Husayn (a.s.) and all the individuals of the families of the Imams, belonging to the Prophet’s progeny, are those who show the collective virtues of Bani Hashim.

Glory be to Allah! How virtuous Bani Hashim were. Had they not been so, prophethood would not have arrived in their tribe nor would Quran have been revealed to them. They were respectable due to their virtues. The Lord Almighty sends salutations and blessings on Bani Hashim. O Faithful, you also should invoke blessings on them.

Event no. 2: This Caliph appointed Abdullah bin Saad as the governor of Egypt. He was an apostate. Obviously, his kindness used to be only with such people. Walid, who was made the governor of Kufa, was a grave offender. This man, who was made the governor of Egypt was a known apostate. What type of kindness is it to make offenders and apostates governors of Muslim provinces? Can such kindness make one worthy of being called ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…)?

Event no. 3: Caliph Uthman dismissed Abu Moosa Ashari from the post of the governor of Basra and replaced him by his cousin, Aamir. This appointment too was based on the rule of family kindness (Sile Rahmi). Now let the just people decide whether or not the dismissal of Abu Moosa for the sake of a relative attracts the virtue of ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…) This companion, Abu Moosa was one of the Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten) of Sunnis. Can such behavior with such people be called kindness without any valid reason?

Event no. 4: There was a conflict between Saad bin Abi Waqqas, governor of Kufa and Malik Ashtar during the Caliphate of Uthman. The governor’s men beat Ashtar until he fainted. The leading people of Kufa got perturbed due to this happening and men like Thabit bin Qays began to talk against Saad in public meetings and he also spoke with disgust against Uthman. Saad sent a complaint against such people to Uthman and he drove all of them out of Kufa towards Syria. Not only this, they were pushed towards Hums so that the cruel- hearted ruler, Abdur Rahman bin Walid may deal sternly with them. Justice- loving people know that the time of Uthman was full of very strange events of corruption and cruelty.

The relatives of the Caliph were doing whatever unjust things they liked with the assistance of government machinery. Malik Ashtar was persecuted. Those who showed concern for him were also persecuted. These things show the cruel, not compassionate nature of Uthman. Can any wise and just person consider such a Caliph worthy of being called ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…)?

It may be remembered that Malik Ashtar was a well-known companion of the Holy Prophet (S) but at the same time he had also a ‘defect’ of being a friend of the family of the Prophet. He was an intimate friend of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Of course, this was the greatest ‘defect’ at that time in the Islamic world. What happened repeatedly with the friends and companions of Ali (a.s.) during the days of Uthman and the days of Banu Umayyah is known to all. There is not a single person among the friends of Ali (a.s.) who was not either beaten up or extradited during that period.

Event no. 5: The treatment meted out to Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari during the Caliphate is very significant. The poor gentleman was a very sincere and well-known companion of the Holy Prophet (S). But he also had, like Malik Ashtar, Salman, Miqdad and Ammar bin Yasir (r.a.), the defect of being a friend of and having affection for the family of the Prophet. Unjust and oppressive treatment to the partisans of Ali (a.s.) was not at all unexpected during the days of Bani Umayyah.

So being angry with Abu Dharr (r.a.), Muawiyah wrote to the Caliph: “If you need the province of Syria, then send Abu Dharr away from Syria to any other place.” In response, the Caliph wrote to Muawiyah: “Send Abu Dharr to me here in Medina, making him ride the bare back of an untamed camel.” The order was carried out in toto. Readers may kindly see how much novelty is found in this way of punishing somebody and decide how much compassion can be traced in the heart of the Caliph?

Can ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…) be such people? Can they ever drive the companions of the Holy Prophet (S) on wild animals like this? It is a different thing how much pain the aged companion of the Holy Prophet (S) might have suffered during this torturous journey. What is surprising, is how he reached Medina alive at all! Only Allah was his protector, otherwise, his death during such torture was almost certain.

There is every likelihood of the Caliph’s intention being the same. But since his lifespan had not yet come to an end, he survived the cruelty. This event exposes cruelty (not kindness) of the Caliph and it also indicates that the attribute of modesty, which is being attached to him, was also imagined. No modest ruler can ever give such a punishment of putting an old man on a unbridled camel. As modesty comes in the way of the one who describes this event, it is recorded in history books for all to see.

Anyway, even after the aged and broken down companion reached Medina, the Caliph turned him away from there too. So Abu Dharr went to Rabaza.3 The Caliph had also issued orders that nobody should accompany Abu Dharr. So no one went to see him off, except Ali bin Abi Talib and Ammar bin Yasir (r.a.) who walked with that lonely traveler for some distance.

Biographers have written that when Abu Dharr got the extradition order, he said: “I have heard the Holy Prophet say that Abu Dharr will live a lonely life and die a lonely death.” So it happened like that. Whose heart does not move hearing the oppression suffered by Abu Dharr?

Only Allah can give him justice. It should be noted that all allegations made by the Caliph against Abu Dharr were totally baseless. He had denied all the allegations and recommendations of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) were also not acceptable to Bani Umayyah, so no one paid any attention and Abu Dharr (r.a.) was driven out of the town humiliated, despite being innocent. The only reason of all these oppressions was that he was ‘guilty’ of loving Amirul Mo-mineen and of praising his virtues.

Had he not been a friend of Ali (a.s.), he would not have suffered this trouble. Now, let the men of justice decide whether a man who could be so cruel to a sinless Abu Dharr can ever be regarded as ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…)?

Event no. 6: The wrong, which was done to Muhammad bin Abi Bakr (r.a.) was that in the official letter to Egypt, the word ‘Aqbiluhu’ (welcome him) was turned into “Uqtuluhu” (kill him). Even if it is said that Marwan did this mischief, the Caliph cannot stand absolved of the allegation, as Marwan was his right hand. The Caliph himself had appointed him as his minister, who had everything to do with all state affairs and revenue matters. Hence, whatever good or bad Marwan was doing, was by the Caliph’s leave. The Caliph was squarely responsible for every act of Marwan.

The Holy Prophet (S) had driven this man (Marwan) out of all Islamic territories. Therefore, even the two Caliphs had not allowed him to enter the land of Islam during their Caliphate. But Uthman, due to his family bonds, called him to Medina and made him his minister and adviser.4

In this situation, the only person who was responsible for all the misdeeds done by the man who was externed by the Holy Prophet (S) himself was none but Uthman.

The cause of Marwan’s enmity towards Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was nothing but his partisanship with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), despite his being the son of the first Caliph. This was enough to make the entire Bani Umayyah enemies of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr. Otherwise, Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was such a man whose being a son of Abu Bakr would have been considered a merit by the opponents of Ali (a.s.). But anyway, it was Bani Umayyah who took the life of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr. Muawiyah got him killed, got his dead body put in the skin of a donkey and then put to flames.5

Event no. 7: What a kind and merciful behavior was meted out to Ammar bin Yasir (r.a.) [who also was a companion of the Holy Prophet (S)] by Caliph is not unknown to the knowledgeable people. Be it understood that when the iniquities of Uthman crossed limits and the Muslim masses became very restless, fifty men from Helpers (Ansar) and Emigrants (Muhajireen) sent Ammar bin Yasir (r.a.) with a letter addressed to the Caliph. The subject matter of that letter was: “If the Caliph does not refrain from unjust things and harmful acts, he will be deprived of his Caliphate.”

As a result of this message, Ammar (r.a.) was so severely beaten up that he became a victim of hernia. Let the just people decide, whether this too was a merciful deed of the Caliph, which can make him worthy of being called

‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…). This ill treatment was also meted out to a companion of the Prophet. If the friends of the Caliph say that the Caliph himself did not beat Ammar (r.a.), one can very well ask as to why did he not of his community to high posts in various countries. It appeared that rule everywhere was only of Bani Umayyah, who did whatever they liked and the Caliph never stopped aiding them.

Government of Bani Umayyah was already established in Syria (Shaam) ever since the time of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar, and the area around it had become almost a property of Bani Umayyah. During the days of the third Caliph, the entire Islamic territory had fallen in the hands of Bani Umayyah and these evil-doers had started blowing the bugle of ‘My Word is Law’ and hence all evils erupted in this area, without leaving any doubt to believe that things were being done by mischief-makers through the Caliph. All this goes to show that the third Caliph and his officers were doing only self-service at the cost of general common good, mercilessly throwing public interest to the winds.

Event no. 8: Abdur Rahman bin Auf, according to Ahlul Sunnat, is one of the Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten). He was one of the companions of the Holy Prophet (S), but he too was thrown out of Medina by the order of the third Caliph. Those who know are aware that Uthman was made Caliph with the help prevent the oppressors from that cruelty and even if he did not do so at that of Abdur Rahman bin Auf.6

Had this companion not been there, Caliphate moment, why did he not take any punitive action against the wrongdoers afterwards?

But the truth of the matter is that the oppressors had done this misdeed only in the interest of the Caliph, then how could he prevent them? How could he punish them and why? The truth is that we are taking these things lightly. Otherwise, such misdeeds were not only allowed during the Caliphate of Uthman but they were also considered necessary and sometimes he himself was not only carrying out such misdeeds, but was also planning them as had happened in the matter of seating Abu Dharr (r.a.) on the bare back of an unbridled refractory camel.

The cause of cruelty to Ammar (r.a.) too was that he was a friend of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). So here, they got an opportunity to do and did what they did. Knowledgeable people know very well that the Caliphate of Uthman was the time of a very strange anarchy. He himself was not qualified to rule a state and the people of his tribe (Banu Umayyah) were naturally inclined to evil. Whenever they got any opportunity to commit any evil, they committed it either themselves or through the Caliph. Because of his weak heart, the people of his tribe did whatever they wanted to do and Muslim masses were suffering a lot because of such misdeeds. Men of Banu Umayyah held all the high posts and the Caliph did whatever good he could do to them.

For example, the Caliph called Marwan back in the Islamic state and appointed him his vizier. He also allotted the Khums of Africa to him. Once, he gave a hundred thousand dirhams to Hakam bin Aas and ordered that every shopkeeper of Medina must pay 1/10th amount to his son, Harith. He appointed the people would have never reached Uthman, but despite this, what was done to him only shows that he got the punishment of his unjust deed by Allah’s will.

The fact is that soon after becoming the Caliph, Uthman showed displeasure in Abdur Rahman bin Auf. It was due to the fact that once Abdur Rahman had told the Caliph: “Had I known that you would behave like this, I would never have allowed you to become the Caliph.”

The story of this king-making is that when Umar received a fatal blow with the sword of Abu Lulu and he saw his death near, he made an arrangement, through which it was impossible for the Caliphate to reach His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Not only this, the atmosphere was such that had His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) insisted, his being killed was almost certain.

Verily, Umar was a very cunning man. He did not allow Ali (a.s.) to become a Caliph before himself and also very beautifully prevented him from assuming the office after him. Indeed, his political mind was extraordinarily cunning. He passed the time during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and of himself with a very alert mind. It was his political influence, which brought Bani Umayyah to the top, in a very short time.

He not only weakened the strong tribe of Bani Hashim, but also brought it down to be kicked continuously in the future. His political acumen was indeed extraordinary. Even when he was almost on the deathbed, his political mind did not weaken and so he, very cunningly, left the matter of his succession to Shura (Consultation) Committee. He knew it well that other men on the board would, due to enmity, never support Ali (a.s.), thereby debarring him from Caliphate.

Along with this, he also put a very strange condition that anyone who opposes the Shura decision should be killed. It was never the work of an ordinary man’s brain to think of such intrigues at the last moment of one’s life. Well, Umar departed and the Shura began their maneuverings. Abdur Rahman bin Auf asked His Eminence, Ali (a.s.): “If you become the Caliph, will you run the administration according to Quran, Sunnah and Abu Bakr and Umar’s line or not?” His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was a true man, so he replied: “To the best of my ability.”7

But the fact which came out after research is that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) had said: “I will act according to Quran and Sunnah and thereafter, what will be correct according to my knowledge. The behavior of Abu Bakr and Umar is nothing in my view.” This reply apparently displeased Abdur Rahman bin Auf. He told His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) that his reply was conditional. Then he put the same query to Uthman who very gladly concurred that he would readily do as he says.

Getting this unconditional affirmative reply, Abdur Rahman at once appointed Uthman as the Caliph of Muslims. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) kept quiet and did not think it wise to endanger his life in an ignorant manner. Had he put up any opposition at that time, he would at once have been put to death as per the last will of the second Caliph, who was not mindful of stalling Ali (a.s.) even when he himself was about to die of wounds. What a cunning mind! However, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) too was wise enough to keep himself safe through foresight. Now, the knowledgeable people know how much Uthman acted in accordance with Quran, Sunnah and the line of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Event no. 9: When Uthman burnt the copy of Quran belonging to her father along with all other copies, ‘A’ysha became very sad and cried angrily: “Uqtuloo Nathala…” meaning ‘Kill Nathal’. Nathal was a Jew who looked very similar to Uthman. Or Nathal means a feeble old and foolish man. Some also say that Nathal means a hyena. Whatever be its meaning, this word speaks volumes of ‘A’ysha’s anger. What we want to convey by citing this event is that few people were happy with the deeds of the third Caliph.8 There are many more such examples, but they need not be narrated here.

With what wisdom the second Caliph had made Uthman his successor is not known to the writer. Uthman had no qualification at all of administering Caliphate. As a well-wisher of Islamic society, it was the duty of Umar to appoint a deserving person. The only reason behind leaving the affair to Shura seems that it could prevent Ali (a.s.) from becoming the Caliph, as it did. It is also doubtless that Umar never wanted that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) should be a Caliph either before him or after him.

But, because of this enmity, to put the entire nation of Islam to anarchy was in no way good for Islam and Muslims. In the matter of selecting the Caliph, it was the duty of Umar to forget totally his like or dislike.

Indeed, had Ali (a.s.) been selected by any means, he would have proved a far better Caliph. Many calamities and quarrels, which he had to see after becoming Caliph after Uthman, would have been averted had he become a Caliph after Umar. For example, the Battle of Jamal would not have occurred. Muawiyah would have been dismissed easily and all bloodshed, which happened because of him, would have been averted.

His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) would have been able to administer Caliphate peacefully and satisfactorily. No doubt, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was a very able and wise gentleman and therefore, the ugly events that took place, would not have come up as mentioned due to Umar’s ‘love’ for Caliphate. Alas! Ali (a.s.) could not become the Caliph even after Umar, but became Caliph at a time of great troubles and upheavals and he got no time at all to reform civil affairs attentively.

Now, looking at all the above matters, let the just people decide how Shah Waliullah could ascribe the virtue of being ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…) to a Caliph who made an offender like Walid bin Uqbah, governor of an Islamic province, appointed a man like Marwan, who was driven out of Islamic territory by the Prophet, a minister, who gave away a lot of money regularly to Hakam bin Aas, who allotted a tenth of trade levies to Harith without any right,9 gave official posts to all mischief-mongers of Bani Umayyah, who unlawfully dismissed Abu Moosa Ashari and Mughaira who are among the Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten) in view of Ahlul Sunnat, who drove yet another man from Ashra Mubashera, viz. Abdur Rahman bin Auf, from Medina, who very mercilessly oppressed companions of the Holy Prophet (S), that is, men like Malik Ashtar, Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari, Ammar bin Yasir, who planned or allowed planning for the killing of Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, who made ‘A’ysha unhappy by his misdeeds, who put leaders of Kufa to various troubles and who harassed the entire Muslim society by his unwise decisions?

The Shah is not the only person to say so. I have come across such observations in books like Ghaniyatu Talibeen also. It seems such misconceptions have come down right from the top. May Allah give His servants the good sense of seeing and speaking the truth, as salvation depends only on such truthfulness. One who follows falsehood, obviously cannot be a friend of Allah, nor can he succeed in the Hereafter. In short, Uthman was not worthy of being called ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…) in any part of his life.

Now, it should be seen, whether or not Ali (a.s.) was worthy of being considered as ‘Tarahum Rukkan Sujjadan’ (you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves). Obviously, no one can have any doubt about the intense worship of Imam Ali (a.s.).

The first company is that the Holy Prophet (S) and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) are from one radiance (Noor), as the Holy Prophet (S) himself has averred: “I and Ali are from a single radiance.”10

No Muslim can have any objection to this tradition being true.

The volume of Abaqat wherein this tradition of Radiance (Noor) is recorded, is worth pondering. It will leave no doubt in the mind of any unprejudiced person.

In short, only Allah knows what kind of companionship it is and since when it came into existence. None but Allah knows it fully.

The second company is that according to a word of the Holy Prophet (S): Ali (a.s.) is the blood, flesh, heart and soul of the Holy Prophet (S). Which company can be closer than this? The exact words of the Holy Prophet’s words are: “Your blood is my blood and your flesh is my flesh and your self is my self.”

The third company is that, as per the words of the Holy Prophet (S): “O Ali! Your position to me is the same as Haroon had with Moosa (a.s.).” This tradition is present in Sahih Bukhari. This companionship is in no way less significant.

The fourth company is that, as per the words of the Holy Prophet (S): Ali (a.s.) is the brother of the Holy Prophet (S) both in this world and in the Hereafter. This shows that the company between the two is similar and equal in both the worlds. Which company can be greater than this?

The fifth company is that the verse of Malediction (Mubahila) mentions His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) to be with the Holy Prophet (S).11

The verse is as follows: “Then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.”12

Glory be to Allah, may Allah be praised. This indeed is ‘company’!

The sixth company is that, in the verse of Purification13 also, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is not separate from the Holy Prophet (S).14

The verse is: “Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! And to purify you a (thorough) purifying.”15

What a wonderful company indeed!

The seventh companionship is seen clearly in the Holy Prophet’s words saying that whosoever’s master the Prophet is, Ali is also his master. Whatever meaning, people with vested interest may give to the word ‘maula’ (Master), it is certain that in that ‘mastership’, Ali (a.s.) is with the Holy Prophet (S). Is it a small matter?

The eighth companionship is when during the Ascension, Allah spoke with the Holy Prophet (S), His tone was like that of Ali (a.s.).16 The reason for this was that the Holy Prophet (S) may hear the voice with which he was accustomed. This shows that Almighty Allah took into consideration Ali’s company with the Holy Prophet (S). Let the just people keep this companionship in mind.

The ninth companionship: When the Holy Prophet (S) entered the Kaaba to break idols, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was with him. On the order of the Prophet, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) climbed the holy shoulders to topple the idols, which rested on a higher level.17 Is there any parallel to this companionship? Glory be to Allah, this is companionship!

The tenth companionship is when the Holy Prophet (S) sat to eat the roasted bird, he prayed to Allah: “O Allah, send the one who is dearer to You for me so that he may accompany me in eating this feast.” There came up Ali (a.s.). Both then ate the fowl. What a tasty company indeed!18

The eleventh company is that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) did not run away in any battle leaving the Holy Prophet (S) alone. He constantly remained with the Holy Prophet (S) to help him fight the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, Khaybar, and Hunayn etc. and continued to punish the enemies of Allah.19 How can others be so lucky in company, who had run away from battlefields? This company in battles is all the more significant, which none of the three Caliphs could have it, as all of them had fled leaving the Holy Prophet (S) in battlefield in the midst of enemies? This is the most valuable company, which they could not get due to their flight. How unlucky!

The twelfth company: Right from his childhood, upto the last day of the life of the Holy Prophet (S), His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) had been with the Prophet. This is called lifelong company. The example of childhood company is that during the initial days of prophethood, when the Prophet invited Bani Hashim to a feast and addressed them: “Who is there to be my brother, my legatee, my minister and my Caliph,” no one responded, but Ali (a.s.) arose and declared in a loud voice: “I will be your brother, legatee, minister and Caliph.20 Glory be to Allah, what a company! The truth too is that as long as the Holy Prophet (S) was alive, Ali (a.s.) never left his side.

The thirteenth company is that when the Holy Prophet (S) departed from this world, Ali (a.s.) was constantly with him during the entire funeral. Truly a true friend is he who does not separate till the last moment. This fortune too was reserved only for Ali (a.s.) who did not leave the corpse of the Holy Prophet (S) in search of material gains.

The fourteenth company was when the Holy Prophet (S) got a camel saddle stage erected and lifted Ali (a.s.) and said: “O Allah, love one who loves him.” Is there any answer to this company anywhere? In front of thousands of people, the Holy Prophet (S) gave place to Ali (a.s.) near him and granted him the position of the Master of believers. The blind may not be able to see this company, but the way able lookers view this companionship need not be described. Now let the just decide, whether the virtue of being a ‘companion’ ends with Ali (a.s.) or with anyone else?

Likewise, the adjective of being ‘Ashiddaau alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the disbelievers) also applied only to Ali (a.s.) perfectly. Islam is totally indebted to the sword (Zulfiqar) of Ali (a.s.). Islam became strong with the help of the strong arms of “Laa Fataa illa Ali” (there is no brave youth except Ali). This ‘Hand of Allah’ has broken the backbone of disbelief. The attribute of ‘Ashiddaau…’ (firm of heart…) can by no means go to either Abu Bakr or Umar.

These gentlemen have not even touched any infidel in any Jihad, what to say of killing one as they only ran away from every battle? The flight of both the Caliphs is confirmed by history in eight battles, most prominent being the battles of Khaybar and Hunayn.

The thing worth noting is that in every battle, in which the Caliphs either remained inactive or they refused to confront any sandow or when they preferred flight, it was only the sword of Ali (a.s.) that cut the roots of the enemies of Allah. In short, just as Ali (a.s.) is deserving of the attribute of companionship, so also he alone is worthy of being called ‘Ashiddaau...’ (firm of heart…) and we have already shown that Uthman can have no relation with ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…).

Now, we shall explain that this virtue is also related with only Ali (a.s.). For this virtue of ‘Ruhama’ (compassionate…), it is necessary for a person to be very kind-hearted and sympathetic. Also, as we said, the virtue of sympathy is not possible without being brave. The more a man is brave, the more he or she will be sympathetic. Sympathy is not separate from kindness and hence bravery and kindness are always close to one another.

Since Ali (a.s.) was the bravest of men, he was extremely sympathetic too and consequently very kind also. Ali (a.s.) never fled from the battlefield. He never left his companions in the midst of enemies. He never allowed Muslims to fall in the hands of infidels.

He left no stone unturned for the welfare of Islam nor did he ever care for his own life in this matter. He behaved extremely kindly with the faithful. No man could ever surpass him in such kindness. Then how can he not be regarded as worthy of being called ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…)?

From this angle also, the virtue of kindness also refers to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and it cannot be attributed to those who left their companions in battlefield in the midst of enemies and fled in such a way that they could not be traced for three days. Now let the just people see that since such men had no courage, they did not possess sympathy and as there was no sympathy, there was no kindness also in them.

How then they can be called ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…)? Briefly speaking, it is sheer injustice on the part of prejudiced people to consider His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) as only ‘Rukkan wa Sujjada’ (bowing and prostrating), whereas, in fact, he is worthy of all the titles mentioned in the verse under discussion and so also all those Helpers and Emigrants who followed the path of Ali (a.s.).

Ahlul Sunnat people say that according to this verse, the Caliphate of the first three persons was appropriate. This seems to be a baseless argument. This verse proves neither Caliphate nor its succession order. It only shows us the virtues of good and faithful companions of the Holy Prophet (S) and nothing else. It is mere a wrong insistence to harp that it proves the order of Caliphate; whereas, as mentioned above, it has no relevance to Caliphate.

This Caliphate, which is called the Rightful Caliphate by Ahlul Sunnat, is based neither on any verse of Quran nor on any saying of the Prophet. Undoubtedly, this Caliphate came into being by people’s will and that its truth is that first, it was Abu Bakr who was made a Caliph through ‘consensus’ as mentioned in Sharh Aqaide Nasafi and books of history and biography. Even if this ‘consensus’ is considered perfect, it is nothing more than the election of presidents.

The second Caliphate is that of Umar. It came about through succession.

Third is that of Uthman, which was directed by Umar through Shura (advisory board).

The fourth Caliphate is that of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). How it came about is not known and Ahlul Sunnat are silent in this regard. This writer could not, till today, find the name of the condition for the Caliphate of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Hence I cannot say anything about this Caliphate.

In short, the Rightful Caliphate has no religious importance in view of the writer. The only position of this Rightful Caliphate in the opinion of researchers is that had there not been Umar and had he no grudge against the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), neither Abu Bakr would have been made the first Caliph through Saqifah nor he and Uthman would have become second and third Caliphs.

Since this Rightful Caliphate had come into being by the people, it was also quite possible that, in place of Abu Bakr, Zubair or Talha or any other fellow from the Helpers (Ansar) would have become the first Caliph. Incidentally, Umar’s cunning only settled the matter of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. Obviously, such a Caliphate can be considered respectable, which is not made by men, but is divinely ordained, as is in the matter of the Twelve Imams (a.s.). Therefore, this Caliphate (Imamate) has a religious importance and position.

Because of such religious value, people like Shah Waliullah and some other Sunni scholars wish that the Caliphate of the four Caliphs should also be considered divinely ordained. But it has become clear from above writings that this Caliphate has no divine position.

Obviously, if it had been divinely ordained, it would not have been appropriate to call it a Caliphate of public consensus. In short, the divine Caliphate remained limited to the family of the Holy Prophet (S) and the first Caliph of this series is Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.), second is Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.), third is Imam Husayn, the Martyr of Karbala’ (a.s.), fourth Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.), fifth Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (a.s.), sixth Imam Ja’far as- Sadiq (a.s.), seventh Imam Moosa al-Kazim (a.s.), eighth Imam Ali ar-Reza (a.s.), ninth Imam Muhammad at-Taqi (a.s.), tenth Imam Ali an-Naqi (a.s.), eleventh Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) and twelfth Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi, the master of the Age (a.j.).

The clear examples of man-made Caliphs and divinely appointed Caliphs is that of Yazeed and of Imam Husayn (a.s.). Doubtlessly, both were contemporary Caliphs of their time but one of them had the position of being divinely appointed and the other was man-made. Muawiyah appointed Yazeed the Caliph, hence his Caliphate was from men and Imam Husayn (a.s.) was the Caliph of the Holy Prophet (S) on the basis of being infallible, and therefore this Caliphate was divine.

It should be remembered that Sunni gentlemen like Shah Waliullah derive two objectives by using the above mentioned verses in their books: Firstly they want to prove the order of Caliphate and secondly, it appears, they try to give an impression that the notion of Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten) is also a divinely worded matter. It should be understood that in this Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten) of Ahlul Sunnat, four are these very four Caliphs viz. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). As regards the remaining six, they are Talha, Zubair, Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah and Abu Moosa Ashari. Usually, these ten gentlemen are regarded as the ten lucky ones. But a look at various Sunni books shows that these ten have no permanent position.

In Mishkat, the figure of thirteen is mentioned instead of ten and in those thirteen, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is not seen. Moreover in it, Saeed bin Amr bin Nufayl is mentioned as the tenth man of Paradise. Again in some narrations, the names of Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah and Saeed bin Amr are not found. Similarly, contrary to all these narrations, a narration includes Saad bin Malik also. If all these sayings are considered, the figure of the blessed ones reaches twelve. So this is what is understood as Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten). Anyway, leaving aside Abu Moosa Ashari, Shah Waliullah says about the remaining five that ‘seeking grace from Allah and pleasure’ means Talha and Zubair.

If once glances at the life of these two persons, what is found is that they did not possess any virtue, except that of making mischief. Their nature was very strange indeed. The fact is that these two gentlemen had nothing to do with the desire of earning Allah’s pleasure. On one hand they gave oath of allegiance to the fourth Caliph, and on the other, broke that vow and went from Medina to Mecca. After reaching Mecca, they instigated ‘A’ysha against the Caliph of the time, thereby instigating the public against His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and thus, to tell the truth, they started a high treason.

Then they joined ‘A’ysha in the Battle of Camel (Jamal), which took the lives of thousands of Muslims including themselves. Knowledgeable people are not unaware of the prophetic saying about the one who fights with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). According to a tradition, both, who were killed by Ali (a.s.) and those who killed His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), are condemned to Hell. Obviously, haters of Imam Ali (a.s.) feel affection for them, because of their open opposition to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Sunni gentlemen say that it was a mistake of jurisprudence on the part of these two men. Such excuse is also put forth on behalf of Muawiyah. Nobody knows how and since when they became qualified to perform jurisprudence (Ijtihaad). O just people! Can treason, uprisings and revolt made by Talha, Zubair and Muawiyah be called mistakes of jurisprudence?

Ahlul Sunnat may give whatever name to the revolts of these three persons; the fact is that these three were doubtlessly rebels against the Caliph of the time. They had raised the flag of treason after treason, yet Sunni scholars have grasped a wonderful ploy of ‘mistake of jurisprudence’, which they always employ to protect the opponents of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) from serious allegations. O just gentlemen! Just think how anyone can, by way of divine command or according to reason, resort to jurisprudence for opposing the Caliph of the time?

Verily, this subject of ‘mistake of jurisprudence’ is such that it can never convince a man with reason who follows truth, sees truth and understands truth. Now, let the just people pay attention to ‘Seemahum…’ (their marks…), which also have been imaginarily applied to persons of their choice.

Shah Waliullah says: “Those meant by this part of the verse are Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Saad bin Abi Waqqas and Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah.” While the fact is that all the events of their lives never show how these virtues (mentioned in the verse) can ever be extended and applied to these three fellows. The honorable Shah also does not mention any distinct virtue, nor can the writer find any such thing despite deep thinking.

But here arises a question that if these gentlemen were so virtuous that Allah mentioned their distinction in this verse, then it was the duty of Uthman not to treat them with the harshness that he showed to them. How strange that the Caliph gives such bad treatment to those who in the view of Ahlul Sunnat, have earned Allah’s praise in the said verse of the Holy Quran!

Now, the just readers may kindly think over what has been said and then decide what is the aim of ‘Wallazeena…’ (those who are with him)? The writer has quite clearly proved that no particular persons are meant by this verse, in which Allah describes common virtues of the sincere companions of His Messenger (S). It neither mentions the order of Caliphate, nor such order has any relation with this divine verse.

Similarly, it does not show any relationship with the Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten) of Ahlul Sunnat. How strange that Shah Waliullah mentions such weak things in his book, Izalatul Khifa. It seems he has merely copied without research, whatever he saw in books like Ghaniyatu Talibeen, regarding the said verse. What is the fault of the general public? The poor fellows think that whatever is said, is generally believed to be in support of Caliphate and its order. A large section of the Muslim world is caught in this misunderstanding but the responsibility for it lies with those scholars who inserted this wrong belief in the minds of the general public.

It should be kept in mind that I have written this book for those who can differentiate between right and wrong and who also believe that research is essential for making such decisions. My humble request to such gentlemen is that they may throw a thoughtful glance on whatever I have written and then they are free to either agree with me or not. To the best of my knowledge, I have mentioned truth and only the truth after deep thoughts in this book and I have not allowed prejudice to come in its way.

In my view, I am so far, away from prejudice that if I find that such and such course is correct and true, I do not hesitate to accept it without any excuse. What I have found after a thirty- year research is that no faith is better than the faith which I have adopted. The justice-loving gentlemen know that I have left no stone unturned in making research of faiths. The just people also know that I have worked very hard in research. Now, I feel that I shall leave the world with the beliefs, which I now follow.

Well, it seems essential to submit my thoughts about Caliphate and matters related to it for the attention of justice-loving people. The more one thinks about Caliphate, the more things come to mind. It should be understood that Caliphate has not come out of any Quranic injunction or saying of the Holy Prophet (S). There are traditions about Caliphate, but none that proves the Caliphate, which was established. There is no such satisfying tradition. Those who want to support the known Caliphate on the basis of Quran and Prophetic practice (Sunnah), appear to follow their prejudice.

As shown above, the ‘consensus’ (Ijma) for Abu Bakr and the Caliphate of Umar, Uthman and Muawiyah were through succession, consultative committee and high handedness. Similarly, all other Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat also got Caliphate in that way. Of course, out of all the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat, their fourth Caliph, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is such that the condition of his attaining Caliphate is not found in any of their (Ahlul Sunnat) books.

Nowhere is it mentioned in their books how (on what basis) he (His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)) became the Caliph. In these circumstances, it is obvious that it was not man-made. It is no secret that the Caliphates of Ahlul Sunnat are based on different systems. It also appears that the principles, if any, were formed after some persons became Caliphs in any possible manner.

The proper course was that if the first Caliphate of Abu Bakr was based on ‘consensus’ then all the remaining eleven too should have been in the same way. But what we see is indeed anarchy. How strange that Abu Bakr himself may become a Caliph as per consensus but leaving that rule, he may appoint Umar as his successor and pass away. If the rule had been followed, it was likely that Umar had not been elected. Had there been an election, Umar would not have come to power as easily as he himself (Abu Bakr) had come.

In turn, Umar also, at the last moments of his life, did not like to adopt the law of election, because in that case, Uthman would have hardly become the Caliph. So he left the affair to Shura (advisory council). Then he appointed advisors whose number did not exceed six and most of them were supporters of Uthman. At last, Muawiyah followed neither consensus, nor succession or advice, but grabbed the Caliphal seat by force. Therefore, his Caliphate is called a Caliphate of oppression. In short, a look at all these Caliphates shows that none of them can be called divinely nominated Caliphates and hence do not have any religious base either from the viewpoint of a divine word or through reason.

No wise person can consider them as true Caliphates (succession) of the Holy Prophet (S). Contrary to this, we see the belief of the Imamites about Caliphate. They consider Caliphate to be decided by divine will and also believe that infallibility is necessary for one to be a successor of the Holy Prophet (S). According to this principle, they believe that the Twelve Imams, being infallible, are Caliphs of the Holy Prophet (S), whose Caliphate has been decided and ordained by Allah and they are from Allah.

In this principle of Imamate, there is no confusion. Hence one sees no conflict or irregularity in the Imamate (Caliphate) of the twelve Imams. In other words, one and the same rule is applied to all the twelve. Obviously, these Caliphates have a totally religious color. Contrary to this, in the Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat, political color is prominent.

Undoubtedly, it is due to this material business that some scholars of Ahlul Sunnat also do not find it convincing and hence some try to prove that they are in accordance with Quran and tradition. It is indeed difficult for them to prove it from any divine word (Nass), as I mentioned earlier. What to say of Quran, there is not even a single tradition, which supports Sunni Caliphate in the eyes of a wise man. It is for obvious reasons that Ahlul Sunnat do not find any occasion or chance by which they can prove that their twelve Caliphs have a spiritual aspect and hence their religious value does not rise. Everybody knows that no religion has, nor will ever have any value without spiritual weight.

It is no secret that spiritualism has a lot to do with Judaism, Christianity and various other religions. A lack of this aspect has made Sunnism poor, because mere material consideration does not provide religious weight to the Caliphs. So this necessitated the bringing in of spiritualism, which was done by taking recourse to Sufism. Sufism had already penetrated the Greeks. Iranians also had indulged in it for some centuries. This thing also came to Muslims through the sciences of Greeks and Iranians.

Thereafter, when Muslims came to India and met Indian Hindu saints, their spiritualism affected them to such an extent that slowly Sufism became a part of the religion of high class Ahlul Sunnat which resulted in promotion and development of Gnostic terms like remembrance (Zikr and Azkaar), and séances (Haal and Samaa) etc. Brief speaking, the shortage of right spirituality, which was felt in Ahlul Sunnat, was found in the mysticism of Iran and India. Contrary to it, Imamites had no need of importing Sufism from anywhere, as their faith was already having ample spiritualism and the teachings of their Imams were full of it. So they remained naturally in their original state. It is a misunderstanding that Imamites have no Sufism. They have it, but it is Sufism based on Quran, traditions and teachings of the Imams (a.s.) and which is the best kind of Sufism under the sun.

______________

Notes

1. Surah Fath 48:29

2. Surah Aale Imran 3:144

3. Ref. Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 4, Pg. 525; Asim Kufi 220; Abul Fida, Pg. 401; Rauzatus Safa, Vol. 2, Pg. 19 and Rauzatul Ahbab.

4. Ref. Mahazirat Raghib Isfahani

5. Ref. Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 4, Pg. 592 and Abul Fida, Pg. 434

6. Ref. Tarikh Tabari

7. Ref. Tarikh Tabari

8. Ref. Suyuti’s Tarikh Khulafa and Tarikh Tabari

9. Ref. Sawaiqul Mohreqa by Ibn Hajar, Chapter Seven: Uthman, section three.

10. Ref. Sawaiqul Mohreqa by Ibn Hajar Makki.

11. Sawaiqul Mohreqa by Ibn Hajar Makki.

12. Surah Aale Imran 3:61.

13. Quran 33:33.

14. Ref. Mishkat Sharif.

15. Surah Ahzab 33:33

16. Refer to the biography authored by Maulavi Ubaidullah Amritsari.

17. Ref. Zainulfati Aazami

18. Ref. Mishkat Sharif

19. Refer to books of History.

20. Ref. Tarikh Abul Fida

 

 

 

As I have mentioned above, the best mysticism is the mysticism of Quran and traditions. But, as regards the prevalent Sufism, the fact is that knowledge and science of religion remained all right upto the time of the companions, but thereafter, many innovations (Bidat) entered, one of which is the mysticism adopted by Ahlul Sunnat. Ever since it entered Ahlul Sunnat circles, it created a very serious change in them.1

They deviated to such an extent that they reached almost upto the belief of Christians in the matter of metempsychosis and ‘union’ as is seen among some Sunni Sufis.2

It seems, they adopted the beliefs of Greek philosopher, Farforius.3 Now it has deviated so much in India that matters which are totally against the teachings of the Shariat of Muhammad have become prevalent among these Sufis. Today there are many Sufi teachers who have nothing to do with mendicancy and whose business runs on the falsities spread by the agents of selfish Sufis who have turned mysticism into a money-making trade thus changing monkery into self interest. None remains poor so long as fools live.

Hence cheating, deception, lying etc. have entered the deviated form of mysticism. Now they need not refrain from things prohibited by Shariat, so drugs like marijuana and ganja have become inseparable necessities for such Sufi masters. Beauty worship has become the heart of mysticism. Musical instruments like two-sided drums, sitar (Indian guitar) and singing of mystic poems are a must for being lost in a statement of mysticism. Their programs present a scene of Hindu singing parties. Even prostitutes, and singing and dancing girls participate in their programs for improving their ‘hereafter’? Hoards of dancing prostitutes are seen before living and dead mystic saints! O Allah! What kind of Islam is this, which is glaringly opposed to the Islam brought by Muhammad (S)? Hindu temples used to have (and some still have thousands of prostitutes). Now they are entering Khanqahs (Sufi dens) also.

In short, all the things, which were prohibited by the Holy Prophet (S) are made necessary for this new mysticism so willingly! Some Sufis have freed themselves from fasting and prayer too! Likewise, many necessities of this Sufism are totally against original Islam! Allah forbid! Briefly speaking, so many things are there, which have nothing to do with the ways of Allah, Prophet (S), Imams (a.s.) and Ahlul Bayt.

Research shows that such mysticism began during the time of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. The aim was to divert the attention of people from the teachings of the Holy Family, so that they might remain attached to unlawful rulers. The biggest machination for this evil purpose is Mukashifa (spiritual contemplation). There is nothing in it. Mulla Ali Qari says that it can be obtained by both Muslims and infidels.4

In short, the best mysticism, in the opinion of the writer, is to follow the teachings of Allah, His Prophet and the Holy Imams (a.s.). “The path of purity can be trod only by following the Holy Prophet (S).”5

Note that the Imamites also have Persian mysticism, but theirs is not deviated from the Persian mysticism of the Shariat of Muhammad (S) even by an inch. The Imamites also believe in Awliya (friends of Allah) but not so madly as seen among Sunni Sufis.

A number of Sufis were there among Shias also, like Sadruddin Shirazi, Abdur Razzaq Laahiji, Mulla Hasan Kaashi, Hajib Rajab Barsi and others. Quite a long list of Shia Sufis can be seen in Majalisul Mo-mineen by Qadi Nurullah Shushtari. Prominent among the listed are Shaykh Shahabuddin Suhurwardi, Najmuddin Kubra, Bayzid Bustami, Jalaluddin Rumi, Shaykh Muslehuddin Saadi Shirazi, Khwaja Hafiz Shirazi, Fariduddin Attar, Sayyid Ashrafuddin Jehangir Kachhoch, Sayyid Muinuddin Chisti Ajmeri. Many of them had to adopt dissimulation due to circumstances.

That is why Ahlul Sunnat have mistaken them to be Sunnis. There are Sufis in Shias today also. Here it seems proper to mention about Ghazzali that in the beginning he was not following any particular creed of Islam. Thereafter, he became a Hanafite and then changed to Shafei. Thereafter, he turned Sufi and at last adopted the path of Shiaism of Ahlul Bayt.

That is why his works (books) show different colors of different periods of his life. This is what usually happens to researchers as their thoughts change in the matter of religion. At last, when his research ends, he is seen in the color of the creed adopted by him after all the findings. Research shows that Ghazzali’s path before his death was that of Ahlul Bayt, that is, creed of the Imamites.

“And whom Allah guides, there is none that can lead him astray.”6

All praise to Allah. The last belief of the writer of this book has also been the Imamiyah and if Allah wills, he too will die a Shia.7

Here we end the discussion of Sufism, because this book has no more room for more discussion on this matter.

Notes

1. Ref. Chalapi, Vol. 1, Pg. 422

2. Ref. Sharh Muwaqif, Pg. 475

3. Ref. notes of Siva al Huda on the comments of Ghulam Yahya Bihari, Pg. 182.

4. Ref. Sharhe Fiqhe Akbar, Pg. 97.

5. Persian saying

6. Surah Zumar 39:37

7. This happened when he breathed his last in 1354 H.E. and attained nearness to the Holy Family.

 

 

 

When the Holy Prophet (S) became fatally ill, a difference arose between him and his followers in two matters viz. one in the form of ‘the story of the paper’ (Qissa Qirtaas) and second in the matter of the army of Usamah as both things have been briefly narrated earlier. But it is not improper to mention here that the Prophet had become very displeased due to these matters.

The proof is that when Muslims made a request that they be allowed to have a last look at him. But in reply, according to Abul Fida, the Holy Prophet (S) sent a word that: “The trouble of my illness is less than your presence.” It appears certain that the Prophet was very much unhappy about his community at the time of his departure. What could be more displeasing than that in his last moments, he neither allowed Muslims to see him nor did he like to get any service from them?

Though historians have not given the names of those who had made such request (permission to see him at the last moment). Yet reason can tell us who such fellows could be, who had made him unhappy. Apparently, it seems that they must be those who were connected with the story of paper and Usamah’s army. A look at the last days of the Holy Prophet (S) gives a hint that had he lived for few more years, Muslims of those days might have openly disobeyed him. The political disobedience had begun when his order about joining Usamah’s army was defied. No one can say to what extent they had opposed the wish of the Prophet, but it looks very likely that the defiance would have gone increasing.

Anyway, the matter of leading prayers during the last illness of the Holy Prophet (S) is also one of the events through which Ahlul Sunnat try to justify the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. Knowledgeable people know what weightage is there in this matter. Ahlul Sunnat say that when the Prophet became too weak to go to the mosque and lead prayer, the latter did so; so this qualified him to become his successor. It is for the wise and learned people to decide whether or not leading a prayer looks disputable.

Only Ibn Khaldun says that Abu Bakr led the prayers. All others like Tabari, Asim Kufi, the author of Manaqib and Murtazavi, author of Hayatul Quloob, all differ with Ibn Khaldun on this account. The summary of what Ibn Khaldun has written is that when Abu Bakr got the order of the Prophet to lead prayers, he began to lead; that he was still leading when the Prophet felt somewhat good and he came to the Masjid; Abu Bakr intended to draw back but the Prophet caught hold of his shoulder, which made it impossible for Abu Bakr to move from his place; the Prophet sat beside Abu Bakr and completed the prayer.

This narration does not appear quite convincing, because at that time, the Prophet was so weak that he was unable to walk and therefore he was brought to the mosque with the help of two persons. It is very difficult to believe that he was thus brought only to pray behind Abu Bakr.

More unconvincing is that, despite such extreme weakness he was able to press Abu Bakr’s shoulder. The Prophet’s praying behind Abu Bakr seems more unlikely due to the fact that the latter had not obeyed the former’s command to join Usamah’s army and the command was not withdrawn. Ibn Khaldun must explain why the Prophet followed Abu Bakr in prayer? What is understood from his writing is that there was some very special reason because of which the Prophet had to come to the Masjid, taking assistance of two men and that it was not the Prophet’s longing to pray behind Abu Bakr.

Apparently, it does not seem likely that the Prophet took such trouble to follow Abu Bakr in prayer. Rather, it appears that he undertook all this hardship to prevent Abu Bakr from leading the prayer. What Tabari has written about this fully supports the view of the writer. He says: “When the Holy Prophet (S) entered the Masjid, not only the worshippers broke their intention of praying behind Abu Bakr but Abu Bakr himself discontinued his prayer.”

This shows that Abu Bakr did not get any order from the Prophet to lead prayers. Had he got such a command, why he should have discontinued the prayer? The writing of Murtazavi, author of Manaqib, supports this view. He writes, “If the order to lead prayer was issued by the Prophet, he would not have come out of his room.” This opinion is also supported by the author of Hayatul Quloob who says, “‘A’ysha prevented Abu Bakr from joining Usamah’s army because of the Prophet’s illness.”

Thereafter, this learned author writes: “When Abu Bakr went to the mosque, people asked him as to who had sent him? Bilal said: “Just wait, I will soon inquire and return.” Bilal went and met Fazl bin Abbas. Fazl asked him whether Abu Bakr did not join Usamah’s army? Thereafter, the Prophet came to know what had happened. So he also came to the mosque. Asim Kufi is also of the view of the aforementioned authors. Obviously, the statements of all these writers seem convincing and authentic. Lastly, this author is of the opinion that ‘A’ysha was guiltless regarding all allegations about prayer leading. If she had, owing to her particular interests, prevented her father from joining Usamah’s army and had sent her father to lead prayer in Masjid, she did not do anything against nature. The son is a son and man is a man, not Allah. ‘A’ysha is a mother of the faithful. It is our duty not to reduce the respect, which was given to her by the Prophet.

Regarding the leading of prayers by Abu Bakr, it is totally unreasonable and unwise to consider it his right to Caliphate. Those who do so, follow the proverb, ‘a drowning man clutches at the straw’. Even if the Prophet had asked Abu Bakr and he too followed him in prayer, how can it justify his claim to Caliphate? A look at Madarijun Nubuwwah and Muwattah1 shows that the Holy Prophet (S) had prayed behind Abdur Rahman bin Auf also. If such praying was a justification then Abdur Rahman should have preceded Abu Bakr as the Caliph.

Now the writer quotes below some traditions and comments on them:

It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari2 that as narrated by Anas bin Malik, Abu Bakr led the Morning Prayer on Monday, thinking that the Holy Prophet (S) was too weak to attend the mosque; then he (Prophet) suddenly lifted the door curtain and looked into the mosque. Abu Bakr imagined that the Holy Prophet (S) intended to come for Prayer and so he thought of leaving the line but the Prophet signaled him to continue the prayer and to conclude it. This narration thus only gives a hint that Abu Bakr led the prayer of his own. Had he done so as per the Prophet’s order, why he should have thought of leaving the prayer row?

A narration of Sahl bin Saad Saaidi, in Sahih Bukhari3 states that Abu Bakr led the Asr prayer and that the Prophet followed the former in it, but when Abu Bakr came to know that the Prophet was behind him, he intended to withdraw, but the Prophet signaled him to continue.

Just note, what is mentioned in this tradition appears to be contrary to what is written in the six canonical Sunni tradition books (Sihah Sitta) according to which, the leader (in prayer) must be more gracious than the follower (whereas in this tradition it is said that the Holy Prophet (S) followed Abu Bakr). Then how was it proper and in order? Moreover, according to this tradition, the Holy Prophet (S) corrected a mistake of Abu Bakr’s recitation. Then how could the Imam make a mistake? How strange to observe that Abu Bakr could not perform even the prayer properly; that he was unaware of the difference between the prayer of a male and a female!

And despite all this, Suyuti, quoting the Holy Prophet (S), says that Abu Bakr was, “My most learned and pure companion.” O Ali! O Ali! Verily the ignorance of those so-called scholars who, leaving aside you (Ali), say that Abu Bakr was most honorable and knowledgeable! Please also note that this tradition says that it was the Afternoon Prayer, which was led by Abu Bakr and in the earlier tradition, it was stated that it was the Morning Prayer! The tradition written in Nasai4 is similar to that of Sahih Bukhari.

It is seen in Sahih Bukhari5 that ‘A’ysha says that when the Holy Prophet (S) said during his last illness: “Ask Abu Bakr to lead the prayer, I said that Abu Bakr is very soft-hearted and hence he will not be able to recite properly due to grief, so please ask Umar to lead the prayer.” Then ‘A’ysha asked Hafasa to advise the Holy Prophet (S) in this matter and she did so. But the Holy Prophet (S) replied: “In the matter of talking and insistence, you are like the women of Yusuf. Just tell Abu Bakr to lead the prayer.”

Now, please note that the narrator of this tradition is only ‘A’ysha and none else, which also is very strange. It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari6 that ‘A’ysha said that she was very often requesting the Holy Prophet (S) to make her father the former’s successor. This tradition gives a clear idea of the intention of ‘A’ysha. So, the above narration about his prayer appears far from reason.

It must be noted that there is much difference about the time of the prayer, which is said to have been led by Abu Bakr. Seeratul Halabiyah7 and Tarikh Khamis8 mention that it was Night (Isha) Prayer. Also remember that Bukhari mentions many conflicting statements.

Some say that the Holy Prophet (S) followed Abu Bakr and some say he did not. One says, Abu Bakr followed the Holy Prophet (S) and another says the congregation followed Abu Bakr. Thus, two Imams and two follower groups have been mentioned. Then there is a difference in the day of the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) too.

Most mention Monday, but a tradition of Sahih Bukhari says it was Tuesday. According to a narration of Sahih Bukhari, the time of the Holy Prophet’s departure was at night but Sahih Tirmidhi says it was noontime! Again, one of the narrations of ‘A’ysha (in Sahih Bukhari) states that the Prophet, due to serious illness, performed prayer in his room, not in the mosque, and followers followed him in it. This renders the matter of the Prophet’s following the prayer of Abu Bakr meaningless. In short, the statements of Sahih Bukhari themselves are full of contradictions.

Now look at Pg. 285 in Vol. 2 of Sunan Abu Dawood. Abdullah bin Zama is reported to have said that the Prophet said: “Ask someone to lead the Prayer.” So Abdullah went to the people and saw Umar there, while Abu Bakr was not there. Abdullah asked Umar to lead the Prayer, so Umar led the prayer. When the Prophet heard Umar’s harsh tone, the former asked where was Abu Bakr? Abu Bakr came after Umar concluded the prayer. He led the prayer afresh. How strange is the narration that first the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Ask anyone to lead,” but when Umar led, Abu Bakr was called and so he led the prayer!

Anyhow, this tradition of Tirmidhi9 narrated by Salim shows that the Prophet ordered Abu Bakr to lead the prayer but at that time the condition of the former was very serious; that he was almost fainting. Abu Bakr led the prayer, but the Prophet could not join the congregation and expired. It is mentioned in Qastalani10 that Abu Bakr and Umar were not present near the Prophet at that time, but had left Medina with Usamah’s army. What is then the meaning of Abu Bakr or Umar leading that prayer?

On the other hand, Kitabul Maghazi11 shows that the Holy Prophet (S) asked the people to tell Umar to lead the prayer. So they went to Umar and said: “The Prophet wants you to lead the prayer.” Umar replied: “It is not possible for me do so in the presence of Abu Bakr.” Then Bilal went back to the Prophet and reported Umar’s reply and also told that Abu Bakr was standing at the door. The Prophet said: “All right, whatever be their opinion. Tell Abu Bakr to lead the Prayer.” So Abu Bakr led the Prayer for eight days. Obviously, this narration too does not fall in line with that of Abu Dawood (Ref. above). In short, there are contradiction and difference in the above narrations and they are:

(1) In one narration, the day on which Abu Bakr led prayer is Monday and in another, Tuesday.

(2) In some, the time of prayers is reported to be morning, in another noon and in yet another, night.

(3) Some say Abu Bakr followed and some say the Holy Prophet (S) followed.

(4) In one report, Abu Bakr led the prayer with the permission of the Prophet and in another, it was without his permission.

(5) In some, it is mentioned that Umar led the prayer.

(6) There is difference in the position of standing and sitting of the leader who led the prayer.

(7) The place of prayer is also not the same. In some, it is said that it was held in the room and as per another, it was in the Masjid.

(8) One narration shows that the Holy Prophet (S) attended the mosque taking help of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and Abbas due to his weakness. Now, when the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr to lead, why should he have gone to the mosque?

(9) Some narrations mention that Abu Bakr led the Prayer without the Prophet’s permission. Only one narration, which is of ‘A’ysha, says that it was done with his permission; but this tradition does not appear to be true because ‘A’ysha always wanted her father to become the Caliph, as has been shown above through her own word.

It is really very strange that only one person i.e. ‘A’ysha has reported about the permission and no one else at all said so, though it was a congregational prayer and owing to the Prophet’s illness, most near and dear ones and the companions used to remain with him during those days. At least someone of them should have said what ‘A’ysha has said. In such circumstances, how can a solitary report be accepted, and that too of such a kind?

(10) The Holy Prophet (S) has said that the standing and sitting of the one performing prayer depends on the standing and sitting of the leader (Imam). Now when the Prophet leads the prayer sitting and the followers could not sit because of the standing of Abu Bakr, what kind of prayer was it? Qastalani has also raised this objection quite properly.

(11) Most biographers have mentioned that the two Caliphs were made to go with Usamah’s army, as has also been mentioned by Qastalani, then what about the reports regarding their leading prayers?

(12) In one narration, it is said that Abdullah bin Umar led the prayer and was ousted. Some say that Abu Bakr led the prayer with the Prophet’s permission and the Prophet came to the mosque. Yet another tradition says that the Prophet made Abu Bakr stand behind him. Another narration says Abu Bakr became the reciter of Allaahu Akbar (Takbeer). Another reports says that he stood silently aside. In short, is it the matter of Abu Bakr’s leadership or a lawless exercise?

The only aim of all this is that the Caliphate assumed by Abu Bakr be regarded as legal, proper and just. But when the Prophet had also followed Abdur Rahman bin Auf in Prayer, what was the fault of the latter that he was deprived of Caliphate?

It is also very strange that according to Ahlul Sunnat the matter of leading a prayer and leading a society has no importance as any good or evil man can get it. They write “offer prayer behind any man, good or bad.” So even if it is accepted that Abu Bakr led the prayer or the Prophet made him lead or he followed himself; what is graceful in it? As per their opinion, any good or bad person can lead the prayer and thus leading is no proof of somebody’s honor or prestige.

But we have said that this happening is surprising because, in it either leadership of prayer could not prove nobility or the same leadership turned into a justification for holding the high office of the Caliph! Very puzzling indeed!

Notes

__________________

1. Pg. 12

2. Vol. 6, Pg. 38

3. Vol. 10, Pg. 206

4. Vol. 1, Pg. 234

5. Vol. 10, Pg. 257 and Vol. 2, Pg. 37, 38, 39.

6. Vol. 6, Pg. 379

7. Vol. 3, Pg. 459

8. Vol. 2, Pg. 163

9. Pg. 31

10. Pg. 358, Vol. 6

11. Vol. 1, Pg. 17

 

 

 

The reason for writing this is that one of my mentors, who is a manager of a landowner (Zamindar) and has a discerning eye as far as books are concerned, said to me one day that the Caliphate of the three Caliphs was acceptable to the family of the Prophet, so there could not be any doubt regarding the validity of that Caliphate. If it had not been so, Ali (a.s.) would not have shared the war booty in the way he did. He would not have taken Lady Shaharbano as a slave girl. This was not a new opinion of the manager.

Generally, people think on the same lines. That when Lady Shaharbano came as a prisoner of war, and because there was no need to perform marriage before having sexual relationship with slave girls, she remained under the charge of Imam Husayn (a.s.). In such circumstances, it is obvious that the children born to her, and till the present age, whatever of her progeny is present; all of them are continuous descendants. This proves that the family of the Prophet used to share the war booty from the wars undertaken by the three Caliphs. It also proves that the Caliphate of the three Caliphs had the approval of the Prophet’s family, thus their Caliphate was valid. If on the contrary they had considered their Caliphate invalid, they would not have shared the war booty.

It should be clear that the followers of Ali (a.s.) certainly believe that the Caliphate of the three Caliphs is not valid. But along with this, it is not the belief of this sect that all Islamic activities that took place during the tenure of these three Caliphs should be considered illegal. Rather, whatever activities were legal should be considered legal and whatever was illegal should be seen as illegal. For example, if a mosque was constructed during the reign of a Caliph, it could not be labeled illegal or if during the time of Caliph, some territories were annexed or booty obtained, it cannot be called illegitimate.

In the same way, there are many legal things that could be performed by an illegal Caliph. But since they are not illegal according to Islam, the followers of Ali (a.s.) could not deny their legality. On the basis of this principle, the sharing of booty by Ali (a.s.) was not against any law of Islam. Such action of Ali (a.s.) does not prove that Ali (a.s.) used to consider these Caliphates lawful. His considering the Caliphates illegal was right and his sharing the booty was also correct.

It is worth noting that when Ali (a.s.) came to the Caliphate seat, at that time many territories that were hitherto infidels had entered the dominion of Islam. After becoming the Caliph, he continued to retain these territories in his Caliphate. He indeed did not say that these territories were conquered during the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, so now they should be returned to their original rulers. And that only those territories shall be retained that were in the Islamic kingdom at the time of the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S).

The writer said by way of example to the manager: “Suppose you were to usurp all the property of your master and for a long time you have everything under your control. During this time you carry out many developments activities, like the digging of canals and building courts etc. You also purchase new properties and add them to the existing estate. But after a long time, the original owner is able to wrest control of his property from your hands. In such circumstances, would he be bound by law or common sense to demolish all the constructions that you had carried out? No sensible person will act in this way. Though you had illegally occupied the estate, your suitable activities could not be considered unlawful. Try to apply this example to the usurpation of Caliphate and the booty obtained during that period.”

Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan Bahadur has proved that the Holy Prophet (S) was not a slave child. His ancestor, Ismail (a.s.) was not the son of a slave girl. Hajra was not a slave girl, she was a princess. Now this writer would prove that the mother of the fourth Imam, Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.), was the proper married wife of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and not a slave girl. It is a pity that people who want to prove the legality of the three Caliphs are absolutely blind to other things.

Whether the eloquence of Holy Quran is rendered useless or not, where the laws of Quran are trampled upon, whether the Prophet (a.s.) is insulted, the Caliphate of the three Caliphs must be proved valid in any case. What type of an attitude is it? Who is preventing you to prove the legality of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs? But in the path of research, it does not befit a research scholar to include inequitable and irrelevant elements.

The view presented by the opponents not only proves that Allah forbid, Imam Zainul Aabideen was the son a slave girl, but it also alleges that, God forbid, he was illegitimate! The manager was having a similar view, but he was very surprised when I told him that even if the Caliphate of the three Caliphs was illegal, the relationship of Imam Husayn (a.s.) with Lady Shaharbano could not be considered illegal. She was not betrothed to Imam Husayn (a.s.) as a slave girl. It should be clear that there is difference of opinion regarding the period when Shaharbano is reported to have come to Medina as a slave girl.

Shaykh Mufid (a.r.) says that she came during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.), Shaykh Ibn Babawayh says she came during the Caliphate of Uthman and Qutub Rawandi says she came during Umar’s Caliphate. Whatever may be the period of her arrival, the allegation of the opponents is not proved true in any case. The sharing of war booty by Ali (a.s.) cannot be said to be illegal as we have stated above. Their sharing of the booty does not prove that they had approved the Caliphate of the three Caliphs. The research of this humble slave says that just as Shaykh Mufid (a.r.) has written, Lady Shaharbano came to Medina during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.).

The Shaykh says, “After the Chief of the Martyrs, Imam Husayn (a.s.), the next Guide is the Chief of Prostrators, Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) His mother was Shahezanaan, the daughter of King Yezdgird, son of Shahryar, son of Choesroe. Some say that her name was Shaharbano. Ali (a.s.) had appointed Harith bin Jabir Juhfi as the Governor on some Eastern province. He took two daughters of Choesroe as prisoners and sent them to Ali (a.s.). Ali (a.s.) gave Shaharbano to Imam Husayn (a.s.) and the other one to Muhammad bin Abi Bakr.

Lady Shaharbano gave birth to Imam Zainul Aabideen and the other girl gave birth to Qasim Ibn Muhammad. Maulavi Sayyid Shah Muhammad Kabir Danapuri (r.a.) has certified the research of Shaykh Mufid (a.r.). The Shah writes in his well known book, Tazkeratul Kiraam, Tarikh Khilafa Arabo Islam1 that the above incident took place during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.).

It should be clear that this book was based on various English and Persian books and published by Naval Kishore Press. The writer was a great scholar of the Sufi School. When the writings of Shaykh Mufid and the Shah prove that Shaharbano had come to Medina during the tenure of Ali (a.s.), any doubt contrary to this cannot be entertained.

Just as all activities of the time of Ali (a.s.) are considered valid, the union of Shaharbano with Imam Husayn (a.s.) shall also be considered valid. The objection of the manager in this regard does not hold any water. Now the writer also intends to prove that Shaharbano was properly married to Imam Husayn (a.s.) through Islamic marriage (Nikah). She was not joined to him as a slave girl obtained in a battle.

The same Shah has also written that Ali (a.s.) had appointed Harith bin Jabir Juhfi over some cities of Khorasan and he took three daughters of Yezdgird as prisoners: The three were Meherbano, Mahbano and Shaharbano. He sent them all to Ali (a.s.) and said that they were daughters of a king and they should be given to respectable people. Thus, Meherbano was given as a wife to Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, Mahbano to Abdullah Ibn Umar and Shaharbano to the Chief of the Martyrs, Imam Husayn (a.s.), who gave birth to Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.).

This proves that Shaharbano was the legally wedded wife of Imam Husayn (a.s.). The word of ‘wifehood’ used by the Shah proves this. Shia books also prove that the Shaharbano’s marriage took place with Imam Husayn (a.s.) and by the order of Ali (a.s.), the Nikah sermon was recited by Huzaifah.

Thus, the above discussion proves that the sharing of war booty by Ali (a.s.) could not be blamed and that the relationship of Imam Husayn (a.s.) with Shaharbano was based on proper Nikah due to which Imam Zainul Aabideen Ali (a.s.) is safe from the label of “slave-child.”

Here, it is worth mentioning that according to the directions of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), whatever booty is obtained through wars conducted without the permission of the Imam of the time, belong to the Imam of the time. Therefore, all the booty obtained during the time of the Caliphs actually belonged to Ali (a.s.). Thus, whatever Ali (a.s.) got from the booty was already his rightful property and others are responsible for whatever they had taken.

Apart from this, most of the time, Jihad was undertaken only after consultation with Ali (a.s.) and the correctness of Jihad is not a certificate for the validity of Caliphate. The fact is that Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) is a prince from both his parents. His paternal lineage goes to Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (S) and Ali (a.s.), this is his religious princehood. His maternal lineage goes to Nausherwan Aadil, which is his worldly princehood. What can be said about Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.)? Only that will see him lowly who has been blind in the past and is still blind. May Allah bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

In the end, it is necessary to say that the writer, by writing all this, does not desire to hurt any person or sect. As far as possible, the writer relates the relevant incidents and always quotes only the authentic facts. Even then in a gathering some people said that this writer, writes the praises of some religious leaders. Now he will be dealt in the same manner as that particular writer of Patna was dealt with.

By Allah! Such dealing will not only be a favor on me, it will be salvation. The opponents of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) may be pleased to deal with me as they please, as it is proved that Lady Fatima Zahra, Ali (a.s.), Imams Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) are already wrongly criticized by the opponents. I am a slave of their slaves. It would be my fortune to suffer just as they had suffered. I would consider the suffering as a certificate for being a slave of their slaves. Indeed, I have no fear of persecution. When such great masters of mine were persecuted, how can I worry about my humble self? I am the one who keeps in mind the following verse:

“Say I do not demand of you recompense, except the love of the near kindred.”2

Obviously, one who keeps this in mind cannot have any fear of persecution. It is astounding that opponents of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) have always ignored this verse. And leave alone the love of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), they did not even have the slightest respect for them. The above writings have proved how the opponents persecuted and insulted the family of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

In order to maintain brevity and regard for the people of the time, the writer has hardly written anything about their behavior towards Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). If the writer had written in detail, this book would have been many times its size. The fact is that whatever ill-treatment was initiated from the time of the Prophet’s mortal illness, is still continuing. If all their calamitous circumstances were written, they would form a bulky book. Even today the world is not empty of opposition to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Though Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) themselves are not apparent, the opponents are bent upon persecuting the followers of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

________________

1.Part III, Pg. 355

2.Surah Shura 42:23

 

 

 

There was no need to write on this topic, but the writer encountered such a problem that he had to write it. I have a mentor who is a Sayyid by birth and a Sufi by faith. He is always organizing functions on birthdays of the Infallibles (a.s.) and mourning ceremonies (Majalis) and he invites both Ahlul Sunnat and Shias in these programs.

One day I was at his residence on the occasion of a birthday. There, I saw a poet of the new generation, who had recently earned great fame and people used to gather in large numbers to hear his recitations. That is why there was extraordinary crowd on that day. The reciter gave a great performance. When he finished the poetry part, he began to give a speech. He had learnt that I was not from Ahlul Sunnat. This information caused him great discomfort. On the basis of the enmity that he harbored against my ancestors, he began to say in his speech:

“Abu Bakr and Umar were of perfect faith while the faith of Ali (a.s.) was imperfect (Allah forbid!), etc. What did Ahlul Sunnat have to stop of him from such nonsense? They all continued to hear it and he went on speaking this rubbish. Anyway, that speech ended, but below I present a detailed classification of the faiths of the two Caliphs and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

Regarding Abu Bakr, I would like to say that if he really had perfect faith, he would not have abandoned the Holy Prophet (S) and fled from the battles of Uhud and Hunayn. One with a perfect faith cannot act in this way. Anyone with perfect faith would not hesitate to sacrifice his life in the way of Allah. The way Abu Bakr left and ran away is not expected even from an ordinary friend.

As far as I know, no respectable person will run away leaving his friend in danger. It is most shameful for a man, what type of a Muslim behavior is it? That a person goes for Jihad, but when there are difficult times, he leaves the Prophet in a lurch and disappears from the battlefield. What type of a ‘perfect faith’ is it?

A Muslim cannot act in this manner. The flight of Abu Bakr shows that his faith was not even like that of an ordinary Muslim. He ran away from Marhab and Harith during the battle of Khaybar for two days. Common sense tells us that the faith of such a person is not perfect. Where was he hiding in Medina during the Battle of Ditch is best known to himself or his friend, Umar. He did not even see the face of Amr Ibn Abde Wudd. Are these incidents insufficient to prove the defective faith of Abu Bakr? Certainly not! A person with a perfect faith will never abandon the Prophet to save his own skin; and it seems improper to call such a person a Muslim, who has always avoided Jihad. How can he be considered a Caliph of the Prophet? These were practical examples of Abu Bakr’s defective faith.

Now, I will show from his sayings that if Islam had any place in his heart, he would not have acted like that in the Battle of Uhud and he would not have uttered: “Muhammad has been killed, you all turn back on your religion.” The readers may refer to the above writing of the author and they will know the facts about the above statement. One who can say such a thing, cannot have perfect faith. The Almighty Allah has also refuted this statement. Allah says:

“And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; the apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least…”1

It is very surprising that Allah is so emphatically prohibiting people to turn back to Ignorance (Jahiliya) and Abu Bakr is doing the opposite and exhorting Muslims to return to it. Indeed, this shows that Islam had not wholly occupied the heart of Abu Bakr, due to which he did not have perfect faith. The military activities of Umar are the same as that of Abu Bakr. Their flights from battlefields are equally recorded. With these conditions, how can anyone call them perfect believers? He also seems to have defective faith, like Abu Bakr.

Apart from written records, his saying at the treaty of Hudaibiya is: “I never had such doubt on Prophethood as I had today.” This sufficiently proves that he always had doubts regarding the prophethood of the Prophet, but at the allegiance of Hudaibiya, it was intensified.

This doubt shows that like Abu Bakr, leave alone perfect faith, he had no sort of faith worth praise. It is surprising that in the battles, where Abu Bakr and Umar took to heels, Ali (a.s.) was seen to be performing extraordinary feats of bravery. Apart from this, Ali (a.s.) never uttered a sentence that could show any type of weakness of faith. He was verbally and practically always the follower of the Messenger of Allah (S). He never did anything against the command of the Prophet. He was an exemplar of perfect faith. On the basis of his words and actions, he had absolute right of the successorship of the Prophet. The fact is that he remained steadfast in every military encounter.

Not only was he steadfast, he was instrumental in the victory of every battle. He never left the side of the Prophet. He always defended the Messenger of Allah (S) from the enemies of religion. He did not allow the slightest cowardice to come near him. Then on the basis of his achievement, the Prophet twice said: “All the good deeds of the creatures, past, present and future cannot equal the military exploits of Ali (a.s.).”

In such circumstances, no one can have any doubt about the perfection of his faith. Rather, it could be said with justice that there would never be anyone with such perfect faith as that of Ali (a.s.). What a pity that the opponents have labeled the faith of Ali (a.s.) to be defective and that of the two Caliphs as perfect. The fact is that bigotry blinds man and a bigot cannot see the truth.

______________

1.Surah Aale Imran 3:144

 

 

.There was no need to write on this topic, but the writer encountered such a problem that he had to write it. I have a mentor who is a Sayyid by birth and a Sufi by faith. He is always organizing functions on birthdays of the Infallibles (a.s.) and mourning ceremonies (Majalis) and he invites both Ahlul Sunnat and Shias in these programs.

One day I was at his residence on the occasion of a birthday. There, I saw a poet of the new generation, who had recently earned great fame and people used to gather in large numbers to hear his recitations. That is why there was extraordinary crowd on that day. The reciter gave a great performance. When he finished the poetry part, he began to give a speech. He had learnt that I was not from Ahlul Sunnat. This information caused him great discomfort. On the basis of the enmity that he harbored against my ancestors, he began to say in his speech:

“Abu Bakr and Umar were of perfect faith while the faith of Ali (a.s.) was imperfect (Allah forbid!), etc. What did Ahlul Sunnat have to stop of him from such nonsense? They all continued to hear it and he went on speaking this rubbish. Anyway, that speech ended, but below I present a detailed classification of the faiths of the two Caliphs and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

Regarding Abu Bakr, I would like to say that if he really had perfect faith, he would not have abandoned the Holy Prophet (S) and fled from the battles of Uhud and Hunayn. One with a perfect faith cannot act in this way. Anyone with perfect faith would not hesitate to sacrifice his life in the way of Allah. The way Abu Bakr left and ran away is not expected even from an ordinary friend.

As far as I know, no respectable person will run away leaving his friend in danger. It is most shameful for a man, what type of a Muslim behavior is it? That a person goes for Jihad, but when there are difficult times, he leaves the Prophet in a lurch and disappears from the battlefield. What type of a ‘perfect faith’ is it?

A Muslim cannot act in this manner. The flight of Abu Bakr shows that his faith was not even like that of an ordinary Muslim. He ran away from Marhab and Harith during the battle of Khaybar for two days. Common sense tells us that the faith of such a person is not perfect. Where was he hiding in Medina during the Battle of Ditch is best known to himself or his friend, Umar. He did not even see the face of Amr Ibn Abde Wudd. Are these incidents insufficient to prove the defective faith of Abu Bakr? Certainly not! A person with a perfect faith will never abandon the Prophet to save his own skin; and it seems improper to call such a person a Muslim, who has always avoided Jihad. How can he be considered a Caliph of the Prophet? These were practical examples of Abu Bakr’s defective faith.

Now, I will show from his sayings that if Islam had any place in his heart, he would not have acted like that in the Battle of Uhud and he would not have uttered: “Muhammad has been killed, you all turn back on your religion.” The readers may refer to the above writing of the author and they will know the facts about the above statement. One who can say such a thing, cannot have perfect faith. The Almighty Allah has also refuted this statement. Allah says:

“And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; the apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least…”1

It is very surprising that Allah is so emphatically prohibiting people to turn back to Ignorance (Jahiliya) and Abu Bakr is doing the opposite and exhorting Muslims to return to it. Indeed, this shows that Islam had not wholly occupied the heart of Abu Bakr, due to which he did not have perfect faith. The military activities of Umar are the same as that of Abu Bakr. Their flights from battlefields are equally recorded. With these conditions, how can anyone call them perfect believers? He also seems to have defective faith, like Abu Bakr.

Apart from written records, his saying at the treaty of Hudaibiya is: “I never had such doubt on Prophethood as I had today.” This sufficiently proves that he always had doubts regarding the prophethood of the Prophet, but at the allegiance of Hudaibiya, it was intensified.

This doubt shows that like Abu Bakr, leave alone perfect faith, he had no sort of faith worth praise. It is surprising that in the battles, where Abu Bakr and Umar took to heels, Ali (a.s.) was seen to be performing extraordinary feats of bravery. Apart from this, Ali (a.s.) never uttered a sentence that could show any type of weakness of faith. He was verbally and practically always the follower of the Messenger of Allah (S). He never did anything against the command of the Prophet. He was an exemplar of perfect faith. On the basis of his words and actions, he had absolute right of the successorship of the Prophet. The fact is that he remained steadfast in every military encounter.

Not only was he steadfast, he was instrumental in the victory of every battle. He never left the side of the Prophet. He always defended the Messenger of Allah (S) from the enemies of religion. He did not allow the slightest cowardice to come near him. Then on the basis of his achievement, the Prophet twice said: “All the good deeds of the creatures, past, present and future cannot equal the military exploits of Ali (a.s.).”

In such circumstances, no one can have any doubt about the perfection of his faith. Rather, it could be said with justice that there would never be anyone with such perfect faith as that of Ali (a.s.). What a pity that the opponents have labeled the faith of Ali (a.s.) to be defective and that of the two Caliphs as perfect. The fact is that bigotry blinds man and a bigot cannot see the truth.

____________________

1.Surah Aale Imran 3:144

 

 

 

“Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them rulers in the earth as He made rulers those before them, and that He will most certainly establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them, and that He will most certainly, after their fear, give them security in exchange: they shall serve Me, not associating ought with Me; and whoever is ungrateful after this, these it is who are the transgressors.”1

The Ahlul Sunnat say that the above verse proves the validity of the Righteous Caliphs or the Caliphate of the three Caliphs. However, no word of this verse indicates that it is in any way restricted to the Caliphs. Here, Allah has clearly promised the believers and good doers, Caliphate. That Allah will make some of them rulers in the land just as He had made rulers before them. This address of Allah is for all the believers, as clear from Tafseer Zahidi:

“And it is not restricted to the three Caliphs. Neither is it restricted to any particular time period. It is a promise that applies to all the believers from the time of the Holy Prophet (S) till the present time.”

It is a verse that followers of the three Caliphs can apply to their Caliphs, the Bani Umayyah can apply to their rulers, the Bani Abbas can pull it towards their Caliphate, the Bani Hashim can say it is a promise of their Caliphate. In these circumstances, it is obstinacy to restrict it to the Caliphate of the three Caliphs. If this verse proves the validity of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar would have used it to prove their stand in Saqifah. But they did not do so.

This shows that this verse was not considered a proof during the Caliphate of Umar and Abu Bakr. Leave alone that period, this verse has never been presented as proof in the subsequent period. Such illogical interpretations were invented much later to prove the validity of Caliphate.

It is a verse that followers of the three Caliphs can apply to their Caliphs, the Bani Umayyah can apply to their rulers, the Bani Abbas can pull it towards their Caliphate, the Bani Hashim can say it is a promise of their Caliphate. In these circumstances, it is obstinacy to restrict it to the Caliphate of the three Caliphs.

If this verse proves the validity of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar would have used it to prove their stand in Saqifah. But they did not do so.

This shows that this verse was not considered a proof during the Caliphate of Umar and Abu Bakr. Leave alone that period, this verse has never been presented as proof in the subsequent period. Such illogical interpretations were invented much later to prove the validity of Caliphate.

Though the above verse does not prove the Caliphate of three Caliphs, a tradition of the Prophet (S) indicates that this verse is applicable to the family of the Prophet (S).

Muhaddith Mir Jamaluddin Husaini quotes this tradition in Rauzatul Ahbab. Jabir Ibne Abdullah Ansari (r.a.) relates that when the verse: “O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those in authority from among you…”…was revealed, I asked the Messenger of Allah (s.a.): I have recognized Allah and the Apostle, but who are ‘those in authority’ whose obedience has been made compulsory by Allah?

The Messenger of Allah (S) said: ‘They are my Caliphs after me, the first of whom is Ali Ibne Abi Talib, then Hasan, then Husain, then Ali the son of Husain, then Muhammad the son of Ali, known in the Taurat as al-Baqir, and you will soon reach him, when you meet him, convey my salutations to him. Then Sadiq, Ja’far, the son of Muhammad, then Moosa, the son of Ja’far, then Ali, the son of Moosa, then Muhammad, the son of Ali, then Ali, the son of Muhammad, then Hasan, the son of Ali, then the proof of Allah on His earth.’”

This book, Rauzatul Ahbab is such that Shah Waliullah Dehlavi has praised it in his journal, ‘Usoole Hadith’. We should know that the twelve Imams are such that they are clearly mentioned in Taurat. The Almighty Allah says in the Book of Genesis:

“As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.”2

Apart from this, the above tradition also shows that Imam Muhammad Ibn Ali is mentioned as ‘Baqir’ in the Taurat. It is not surprising that the verse “Allah promises those…” mentions Caliphate in relation to the twelve Imams, who the Prophet has said were his Caliphs in his saying to Jabir. In fact, who can be more deserving of the Caliphate of the Prophet?

Even though they could not achieve worldly kingdom, due to the lack of support from Muslims, but their religious authority had always been there and it will be till there is Islam. Obviously, what is the value of a worldly kingdom? Even Nimrod, Shaddad, Firon, Muawiyah and Yazeed had it, and of what use was it? Can the verse apply to such people? Certainly not! Indeed, what is worthy, is religious Caliphate and as per the saying of the Holy Prophet (S), it is the right of the twelve Imams (a.s.).

May Allah bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

________________

1.Surah Noor 24:55

2.Genesis 17:20

 

 

 

The above tradition is fabricated. Ibn Taymiyyah says that it is weak.1 Bazzaz says that this tradition quoted from the Holy Prophet (S) is inauthentic and it is not found in any authentic book of traditions. In the same way, Ibn Kuram says in his journal Kubra, that this tradition is invalid and false. Ahmad Wamzi Zahabi, Wathqi and Abul Hujjaj have all said similar things about this tradition. Maulavi Abdul Ali Bahrul Uloom writes in Sharhe Muslim and Mulla

Nizamuddin, his father, in Subhe Sadiq Sharhe Manar consider it invalid and false.

Abdul Hai Lakhnavi also writes in his book, Tohfatul Akhyar, that this tradition is concocted and he does not consider it correct at all. Briefly, we say that this tradition is not at all the saying of the Holy Prophet (S). When it is so, why Ahlul Sunnat people are so much in love with this tradition? Apparently, it is so, because Ahlul Sunnat find their water bags tied to the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Thaqlayn).

Thus, what could they do if not to consider this tradition consoling. It is an ancient saying that the drowning man clutches at the straw. Obviously, this act of theirs is an open attribution of falsehood to the Messenger of Allah (S).

But they could not see anything in their blind love of the three Caliphs. That is why they close their eyes from the falsification of the captioned tradition. May Allah give good sense to all His servants. Amen. A poet has penned a beautiful couplet in this connection:

“If all the companions be like stars; some stars are of ill omen.”

___________

1.Ref. Minhaj