Sie sind auf Seite 1von 184

Shia's beliefs

The similarity between Shia rituals and Christian rituals Who are Ahl-Albait ( The household of the prophet )? The Quran and Imamah Ya Allah or Ya Ali , Ya Hussain?! The Myth of the Shii Mahdi Abdullah Ibn Sabaa & Shism Khomeini under the Microscope Shiah Concept of Temporary Marriage (Mutah)

Issues in the Islamic History


The event of Ghadeer Khum in the Quran, Sunnah, History Who killed Imam Al-Hussain bin Ali ? Ask the History Fadak Area between Abu-Baker & Fatima A Scientific Dialogue The Marriage of umm kulthum daughter of Ali ibn Abi Talib to Umar ibn Alkhatab Was Mu'awiyah ibn Ibi Sufyan involved in the poisoning of Imam AlHasan? Khalid Ibn Al-Walid, the Slandered Sword of Allah Are there Hypocrites among the Prophet's Companions? Integrity of the Prophet's Companions between Sunni & Shia

Polemics against Ahl Al-Sunnah


A response to ( Peshawar Nights ) Introduction -- The first session The Verse of Wilayah The Verse of Tabligh The purification verse & Hadeeth Al-kisa'a A Scientific Dialogue The roots of Sunni-Shia differences in Fiqh The Dismal Reality of Ahl-Sunnah in Iran

pictures of Christians in the Philippines practicing the same self flagellation tactics practiced by modern day Shia.

While it is not a prevalent practice among Christians, look at these

outdates the practice of the shia --who most probably took it from them. From the fourth century AD, flagellation was practised by both clergy and non-clergy as the most effective means of penance. (See the New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol 4, Micropaedia, p 813.)

Notice that this practice goes back to early Christianity and

*Who are Ahl Al-Bayt?


Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him urged in the past two hadeeths to adhere to his noble household, to know their right, to respect them, and to honor them, may Allah be pleased with them all. But the question is; who are the household of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him? Hadeeth Al-Thiqlayn indicates to the concept of the Prophets household clarifying that Ahl Al-Bayt are the relatives of Prophet Muhammad and his wives. To the completion of the previous hadeeth, The companion of the prophet Zayd who narrated Hadeeth Al-Thiqalyn says: his wives are among his household, but his household are those who charity is forbidden upon them. One asked: and who are they? Zayd answered that they were the household of Ali, household of Aqeel, household of Jaffar, and household of Abbas. The first person asked again: Upon all of them charity is forbidden? and Zayd answered by a yes Abdulrahman bin Abi Layla, a dignified Companion, says: Once we asked Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him about how to pray on his household although Allah told us how to pray on him. Prophet Muhammad answered: Say: O Allah send prayers upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, just as You sent prayers upon Ebraheem and the family of Ebraheem. Verily, You are full of praise and majesty. O Allah, send blessings upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, just as You sent blessings upon Ebraheem and upon the family of Ebraheem. Verily, You are full of praise and majesty. Then Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him taught them other forms of prayers upon him and his family, and one of the forms is: O Allah, send prayers upon Muhammad and upon the wives and descendants of Muhammad, just as you sent prayers upon the family of Ebraheem, and send blessings upon Muhammad and upon the wives and descendants of Muhammad, just as You sent blessings upon the family of Ebraheem. Verily, You are full of praise and majesty. Although the wives of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him are named as Ahl Al-Bayt in the Ebraheemite Prayer, we would find a better and a clearer declaration that the wives of the Prophet are his household in this narration: Anas bin Malik reported: A banquet of bread and meat was held on the occasion of the marriage of the Prophet to Zainab bint Jahsh. I was sent to invite the people (to the banquet), . The Prophet left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, "Peace and Allah's Mercy be on you, O the people of the house!" She replied, "Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too. How did you find your wife? May Allah bless you. Then he went to the dwelling places of all his other wives and said to them the same as he said to Aisha and they said to him the same as Aisha had said to him. (Saheeh AlBukhari, Tafseer Al-Quran, Surat Al-Ahzab), (Al-Nisaei, Work of the day and night, 271) In the hadeeth of Al-Efk (the narration of the Lie), the Prophet peace be upon him, while he was on the pulpit narrating charges of adultery from Ubaydillah bin Abi Salool against the Mother of Beleivers, Aisha, says: O people give me your opinion regarding those people who made a forged story against

my family. By Allah, I do not know anything bad about her. By Allah, they accused her of being with a man about whom I have never known anything bad, and he never entered my house unless I was present there, and whenever I went on a journey, he went with me (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Tafseer AL-Quran, Surat AL-Nour) Now, let us see what language has to say about this issue. Arabic Language scholars are very clear in identifying the wives of a man as his household. Ibn Manthoor says in the Tongue of the Arabs (Lisan Al-Arab): Ahl Al-Bayt: its dwellers, Ahl Al-Rajul (family of a man) is the closest people to him, and the household of Prophet Muhammad may Allah have peace on him is his wives, his daughters, and his son-in-law who is Ali bin Abi Talib Al-Fayrooz Al-Aabadi says in Qamoos Al-Muheet: Ahl Al-Amr is its rulers, Ahl Al-Bayt is its dwellers, Ahl Al-Mathhab (sect) is its who believe in it, Ahl Al-Rajul is his wife, and Ahl Al-Nabi is his wives, his daughters, and his son-in-law i.e. Ali may Allah be pleased of him. Al-Zubaydi says in Taj Al-Aroos (The Brides Crown): Ahl Al-Mathhab is its believers, Ahl Al-Rajul is his wife and children, and this is how the verse: and was travelling with his family is explained as his wives and family. Ahl Al-Nabi is his wives, daughters, and his son-in-law Ali. It was said that the descendant of a man is Ahl Al-Rajul. In the Quran: Enjoin prayer on thy family, and be constant therein, And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye Members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless, and let mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you Ahl Al-Bayt, He is the most benign and most exalted. In addition to the Prophetic narrations and to the Arabic Language scholars sayings, the Quran itself testifies that wives are included in the phrase Ahl A-Bayt. The Quran called Prophets wives as their household. Allah says: so he said to his family, "Tarry ye; I perceive a fire; perhaps I can bring you some burning brand therefrom, or find some guidance at the fire. And it is known that only Mousas wife was with him and no one else. In the story of Zaleekha, the wife of Al-Azeez, when she wanted to temp Yousif, Allah says: She said: "What is the (fitting) punishment for one who formed an evil design against thy family, but prison or agrievous chastisement?" Also, Allah says: Now when Moses had fulfilled the term, and was travelling with his family. AlQumi says in his Tafseer: When the time had come, Mousa took his wife, Shuayb provided Mousa, and Mousa lead his goats. When Mousa wanted to leave, Shuayb told him: Go, Allah made it privately for you. Therefore, Mousa lead his goats aiming Egypt. Mousa and his wife were in a place when a cold breeze, wind and darkness stroked Mousa and his family. Then, Mousa saw a fire, where Allah said the verse: Now when Moses had fulfilled the term, and was travelling with his family. Included in the term Ahl Al-Bayt are Ali, Al-Hasan, Al-Hussain, and Fatima, may Allah be pleased with them all as it is mentioned in Hadeeth Al-Kisaa (the narration of the cloak) that is narrated by Muslim. The mother of Believers, Aisha says: One day, the messenger of Allah left the house at the afternoon and he was wearing a cloak. Then Hasan bin Ali came and the Prophet took him under his cloak. Next Hussain bin Ali came and the Prophet took him under his cloak. After that Fatima came and

the Prophet took her under his cloak. Finally, Ali came, and the Prophet took him under his cloak. Then the Prophet said: And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye Members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless In retrospect, it is cleared that the household of Prophet Muhammad are his wives, the family of Ali (Hasan, Hussain, and Fatima), the family of Aqeel, the family of Abbas, and the family of Jaffar. Those are the ones who Prophet Muhammad ordered us to dignify and respect. Hadeeth Al-Thiqlain did not testify to the infallibility of anyone of them, but raised their status. Using the verse of Purification and hadeeth Al-Kisaa to prove Alis infallibility is non-sense. We prove that in another article under the title The purification verse & Hadeeth Al-kisa'a A Scientific Dialogue. Please refer to it.

The Quran and Imamah


by Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi
This article investigates the usage of the word "Imam" in the Quran to see whether the Quran provides any support to the Shii concept of Imamah. In it a description is first given of Imamah as conceived of by the Shiah, and that is followed by a detailed scrutiny of every place in the Quran where the word "Imam" or its plural "Aimmah" has been used by Allah Taala.

There is no gainsaying that of all differences that exist between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah, the issue of Imamah is by far the most serious. It is in fact quite within the limits of reason and logic to say that the question of Imamah is the root of all Sunni-Shii differences; all other differences will upon closer scrutiny be found to result from the difference that exists on that central point. Therefore, no person or organisation who is serious about bringing Shiis and Sunnis closer to one another can afford to ignore the doctrine of Imamah. All endeavours aimed at removing the barriers that separate the Ahl as-Sunnah from the Shiah must start from this point. Starting from anywhere else would be similar to treating the symptoms, and not the cause, of a disease. For a while the symptoms might disappear, only to be reactivated at a later stage by the dormant cause. Likewise, attempting to solve Sunni-Shii differences from any perspective other than that of its root, Imamah, might for the immediate moment create the impression of removing obstacles to Muslim unity. In reality those very same obstacles will return as soon as the euphoria at the creation of that unity subsides. As Muslims we are obliged to refer the differences that exist amongst us to Allah and His Rasul. In this series of articles we refer the doctrine of Imamah to the Quran, with the purpose of ascertaining whether this doctrine as conceived of and believed in by the Ithna Ashari (or Jafari) Shiah is justified by Divine Revelation or not.

The Doctrine of Imamah


Before going any further it would be well-advised, for the benefit of those who may not be fully aware of what the Imamah of the Shiah means, to expand somewhat upon the detail of the issue. Once the reader has a proper focus of what Imamah means to the Shiah, and what its position in the belief structure of the Shiah is, we will continue with our discussion of that doctrine in the light of the Quran. Essentially, Imamah is about leadership of the Ummah after the demise of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam. The Shiah believe that just as Allah chose Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam as His Messenger to mankind, he chose and appointed a line of twelve men to succeed him as the leaders of the Ummah in all matters, spiritual as well as temporal. The first of these leaders, or Imams as they are called, was Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu anhu. He was succeeded by his eldest son Hasan, and he by his brother Husayn. After Husayn the Imamah continued in his progeny until the year 260AH, when the twelfth Imam, a child of five, disappeared upon the death of his father. He is believed to be the Awaited Mahdi who will return from occultation to establish justice upon the earth. To these twelve men from amongst the family of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam alone belongs the right to assume leadership of the Ummah. There are two aspects to Imamah that need to be looked at with attention. The first is the nature of the appointment of the Imams, and the second is the nature of their office.

The nature of the appointment of the Twelve Imams


As far as the nature of their appointment is concerned, it is a matter of consensus amongst the Shiah that the right of their twelve Imams to lead the Ummah was bestowed by Allah Taala Himself. No distinction is made between the appointment of Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam as the Messenger of Allah and the appointment of the twelve Imams as his successors. Underscoring this vital aspect of Imamah, Allamah Muhammad Husayn Kashif al-Ghita, who was the most prominent Shii alim of Najaf in Iraq during the seventies, writes in his book Asl ash-Shiah wa-Usuluha: Imamah is a divine station, just like Nubuwwah. Just as Allah chooses whomsoever He wants to for Nubuwwah and Risalah ... similarly, for Imamah too, He selects whomsoever He wishes.1 It is interesting to note that the book from which this statement is drawn was written for the express purpose of correcting contemporary misconceptions about the Shiah. Since Imamah is then for all practical purposes on exactly the same plane as Nubuwwah and Risalah, consistency would dictate that the rejection of Imamah be censured with the same severity as the rejection of Nubuwwah and Risalah. If rejection of the Nubuwwah of Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam cast the likes of Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab outside the fold of Islam, then it is only logical to expect that rejection of the Imamah of Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu anhu should cast the likes of Abu Bakr, Umar and the rest of the

Sahabah radiyallahu anhum out of the fold of Islam. For one who views the problem from this perspective it thus comes as no surprise to find the Shiah narrating from their Imams that "all the people became murtadd after the death of Rasulullah, except three,"2 since it is consistent with the principle that equates Imamah with Nubuwwah in the sense that each of them is a position appointed by Allah. What is surprising is the opinion the Shiah of today express about the Ahl as-Sunnah in general. One would expect them to say about the Ahl as-Sunnah as they have said about the Sahabah: that they are unbelievers, out of the fold of Islam. After all, there are many non-Muslims who believe in the oneness of Allah, but do not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam, and for that reason we all regard them as unbelievers. If Imamah is then a "divine station, like Nubuwwah," Sunnis who do not believe in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams must also be unbelievers. There have been many ulama of the Shiah in the past who have displayed consistency in this regard and declared all those who deny the Imamah of the Twelve Imamslike the Ahl as-Sunnahunbelievers. For example, Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (died 381AH), the author of one of the four canonical hadith collections of the Shiah, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, states in the treatise in which he expounds the creed of the Shiah: It is our belief about one who rejects the Imamah of Amir al-Muminin (Sayyiduna Ali) and the Imams after him that he is the same as one who rejects the Nubuwwah of the Ambiya. It is our belief concerning a person who accepts (the Imamah of) Amir alMuminin but rejects any one of the Imams after him, that he is similar to one who believes in all the Ambiya but rejects the Nubuwwah of Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam. The Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam said: "The Imams after me are twelve. The first is Amir alMuminin Ali ibn Abi Talib and the last is the Qaim (the Mahdi). Obedience to them is obedience to me, and disobedience to them is disobedience to me. Thus, whoever rejects one of them has rejected me." Whoever wrongfully claims the Imamah is an accursed oppressor. Whoever places the Imamah in anyone besides its rightful repositories is an accursed oppressor. The Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam said: "Whoever shall deny Ali his Imamah after me has denied my Nubuwwah, and whoever denies me my Nubuwwah has denied Allah His divinity." Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said: "Whoever doubts the kufr of our enemies is himself a kafir."3 His student Shaykh Mufid (died 413AH) writes: There is consensus amongst the Imamiyyah (the Ithna Ashari or Jafari Shiah) that whoever denies the Imamah of anyone of the Imams, and denies the duty of obedience to them that Allah has decreed, that such a person is a kafir, misguided, and that he deserves everlasting torment in Hell.4

The prolific Abu Jafar at-Tusi, called Shaykh at-Taifah, (died 460AH), who is the author of two of the four canonical hadith collections, has the following to say: Rejection of Imamah is kufr, just as rejection of Nubuwwah is kufr.5 The mujaddid of Shiism in the eighth century after the Hijrah, Ibn Mutahhar al-Hilli (died 726AH) expresses similar sentiments in the following terms: Imamah is a universal grace (lutf amm) while Nubuwwah is a special grace (lutf khass), because it is possible that a specific period in time can be void of a living Nabi, while the same is not true for the Imam. To reject the universal grace is worse than to reject the special grace.6 This is the opinion held by four of the most eminent classical scholars of the Shiah, and if seen from the angle of consistency, it is a commendable position indeed. Yet, if one has to ask the Shiah of today (especially recent converts to Shiism) whether they believe Sunnis are Muslims are not, they will respond with surprise, and might even appear grieved at such a question. As far as recent converts to Shiism are concerned, this is to be expected, since it is in the interest of any propaganda scheme that certain facts be kept secret from neophytes. However those who are more knowledgeable about the technicalities of Shiism will know that in the eyes of the Shiah a distinction is made between a Muslim and a Mumin. All those who profess Islam outwardly are Muslims: Sunnis, Zaydis, Mutazilis, and all other sects. A Mumin, however, is only he who believes in the Twelve Imams. By this clever ruse the fuqaha of the Shiah kill several birds with one stone. By accepting all other sects as Muslims they protect themselves against the ridiculousness of casting out of the fold of Islam over 90% of its adherents, and the same men who carried the banner of Islam to all corners of the world. At the same time they avoid the antagonism of Sunnis and others, which facilitates proselytisation for them. On the other hand, by the subtle measure of distinguishing Muslim from Mumin they effectively excommunicate their opponents. Muslims are those to whom the laws of Islam apply in this world. It is therefore permissible to intermarry with them, to pray behind them, to eat what they slaughter, etc., while Mumins are those to whom salvation in the hereafter belongs exclusively, and that depends upon belief in the Twelve Imams. This distinction between Muslim and Mumin can be found throughout classical Shii literature. The seventh century faqih, Yahya ibn Said al-Hilli (died 690AH), for example writes in his manual on fiqh, al-Jami lish-Sharai: It is correct for a Muslim to make an endowment (waqf) upon Muslims. Muslims are those who utter the two shahadahs, and their children. But if a person makes something waqf upon the Muminin, it will be exclusively for the Imamiyyah who believe in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams.7 Eight centuries later, exactly the same view is propounded by Ayatullah Khomeini. In his own manual of fiqh, Tahrir al-Wasilah, he states: If a person makes a waqf upon the Muslims it will be for all those who confess the two shahadahs ... If an Imami makes a waqf upon the

Muminin it will be restricted to the Ithna Ashariyyah.8 Some amongst the contemporary spokesmen for Shiism, like Kashif al-Ghita, have realised that even this ruse is not sufficiently subtle. He thus devised another terminology. He speaks of being a Mumin in the special sense, and of being a Mumin in the general sense. Whoever believes in Imamah is regarded as a Mumin in the special sense, while those who do not believe in it are regarded as being Mumin in the general sense, as a result of which all the temporal laws of Islam are applicable to him. The result of this difference, he says, will become apparent on the Day of Judgement, in the degrees of Divine proximity and honour that will be bestowed upon the believers in Imamah.9 To us this reveals much more than what the author intended. It reveals to us that when the Shiah say they regard Sunnis as Muslims, it is in strict reference to worldly matters. In eschatological matters, matters of the hereafter, Sunnis who do not believe in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams are just like Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or any other rejectors of the Nubuwwah of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam. The only reason for saying that Sunnis are Muslims is expedience and convenience. Without professing such an opinion the Shiah would have had to retreat into seclusion and bear ostracism from the rest of the Muslim world. This reason is given by Sayyid Abdullah Shubbar (died 1232AH) in his commentary of az-Ziyarat al-Jamiah, the comprehensive dua read at the graves of the Imams. At the point where the ziyarah reads: Whoever denies you is a kafir, he comments upon it, saying: There are many narrations that indicate that the opponents are kafir. To document all of them would require a separate book. Reconciling such narrations with that which is known about the Imams, viz. that they used to live, eat and socialise with them, leads to the conclusion that they (the opponents) are kafir, and that they will dwell in Hell forever, but that in this world the laws of Islam are applied to them as a gesture of mercy and beneficence to the True Denomination (the Shiah), since it is impossible to avoid them.10

The nature of the office of the Imams


On this point it would be sufficient to say that the Shiah bestow upon their Imams all the perfections and accomplishments of the Ambiya, and even more. It would be impossible to document here all the narrations that deal with the status of the Imams, but it might be just as informative to quote the chapters under which they have been documented in a source that is described as a "veritable encyclopaedia of the knowledge of the Imams": Bihar al-Anwar of Allamah Muhammad Baqir alMajlisi (died 1111AH), widely reputed to be the greatest and most influential Shii scholar of the

Safawid era. During his lifetime he occupied the office of Shaykh al-Islam in Isfahan, capital of the Safawids, and even to this day his works are indispensable to the Shii clergy as well as their lay public. We quote here the name of the chapter, as well as the number of narrations he documents in each chapter: 1. The Imams possess more knowledge than the Ambiya (13 narrations)11 2. The Imams are superior to the Ambiya and the entire creation. The Covenant of the Imams was taken from them (the Ambiya), the Malaikah and the entire creation. The (major prophets called) ulul-Azm (Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa and Isa ) attained the status of ulul-Azm on account of loving the Imams. (88 narrations)12 3. The duas of the Ambiya were answered because they invoked the wasilah of the Imams. (16 narrations)13 4. The Imams can bring the dead back to life. They can cure blindness and leprosy. They possess all the miracles of the Ambiya (4 narrations)14 5. Nothing of the knowledge of Heaven, Earth, Jannah and Jahannam is hidden from them. The Kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth was shown to them. They know all that happened and that will happen upto the Day of Resurrection. (22 narrations)15 6. The Imams know the truth of a person's faith or hypocrisy. They possess a book that contains the names of the inmates of Jannah, the names of their supporters and their enemies. (40 narrations)16 The titles of these chapters create quite a vivid impression of the narrated material upon which the Shiah base their faith. The office of Imamah can thus be seen to incorporate more than just the political leadership of the Ummah. The Imams are more than just heads of state with a divine right to rule. They are the repositories of every branch of knowledge and perfection possessed by the Ambiya. The existence of the world depends upon their presence. They are the intermediaries upon whose intercession acceptance of the prayers of even the Ambiya depends. Their office is one that combines political, religious, scientific, cosmological and metaphysical supremacy over the entire creation. From this one can understand the reason for al-Khomeini's statement in the book al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, upon which rests the entire philosophy of his revolution: It is of the undeniable tenets of our faith that our Imams possess a status with Allah that neither Angel nor Messenger

can aspire to.17 After this introduction to the concept of Imamah, the nature of the appointment of the Imams, and the nature of their office, we pose the question: Is belief in such a concept justified and upheld by the Quran? Surely a belief of such momentousness, an article of faith with such far reaching consequences, that supercedes even belief in the Ambiya, must be rooted in the Quran, the book which was revealed by Allah as an explanation of all things, a guide, a mercy, and glad tidings to the Muslims. (an-Nahl:89) It is with the purpose of answering this question that this article is written.

Imamah and Prophethood in the Quran


In this article we investigate the Quranic foundations of the Shiite concept of Imamah. By analysis of the usage of the word imam and its plural form aimmah in the Quran we will investigate whether the Quran provides any basis for the doctrine of Imamah as formulated in Shiite theology. In limiting our investigation to the Quran, it is not our contention that the Sunnah is inconsequential in issues of doctrine. Instead, it is out of the conviction that a doctrinal issue like Imamah, which Shiite theology places above Nubuwwah, must find textual support from the Quran. After all, the "secondary" issue of Nubuwwah finds more than ample support in the pages of the Quran. No one, after reading the clear and unambiguous Quranic texts wherein Allah makes mention of His Messengers and Prophets, their status, And each (of them) we favoured above all the worlds. (al-Anam : 86) their stories, And has there come to you the story of Musa? (Taha : 9) And recite to them the story of Ibrahim. (ash-Shuara : 69) We relate unto you you the most beatiful of stories. (Yusuf : 4) the explicit mention of their names,

Such was the argument we gave Ibrahim against his people. We raise in degree whomsoever We will, and your Lord is Wise, All-Knowing. We gave him Ishaq and Yaqub; each of them We guided. And before that, We guided Nuh, and among his (Ibrahim's) progeny (We guided) Dawud, and Sulayman, and Ayyub, and Yusuf, and Musa, and Harun; thus do We reward those who good. And (We guided) Zakariyya, and Yahya, and Isa, and Ilyas; all of them of the Righteous. And Ismail, and Alyasa, and Yunus, and Lut; each of them We favoured above all the worlds. (al-Anam : 83-86) and the importance of belief in them as an integral part of faith in Islam, And whoever denies Allah, His Messengers, His Books and the Last Day has clearly gone astray. (an-Nisa : 136) can reasonably doubt that the Quran supports, or rather enjoins, belief in Nubuwwah. The question now is: Does the same hold true for Imamah? If Imamah is superior to Nubuwwah, as the theology of the Ithna Ashari Shiah teaches, it would be only reasonable to expect that the Quran would deal in equally explicit terms with Imamah; and if not, that at least a clear, unambiguous picture what Imamah is and who the Imams are, would be drawn by the Quran.

Usage of the word Imam in the Quran


In what follows we will investigate how the word Imam and its plural Aimmah have been used in the Quran. From the way Allah has used the word in the Quran it will then be seen whether the Shii concept of Imamah that has been explained above, finds any sort of Quranic support.

A book
The word imam recurs 7 times in the Quran, while its plural form, aimmah, appears 5 times. In 3 of these cases it refers explicitly to a book: And before it was the Book of Musa, a guide and a mercy. (Hud : 17) And before it was the Book of Musa, a guide and a mercy. (al-Ahqaf : 12) Verily, we will restore the dead to life, and we write that which they sent forth, and that which they left behind; and of everything we have taken account in a Clear Book. (Yasin : 12)

The champions of kufr

In another 2 cases it refers to the champions of kufr: Fight the leaders of kufr. (at-Tawbah : 12) And We made them leaders who call towards the Fire. (al-Qasas : 41)

A road
One reference is to a clearly discernible road: And verily, the two (cities) lie next to a clear road. (alHijr : 79)

Leadership of the Israelites


In the remaining six places where the word is used, it is used in terms of its literal meaning, i.e. leadership. In Surah al-Ambiya it is stated: We said: O fire, be cool and (a means of ) safety unto Ibrahim. And they planned against him; but We made them the greater losers. And We delivered him and Lut to the land which We blessed for the nations. And We gave him Ishaq, and Yaqub as an additional gift; and all of them We made righteous men. And We made them leaders who guide by Our command; and We revealed to them the doing of good, the establishment of prayer and the giving of alms. And they were men who served Us. (alAmbiya : 69-73) In this extract, which had to be extended somewhat in order that the reader may see the full context in which the word aimmah is used, one clearly sees its association with the function of the Ambiya as the leaders of men, who guide them towards Allah. This unequivocal identification of aimmah as Ambiya leads us to conclude that the reference in Surah as-Sajdah too, is to the Ambiya, and not to any other category of men: Indeed, We gave Musa the Book, so be not in doubt about meeting him; and We made it a (source of) guidance for the Children of Israil. And We made from amongst them leaders who guided by Our command, when they persevered. And they had full certainty in Our signs. (as-Sajdah : 23-24) Even if the scope of aimmah in this verse were to be extended to include people other than the Ambiya, there is nothing to justify its identification with the elaborate doctrine of Imamah as conceived of by the Shiah. In a third verse Allah speaks of His plans for the oppressed Israelites in Egypt:

And We wished to be gracious to those who were oppressed in the land, and to make them leaders, and to make them heirs. (al-Qasas : 5) In order to see who the word aimmah refers to in this verse one only has to look at the persons in whom this divine wish came to fulfilment. It was primarily in Nabi Musa and the other prophet-kings of Bani Israil like Nabi Dawud and Nabi Sulayman alayhimus salam that the leadership referred to in this verse, came to be vested. If at times they were ruled by men other than the Ambiya, the status of those leaders was never seen to be superior to the rank of the Ambiya. Verses like the above three, apart from dealing specifically with the Ambiya of Bani Israil, are not in the least indicative of the existence of a rank like that of Imamah as conceived of by the Shiah.

Leadership of the pious


There remain three places where the word imam is mentioned in the Quran. In one of these three places Allah speaks of the prayer of His exemplary worshippers: (They are) those who say: Our Lord, grant us the coolness of (our) eyes in our wives and children, and make us leaders of the pious. (al-Furqan : 74) This verse speaks of normal people who do not belong to a special class like the Ambiya, asking Allah to make them imams, in the sense of paragons of virtue, whose example others would strive to emulate. It is very obvious that it cannot refer to a group of "divinely appointed Imams", for the reason that the Imams elevation to the rank of Imamah is not on account of their prayers. Since their appointment, like that of the Ambiya, is supposedly divine in origin, it not attainable by any amount of exertion or devotion. It is interesting to note that this verse proved to be so unpalatable to certain of the early Shiah that they declared it to have been corrupted. The following narration appears in the tafsir of Ali ibn Ibrahim alQummi, the teacher of Abu Jafar al-Kulayni: It was read to Abu Abdillah (i.e. Imam Jafar as-Sadiq): And make us leaders of the pious. He said: "It would be an enormous thing for them to ask Allah to make them Imams of the pious." [The Shii concept of an Imam is intended, of course, since the Imams are appointed, and no one can become an Imam by praying for it.] Someone enquired: "How was it then revealed, O son of Rasulullah?" He replied: 'It was revealed:

...and make for us leaders from amongst the pious.18 This narration, documented in a tafsir of great repute amongst the early tafsirs of the Shiah, (a tafsir, in fact, that is described by its twentieth century editor as being "in reality the commentary of the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq,"19 and each one of whose narrators is regarded as reliable and credible by Shii hadith experts,20 which vouches for its authenticity by Shii standards) obviates the need for further discussion around the meaning of the word Imam as it appears in this ayah.

On the Day of Judgement


There remains one place in the Quran where the word Imam is used. It is in Surah al-Isra where Allah Taala says: The day when we will call all people by their leaders. (al-Isra : 71) The Imam spoken of in this ayah is recognised by the mufassirun of the Ahl as-Sunnah as either the book of deeds or the prophet to whose Ummah the person belonged. The first meaning is preferred by Ibn Kathir,21 who mentions in support of his preference the ayat where the word Imam was used in the sense of a book (see above). This meaning is further supported by the rest of the ayah: So those who are given their book in their right hand will read their books. The second meaning also finds ample support in the Quran. In another ayah Allah says: How will it be when We bring forth from every Ummah a witness, and bring you (O Muhammad) as a witness over these? (an-Nisa:41) From the way in which the position of the Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam is compared to the position of the "witnesses" of the other Ummahs we can only conclude that the reference is to the Ambiya. It therefore follows that those Ummahs will be called by the names of their Ambiya. Calling the Ummahs of the past by the names of the Ambiya who were sent to them is further a common thing in both the Quran and the Sunnah. The Ad, for example, are commonly referred to as "the people of Hud", just like Banu Israil are called "the people of Musa". Identifying the Imam mentioned in the ayah under discussion with the Ambiya is therefore warranted by both the Quran and the Sunnah. As for the claim of the Shiah that it refers to the Twelve Imams,22 this claim not only lacks Quranic support, it also curtails the general scope of the ayah. The lack of Quranic support is evident from the above discussion on the usage of the word Imam in the Quran. The restriction of the general scope of the ayah arises from the chronological disparity between the times when the Twelve Imams lived, and the periods during which previous Ummahs flourished. If we say that all Ummahs will be called by the names of the Twelve Imams, then what about the Ummahs that existed before them? By whose name will they be called? After all, the ayah says that all people will be called by their leaders. In addition, when for argument's sake we do assume that the reference is to the the Twelve Imams, we

are left with a somewhat incongruous situation. Sayyiduna Ali, the first of the Twelve Imams, died in the year 40. His son Sayyiduna Hasan died nine years later, in 49. If Sayyiduna Ali is the Imam for the people of his time, Sayyiduna Hasan is left with only those people who were born during his nine years. All the other people of his time who were alive during his father's time will form part of his father's group, and not his. The tenure of the 3rd Imam lasted for 22 years; the 4th for 34 years; the 5th for 19 years; the 6th for 34 years; the 7th for 35 years; the 8th for 20 years; the 9th for 17 years; the 10th for 34 years; and the 11th for only 6 years. Suddenly, with the 12th Imam, the Awaited Mahdi, we have a tenure of Imamah that has been running for over 1200 years. The group that will supposedly be called by the name of the 11th Imam, for example, will only include people that were born during his Imamah that ran from 254 up to 260, while the numbers of those who will be called by the name of the 12th Imam will be practically incalculable. Compare this incongruous scenario with the much more orderly and Quranic system of having the various Ummahs called by the names of their Ambiya on the Day of Qiyamah, and the absurdity of using the 71st ayah of Surah al-Isra to substantiate the doctrine of Imamah as conceived of by the Shiah will be fully exposed. There can be no question that the word Imam in this ayah does not refer to the Twelve Imams.

SUMMARY
We have discussed here each and every place in the Quran where the word Imam and its plural Aimmah were used in the Quran. It was demonstrated how Allah Taala used this word to refer variously to a book (thrice) the Champions of Kufr (twice) a road (once) the leaders of the Israelites the leaders of the Pious the Prophets or the Book Any attempt by the Shiah to identify their idiosyncratic notion of Imamah with the Imamah of the Quran is totally incongruous. The closest they could come to it would be to draw a similarity between their own Imamah and the leadership of the Israelites. However, such a similarity is immediately rejected when one considers that this leadership of the Israelites is clearly identified in the Quran with the Ambiya of Bani Israil. The Quran provides no grounds whatsoever to identify this leadership of the Israelites with anyone but the Ambiya. It is not uncommon to find the Shiah quoting verses such as the 5th verse of Surah al-Qasas to substantiate their belief of Imamah. If they only took the trouble of reading the verse in its proper context, without adding to it the excrescences of their own theology, they

will see just how far fetched their identification of Quranic Imamah with Shii Imamah really is. In alQasas:5 for example, the reference is clearly to Musa and his people. Just how, one wonders, is that verse extended to Ali ibn Abi Talib and eleven persons from his progeny? The attempt to draw a comparison between the Quranic Leadership of the Pious and the Imamah of the Shiah is similarly fraught with problems. It has been seen above how this form of leadership is a favour sought from Allah by His ideal servants. The Imamah of the Shiah of the Shiah, on the other hand, is like Nubuwwah, divinely granted, and cannot be aspired to by any person. The utter lack of harmony between this form of leadership and Shii Imamah is nowhere more clearly brought to light than in the authentically narrated saying of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq which points at the corruption of the text of the Quran at the hands of the Sahabah radiyallahu anhum as the reason for the disparity. The only other Quranic meaning of the word Imam left to the Shiah is the one which refers to the Day of Qiyamah, when nations will be called by their "Imams". Is it possible that the word "Imam" here could be referring to the Shii concept of Imamah? Unfortunately for the Shiah, once again that is not possible. It is not possible for two reasons: Firstly, because a holistic reading of the immediately following verses, as well as of other verses of the Quran point unmistakably to the fact that the Imamah spoken of here refers either to the Ambiya, by whose names nations are called not only in the Hereafter, but in the Quran and Sunnah too, or to their books of deeds by which they will be called to account. Secondly, because identifying the verse with the Shii concept of Imamah leads to a very problematic distribution of nations for the various Imams.

In conclusion, in the usage of the word "Imam" in the Quran there is nothing whatsoever to support the belief of Imamah as conceived of by the Shiah.

___________________________
REFERENCES 1. Asl ash-Shiah wa-Usuluha p. 58 (Mussasat al-Alami, Beirut) 2. al-Kafi vol. 8 (Rawdat al-Kafi) p. 167 (Dar al-Adwa, Beirut, 1992) 3. Risalat al-Itiqad pp. 111-114, quoted by al-Majlisi: Bihar al-Anwar vol. 27 p. 62 (Dar al-Kutub alIslamiyyah, Tehran, 1387) 4. al-Masail, quoted in Bihar al-Anwar vol. 8 p. 366

5. Talkhis ash-Shafi vol. 4 p. 131 (Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah, Qum, 3rd ed. 1394) 6. al-Alfayn p. 3 (al-Maktabah al-Haydariyyah, Najaf, 3rd ed. 1388) 7. al-Jami lish-Sharai p. 371 (Muassasat Sayyid ash-Shuhada al-Ilmiyyah, Qum, 1405) 8. Tahrir al-Wasilah vol. 2 p. 72 (Muassasat Ismailiyan, Qum 1408) 9. Asl ash-Shiah wa-Usuluha pp. 58-59 10. al-Anwar al-Lamiah Sharh az-Ziyarat al-Jamiah p. 176 (Muassasat al-Bithah, Mashhad, 1st ed. 1457) 11. Bihar al-Anwar vol. 26 pp. 194-200 12. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 267-318 13. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 319-332 14. ibid. vol. 27 pp. 29-31 15. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 109-107 16. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 117-132 17. al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah p. 52 (Ministry of Guidance, Iran. ) 18.Tafsir (Ali ibn Ibrahim) al-Qummi vol.1 p. 10 (ed. Sayyid Tayyib al-Musawi, 2nd edition, Kitabfarosh Allameh, Qum 1968) 19.ibid., editor's introduction. 20.Abu Talib at-Tajlil at-Tabrizi: Mujam ath-Thiqat p. 224 (Muassasat an-Nashr al-Islami, Qum 1404AH). In this book the author has compiled a list of all reliable hadith narrators of the Shiah. One of his sources is the tafsir of al-Qummi. In the third chapter of this book he gives a list of the narrators upon whom al-Qummi has relied in narrating the material contained in his tafsir, quoting al-Qummi's statement in the introduction to his book, that "we will mention and inform about that which reached us, which our mentors and reliable narrators have narrated". He then quotes the author of Wasail ash-Shiah who states that "Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi has testified that his tafsir is narrated from the Imams by reliable narrators." (Wasail vol. 3 p. 524) 21.Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 3 p. 52 (Maktabah Dar at-Turath, Cairo n.d.) 22.In the first volume of al-Kafi this ayah is used thrice in relation to the Imams.

Ya Allah or Ya Ali, Ya Hussain?


by Muhammad Alkhider

The Sunnies do like members of the Prophets family. As such, they say it is incumbent upon every Muslim man or woman to love them. However, the Sunnies do resent the act of appealing for assistance from the members of the Prophets Household that is commonly perpetrated by the Shiite Adherents. For they seek help especially from AlHussein and others. How can a reasoning person seek assistance in meeting his requirements and obtaining his needs from creatures other than their Creator, God Almighty? Yet such a person repeats the following words of God in his prayer (salat) at least seventeen times a day: Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Chapter I (Surat Al-Fatiha) Amazingly, you see such people who seek help from other than God Almighty Asking for help: O Hussein! O Ali! O Mahdi! And perhaps: O Abbas! They appeal for help from the aforementioned relatives of the Prophet (PBUH) to assist them obtain their needs, or to help them remove lessen whatever overburdens them. As far as the Sunni Muslims are concerned, when they are in distress, they only call : O Allah! They do turn to Him only in their quest for help as they appeal for aid from Him only to remove their agony. They do that with clear perception that supplication to the Only One God is one of the aspects of worship as the Messenger of God (Peace be upon him) prescribed for them. In this respect, supplication to other than Allah the Omniscient is ipso facto worshipping other than Him. Indeed the Shiite adherents do love excessively members of the Prophetic Household without observing the fact that they are mere humans and not gods. It should be borne in mind that mankind, can neither inflict

anybody with harm nor confer benefit to him whatever their ranks and prestige may be in the sight of God Almighty. For Only God Almighty can cause harm or bring benefit to us. Some of the Shiite accounts have dedicated duties to each one of their Imams as regards conferring of benefits and infliction of harm to people. They thus said: As far as Ali bin Al-Hussein is concerned, his name shall be invoked to save people from tyrannical kings as well as from the evil whispering of the Devil. Muhammad bin Ali and Jaafar bin Muhammad, will be responsible for saving the Shiite adherents from the Hell-Fire on the Day of Judgment, and to guide people to the true way of worshipping Allah the Omnipotent and obeying His commandments. Musa bin Jaafar, was assigned the duty of mediation to God Almighty for those who seek good health from Him. Whereas the duty assigned to Ali bin Musa was to mediate to God Almighty for people who seek safety when navigating or sailing in the Sea and those who travel on the mainland. As regards Muhammad bin Ali, through him sustenance will be proceeding from God Almighty. While through Ali bin Muhammads name, the optional acts of devotion, nice treatment of brothers toward each other, and all the other acts of obedience and worship of Allah Almighty will be accepted. Regarding Al-Hassan bin Ali, his duty and obligation is to serve the Shiite adherents in the hereafter. Whereas the responsibility of the Custodian of Time, is to rescue the people who are about to be stabbed to death, if they appeal for his assistance. There then came the author of the book entitled: Bihar Al-Anwar [Seas of the Lights]. He illustrated in his book the supplication to be said earnestly when appealing for the aid of the Imams within the scope of their duties and obligations as elaborated above. In this respect, Al-Majlisi, one of the prominent Shiite Scholars, concluded that the abovementioned cults are the greatest medicine and means of cure for whosoever intercedes with them. As such, the Shiite Scholars prescribed supplications (Adiyah), with regard to the aforementioned pattern of placing their hope in their Imams [religious leaders] and seeking their assistance. Hence, they do turn to their Imams for aid when in distress and invoke their names respectively. This is done in response to their awaited Imams narrative, in the following text: O pillars of the countries, gates of faith, and granters of donations, it is decreed that by you the distressed and destitute will be saved. Nothing can happen without you being a reason and an obvious way towards its occurrence. There is neither deliverance nor resort from fear except by taking shelter in you, and there is no way we can dispense with you O eyes of God that never relent (Bihar Al-Anwar, 37/94)

I am well aware that the Shiite Adherents do not exalt their Imams to the rank of divinity

and claim they are gods. Besides, they regard it as a big enormity. However, we cannot conceal the reality that, while they do not deify their Imams, they, in the long run bestow lavishly upon them distinctive attributes of divinity in one way or the other. Thus invoking God Almighty by mentioning their names, has become a means by which their prayers and supplications are accepted to God Almighty according to their belief. Whereas God Almighty says in the Holy Quraan: The most beautiful names belong to Allah: so call on Him by them (7: 180) However, belief in their religious leadership (Imamah) has become a precondition of getting the acts of devotion of the Shiite Adherents accepted by God Almighty. Whereas in Islam, the criterion by which our acts of devotion are accepted or rejected, is the Unity of Allah Almighty (Tawheedullah) and sincerity to Him. How often do you hear some of the Shiite Adherents repeat: O Ali provide supplies! O Hussein, rescue us! While others abide by the grave of Al-Imam Ridha, crying and rubbing along his tomb, kissing it and either invoke his name or swear their fealty thereat. Then after that he says unashamedly: I do not worship him; i,e. any of the aforementioned Imams. This fact is embodied in their dictum: Call upon Ali, the revealer of wonders. When you ask such people: Do you worship Ali? They categorically deny it. Whereas they call upon his name appealing for aid from him in obtaining their most demanding needs. What a double standard! Suppose, we submit to the fake belief that their Imams are regarded as abode for those in need, sanctuary for the sorrowful ones, peace for the grieved and an epicenter of the praying masses. This belief being due to the fact that supplications cannot be accepted to God Almighty except by mentioning their (Imams) names. Therefore, what is the difference between this false proposition and the claim of the polytheists (Mushrikoona) regarding their idols? Yes, there is a difference. The polytheists in times of adversity used to invoke and supplicate to Allah Almighty in a bid for rescue. God says in the Holy Quran: Now if they embark on a boat, they call on Allah, making their devotion sincerely (and exclusively) to Him. But when He has delivered them safely to (dry) land, behold, they give a share (of their worship to others)! (29: 65) As regards the Shiite Adherents, they associate partners with God Almighty in both happiness and adversity by invoking the names of their Imams in order to rescue them. In addition to that, they supplicate to God, the Exalted in Might, through the names of their Imams. Moreover, they claim blatantly that God Almighty cannot remove affliction from any person save by praying to Him taking in consideration the names of their Imams. God

forbid! In fact, the audacity and boldness of the originators of this baseless creed, have both prompted them to mention in one of their reliable sources of Hadith (Prophetic traditions), in one of its sections, the following baseless claim: Supplications of all the prophets and messengers of God Almighty were accepted to Him by solicitation and mediation of the Imams (May peace and blessings of God be upon them all.) (Bihar Al-Anwar 26/319 334) Narratives in this chapter are numerous and elaborate and are referred to in many reliable Shiite Sources. One of them says: It was reported that Imam Ridha [on him be peace] said: When prophet Noah (Peace be upon him) was about to drown in the flooding waters, he invoked God Almighty by our names. Hence God Almighty came to his rescue. When Prophet Ibrahim (Peace be upon him) was thrown into the scorching fire, he prayed to God through our names, and God Almighty ordered the fire to be cool and a means of safety for him [Ibrahim]. When prophet Musa (Peace be upon him) struck the Sea with his rod in quest of a path, he invoked God with respect to our names and God made the sea dry out. Finally when the Jews plotted to kill Isa [Jesus] (Peace be upon him), he supplicated to God by mentioning our names and was rescued from death. God eventually raised him up. (Wasail As-Sheea 4/1143) This, in brief is the claim of the Shiite Believers. However, Allah Almighty says in the Holy Quran: The most beautiful names belong to Allah; so call on Him by them (7: 180) God Almighty did not say: So call on Him by the names of the Imams, their shrines, sights or ranks. However, God Almighty says in the Holy Quran: And your Lord says: Call on Me, I will answer your (prayer.) (40: 60) If the precondition of getting our prayers accepted to God Almighty were to supplicate to Him through the names of the Imams, He would have said: Call on Me by the names of the Imams, I will answer your prayer. In fact, the false prerequisite that is stipulated in the unauthenticated Shiite Belief is among the factors that lead to the rejection of our prayers by God Almighty. For, sincerity in prayer and supplication, is one of the conditions that lead to the acceptance of our entire acts of worship and devotion to Allah Almighty. God, the Most High says in the Holy Quran: Call ye, then, upon Allah with sincere devotion to Him, even though the Unbelievers may detest it. (40: 14) God Almighty also says: and call upon Him, making your devotion sincere as in

His Sight. (7: 29) In fact, those Imams are humans like us; they cannot confer benefit or inflict harm on themselves. God Almighty says in the Holy Quran: Verily those whom ye call upon besides Allah are servants like unto you. Call upon them, and let them listen to your prayers, if ye are (indeed) truthful! (7: 194) Allah Almighty further says: Yet have they taken, besides Him, gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control Death nor Life nor Resurrection. (25: 03) Allah Almighty did not distinguish in His worship, between His ordinary servants and saintly men or angels closest to Him or prophets who were sent. All in His worship are equal as His servants and creatures. God Almighty says in the Holy Quran: Christ disdaineth not to serve and worship Allah, nor do the angels, those nearest (to Allah). (4: 172) It should be borne in mind that nurturing young children and inculcating in their minds the falsely claimed obligation of supplicating to God Almighty confidentially and intimately, through the names of the Imams, and by abiding by their graves, is without doubt, a notorious way of rearing children. For, to inculcate in them the trend of resorting to humans rather than seeking refuge with Allah Almighty, makes them grow up with the same ideology which they will easily pass over to their children and grand children alike in the long ran. Perhaps, the child may forget the remembrance of Allah Almighty for the fact that remembrance of the Imams is always inevitably present in his heart and fresh on his tongue, whenever he intends to pray or supplicate to God the Holy One. What a grave sin! Sadly, the nature of the Shiite Sites and Shrines testify to the yield of bitter fruits from such legends and misguiding superstitions! However, the claim that the supplications of the messengers were accepted by invoking the names of the Shiite Imams is wrong, baseless and an indication of foolishness. For, those Imams were non-existent during the prophets era. In addition, it is a claim that leads to polytheism [Shirk] and ascribing of partners to God Almighty. Especially when the names of the Imams are assumed as the key-factor for acceptance of our prayers and a major prerequisite for getting our invocations answered by God Almighty. This is similar to the unfounded claim of the polytheists who used to say that their idols drew them nearer to God Almighty. It is crystal-clear as stated in the Holy Quran that the mighty messengers of God used to invoke and supplicate to Allah, the Exalted in Might, by mentioning His name and

attributes that confirm His Unity. Never did they pray to Him by mentioning the names of the Shiite Imams. Allah Almighty says in the Holy Quran regarding prophet Yunus [Jonah] (Peace be upon him): but he cried through the depths of darkness: There is no god but Thou: Glory to Thee: I was indeed wrong. (21: 87) Another proof to the aforementioned fact are the words of repentance that Allah Almighty revealed to Adam (Peace be upon him): They said: Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: if thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall certainly be lost. (07: 23)

The Myth of the Shii Mahdi


by Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi

The 15th of Shabaan is a very significant date, both to the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah. The Shiah, however, have their own reason for ascribing significance to this night. To them it is the night of the birth of their twelfth Imam, the Hidden Mahdi. Who is this Mahdi whose return to this world is so eagerly awaited by the Shiah, and belief in whose existence in occultation forms such a integral aspect of the Shii psyche? Before an adequate answer to this question may be given, there is a need to understand certain aspects concerning the Shii doctrine of Imamah.

Background
The cornerstone of the Shii faith is the belief that the spiritual and temporal leadership of this Ummah after the demise of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam is vested in the Imam, who is appointed, like the Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam himself, by Allah, and who enjoys all the distinctions and privileges of the Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam. However, they believe that Imamah, unlike Nubuwwah, can never come to an end. In this regard there is a well-known Shii hadith which says that the world cannot exist without an Imam, and another which goes that if the earth were to be without an Imam for a single day it would sink. Thus, when it came to pass that the first of those whom they regard as their Imams Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu anhu left this world, a problem arose. Some of those who

regarded themselves as his followers claimed that he did not in fact die, but that he will return to establish justice. Others said that he was succeeded as Imam by his son Hasan, who was in turn succeeded by his brother Husayn. When Husayn died there were some who claimed to follow their other brother Muhammad (known as Ibn al-Hanafiyyah) as their Imam. When he died his followers claimed that he was in reality alive, and that he will return in due time. Others amongst the Shiah took Sayyiduna Husayns son, Ali, surnamed Zayn al-Abidin, as their Imam, and upon his death transferred their loyalties to his son, Muhammad al-Baqir. When al-Baqir died there were once again elements from amongst the Shiah who denied his death and claimed that he would return one day, while others took his son Jafar asSadiq as their Imam. When he died there was mass confusion amongst the Shiah: each of his sons Ismail, Abdullah, Muhammad, Zakariyya, Ishaq and Musa was claimed by various groups amongst the Shiah to be their Imam. In addition to them there was a group who believed that Jafar did not really die, and that he would return one day. More or less the same thing happened at the death of his son Musa. Some of the Shiah denied his death, believing that he will return, and others decided to take as their new Imam one of his sons. Some of these chose his son Ahmad, while others chose his other son Ali ar-Rida. After him they took as their Imam his son Muhammad al-Jawwad (or at-Taqi), and after him his son Ali al-Hadi (or an-Naqi). At the death of Ali al-Hadi they looked upon his son Hasan al-Askari as their new and 11th Imam.

The death of Hasan al-Askari


The above is a very brief synopsis of a tumultuous and confusing history a history from which a dedicated researcher might extract some very revealing facts about the development of Shiism. However, that is not our concern at this moment. We have now arrived at the year 254 AH, the time when a major section of the Shiah accepted as their Imam the 22-year old Hasan, son of Ali al-Hadi, and 10th lineal descendant of Sayyiduna Ali and Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu anhuma. Six years later, in 260 AH, Hasan al-Askari, at the very

young age of 28, is lying on his deathbed, but unlike any of his forefathers he leaves no offspring, no one to whom the Shiah might appropriate as their new Imam. The Shiah who had been regarding Hasan al-Askari as their Imam were thrown into mass disarray. Does this mean the end of the Imamah? The end of the Imamah would mean the end of Shiism. Were they prepared for that? The confusion that reigned amongst the Shiah after the death of Hasan al-Askari is reflected by the Shii writer Hasan ibn Musa an-Nawbakhti, who counts the emergence of altogether 14 sects amongst the followers of Hasan al-Askari, each one with a different view on the future of the Imamah and the identity of the next Imam. It must be noted that an-Nawbakhti was alive at the time all of this was taking place. Another Shii writer, Sad ibn Abdullah al-Qummi, who also lived during the same time, counts 15 sects, and a century later the historian al-Masudi enumerates altogether 20 separate sects.

Trends
There were four major trends amongst these various sects: (1) There were those who accepted the death of Hasan al-Askari as a fact, and accepted also the fact that he left no offspring. To them Imamah had thus come to an end, just like Nubuwwah came to an end with the death of Rasulullah r . However, there were some amongst them who kept hoping for the advent of a new Imam. (2) The second trend was one to which the student of the history of succession to the Imamah would be much more used to. This was the tendency to deny the death of Hasan al-Askari, and to claim that he would return in the future to establish justice upon earth. We have seen this tendency emerge amongst the Shiah at more than one critical juncture in the history of the Imamah of the Shiah; it is therefore only logical to expect it to resurface at a moment as critical as the death of Hasan al-Askari. (3) The third trend was to extend the chain of Imamah to Hasans brother Jafar. (4) The fourth trend was the claim that Hasan al-Askari did in fact have a son. It is the fourth trend which ultimately became the view of the dominant

group in Shiism.

The missing son


This trend was spearheaded by persons who had set themselves up as the representatives of the Imam, and who were in control of a network covering various parts of the Islamic empire a network for the purpose of collecting money in the name of the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt. All followers of the Imams were obliged to pay one fifth of their income to the representatives of the Imams. (This is a practice which continues up to today.) At the head of this network was a man called Uthman ibn Said al-Amri. His manner of resolving the predicament was unique: Hasan al-Askari was dead, he admitted, but he was not childless. He had a 4-year old son, Muhammad, with whom no one but he Uthman ibn Said could have contact. And from that point onwards he would act as the representative (wakeel) of the Hidden Imam and collect money in his name. To the fact that Hasan al-Askaris own family were completely ignorant of the existence of any child of his, and that his estate had been divided between his brother Jafar and his mother, Uthman ibn Said and his ilk responded by denouncing Jafar as al-Kadhdhab (the Liar). In due time a fantastic story was brought into circulation about the union between Hasan al-Askari and a Roman slave-girl, who is variously named as Narjis, Sawsan or Mulaykah. She is mentioned as having been the daughter of Yusha (Joshua), the Roman emperor, who is a direct descendant of the apostle Simon Peter. But history shows that there never was a Roman emperor of that name. The Roman emperor of the time was Basil I, and neither he nor any other emperor is known to have descended from Peter. The story goes on to tell of her capture by the Muslim army, how she eventually came to be sold to Hasan al-Askari, and of her supernatural pregnancy and the secret birth of the son of whom no one aside from Uthman ibn Said and his clique knew anything. Everything about the child is enveloped in a thick and impenetrable cloud of mystery.

The four representatives


Uthman ibn Said remained the representative of the Hidden Imam for a number of

years. In all that time he was the only link the Shiah had with their Imam. During that time he supplied the Shii community with tawqiat, or written communications, which he claimed was written to them by the Hidden Imam. Many of these communications, which are stilpreserved in books like at-Tusis Kitab al-Ghaybah, had to do with denouncing other claimants to the position of representatives, who had come to realise exactly how lucrative a position Uthman ibn Said had created for himself. The Shii literature dealing with Uthman ibn Saids tenure as representative is replete with references to money collected from the Shii public. When Uthman ibn Said died, his son Abu Jafar Muhammad produced a written communication from the Hidden Imam in which he himself is appointed the second representative, a position which he held for about 50 years. He too, like his father, had to deal with several rival claimants to his position, but the tawqiat which he regularly produced to denounce them and reinforce his own position ensured the removal of such obstacles and the continuation of support from a credulous Shii public. He was followed in this position by Abul Qasim ibn Rawh an-Nawbakhti, a scion of the powerful and influential Nawbakhti family of Baghdad. Before succeeding Muhammad ibn Uthman, Abul Qasim an-Nawbakhti was his chief aide in the collection of the onefifth taxes from the Shiah. Like his two predecessors, he too had to deal with rival claimants, one of whom, Muhammad ibn Ali ash-Shalmaghani used to be an accomplice of his. He is reported in Abu Jafar at-Tusis book Kitab al-Ghaybah as having stated: We knew exactly what we were into with Abul Qasim ibn Rawh. We used to fight like dogs over this matter (of being representative). When Abul Qasim an-Nawbakhti died in 326 AH he bequethed the position of representative to Abul Hasan as-Samarri. Where the first three representatives were shrewd manipulators, Abul Hasan as-Samarri proved to be a more conscientous person. During his three years as representative there was a sudden drop in tawqiat. Upon his deathbed he was asked who his successor would be, and answered that Allah would Himself fulfil the matter. Could this perhaps be seen as a refusal on his part to perpetuate a hoax that has gone on for too long? He also produced a tawqi in which the Imam declares that from that day till the day of his reappearance he will never again be seen, and that anyone who claims to see him in that time is a liar. Thus, after more or less 70 years, the last door of contact with the Hidden Imam closed. The Shiah term this period, in which there was contact with their Hidden Imam through his representatives-cum-tax-collectors, the Lesser Occultation (al-Ghaybah as-Sughra), and the period from the death of the last representative onwards the Greater Occultation (al-Ghaybah al-Kubar). The Greater Occultation has already continued for over a thousand years.

Activities of the representatives


When one reads the classical literature of the Shiah in which the activities of the four representatives are outlined, one is struck by the constantly recurring theme of money. They are almost always mentioned in connection with receiving and collecting the Imams money his loyal Shii followers. There is a shocking lack of any activities of an academic or spiritual nature. Not a single one of the four is credited with having compiled any book, despite the fact that they were in exclusive communion with the last of the Imams, the sole repository of the legacy of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam. When we look at the major sources upon which the Shii faith is based, we find that most of them were written after the onset of the Greater Occultation. Those works, like al-Kafi, which was written during the latter decades of the Lesser Occultation, contain scarcely a reference to any of the four representatives as narrators from the Hidden Imam. Instead it is filled with thousands of reports which go back, via other channels, to the fifth and the sixth Imams. That is indeed strange, considering the fact that a man like Uthman ibn Said al-Amri is claimed to have been closely associated with the 10th, the 11th as well as the hidden 12th Imam, and also the fact that his son remained the Shii communitys solitary link to that Imam for half a century. Would it not have been better and more authoritative for an author like al-Kulayni to report the hadith of his Imams from the Hidden Imam via his representatives who lived in Baghdad at the same time as he rather than to trace it all back to the fifth and sixth Imams through a myriad of doubtful channels? But of course, he could not have done that, because the activities of those representatives did not have as much to do with authentically preserving the legacy of the Ahl al-Bayt as with the collection of wealth in their names. In light of the fact that the Shiah explain the necessity of Imamah in terms of the need for an infallible guide who serves as the repository of the legacy of Ahl al-Bayt, it appears extremely incongruous that this particular guide has left no sort of legacy of his own whereby the legacy of the Ahl al-Bayt can be known. Despite the fact that an infallible guide supposedly exists, it is upon fallible persons such as Muhammad ibn Yaqub alKulayni that the Shiah must depend for that legacy. The only bit of information that has come down to us regarding the Hidden Imams authentication of the hadith legacy of the Shiah is what is recorded by Aqa Muhammad Baqir Khwansari in his book Rawdat al-Jannat. He writes that al-Kulaynis book was

presented to the Hidden Imam who looked at it and declared, Hadha Kaafin liShiatina (This is enough for our Shiah). This is incidentally how the book received its name. A report such as this creates a huge problem. It appears to be a ratification of the contents of the book al-Kafi by the infallible Imam. Yet, 9 centuries later the Shii muhaddith, Mulla Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, would declare in his commentary on al-Kafi, named Mirat al-Uqul, that 9,485 out of the 16,121 narrations in al-Kafi are unreliable. What did Majlisi know that the infallible Imam was so unaware of that he would authenticate a book, 60% of whose contents would later be discovered to be unreliable?

Evaluation
The Iraqi Shii scholar, Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr, finds proof for the existence of the Hidden Mahdi in what he calls the experience of a community. The existence of the Hidden Imam, he postulates, was experienced by the Shii community as a whole in the written communications that the representatives used supplied them with. The crux of this argument lies in the fact that an individual experience might be doubted, but never that of experience of an entire community. However, the glaring flaw in this line of reasoning is that it very conveniently overlooks the part of the representatives as the individual go-betweens. The community never had the privilege of seeing or meeting the person they believed to be the author of the tawqiat. Their experience was limited to receiving what the representatives produced. Even the argument of a consistent handwriting in all the various tawqiat is at best melancholy. There is no way one can get away from the fact that the existence of the Hidden Imam rests upon nothing other than acceptance of the words of the representatives. The activities of those representatives furthermore go a long way to show that they were much, much more inspired by the desire to possess than by pious sentiments of any kind. So when the Shiah commemorate the birth of their twelfth Imam on the 15th night of Shaban, or when they seek to apply ahadith in Sunni sources which speak of twelve khalifas to their twelve Imams, then let us ask them on what basis do they accept the existence of the twelfth one?

History bears witness to the existence of eleven persons in that specific line of descent, but when we come to the twelfth one, all we have is claims made by persons whose activities in the name of their Hidden Imam give us all the reason in the world to suspect their honesty and integrity. In Islam, issues of faith can never be based upon evidence of this kind.

Embassy Of The Islamic Republic Of Iran

In the name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful


In the last issue of Al-Rasheed an article entitled Abdullah lbn Saba: Founder of Shiism was published in which unfortunately some accusations were made against Shiism. The article, the author of which is not known, tries to, through some false accusations made against Shia Ulamahs, establish that the Jew Abdullah ibn Saba is the founder of Shiaism, and that Shiism is based on Judaism. While the truth is that the quoted phrase is tampered with in a way which reflects an understanding completely opposite to what the source reads. Shiism, with millions of followers throughout the world, and having a historical background of over 1400 years is based on Quran and Holy Hadiths by our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him). For example to prove the Caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Shiites have had recourse to some Quranic verses and hadiths of the Holy Prophet. Of course these hadiths, most of which are also accepted by Sunnism, have not been understood by the two denominations in the same way. It is regrettable that in an era when the Muslims need to more than ever unite against their fierce enemies; especially so amongst the two main schools of thought namely Sunnis and Shias; such disturbing accusations are spread out; not giving enough time and means to Shias and their beliefs. Below I have enlisted a number of books as sources for seekers of truth and followers of scientific and historic debates for their reference: 1. ABDULLAH IBN SABA AND OTHER MYTHS by Allamah Askari 2. THE ORIGINS AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF SHIA ISLAM by S.H.M Jafri) 3. SHlA by Allamah Tabatabai

4. Computeric software including BIHAR AL-ANWAR and RIJAL ALKASHI. A copy of these books is available in the Embassys library. I do not know however of the existence of other copies elsewhere in the country. Those interested are hereby invited to make use of our library to find out for themselves the scientific and logical way in which the said unscientific accusations have been responded. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the following number to arrange for such facilities. OFFICE TEL: (012) 342 8880/1 FAX NO: (012) 342 4790 M.H. BORJIAN YAZDI CULTURAL ATTACHE I 6 AUG 1999

RESPONSE
Mr. M.H. Borjian Yazdi Cultural Attach Iranian Embassy Pretoria

Sir

Receipt has been taken of your letter dated 15 August 1999, in which you voiced dissatisfaction with the article Abdullah ibn Saba: The Founder of Shiism. Your concern as the diplomatic representatives of Iran over an article of this nature is understood. Understood too, are the sentiments you express where you say that it is regrettable that in an era when the Muslims need to more than ever united against their fierce enemies; especially so amongst the two main schools of thought namely Sunnis and Shias; such disturbing accusations are spread out not

giving enough time and means to Shias and their beliefs.

Sunnism & Shiism However, as much as one would want to gloss over the differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah, the fact of the matter is that the differences do exist, and that by their very nature they make each groups claim to the Truth an exclusive one. It is precisely for this reason that the propagation of Shiism has continued unabatedly in Sunni societies, more often than not with funding from, and the sanction of, Iran. To the best of our knowledge your government has never expressed the least reservation over the huge amount of Shii propagationist literature flowing to Sunni communities out of Iran, nor about the activities of missionaries actively engaged in the propagation of Shiism amongst Sunnis, with financial backing from Iranian foundations. This has given rise to a situation where the Ahl as-Sunnah have become so alarmed by the rate of proselytising in their communities that calls of people like yourself for Muslim unity in the face of the fierce enemies of Islam have come to be seen as a smokescreening device intended to create the diversion under cover of which Shii missionaries will penetrate into Sunni societies. If this assertion could once upon a time be dismissed as an unfounded assumption, it has now found a basis for itself in two decades of bitter experience, in South Africa and elsewhere. It is not intended here to deny you the right to propagate your beliefs, since the constitution of our country upholds freedom of belief. Our intention is to bring it to your notice that when the Shiah have opted to exercise their right to propagate their faith, they should not be surprised or express regret at the inevitable consequences. When Iran declared Ithna Ashari Shiism the state religion, it set itself up as the champion of Shiism. (Incidentally this is also the reason why you, as the cultural attach of your country, took exception to the article Abdullah ibn Saba: The Founder of Shiism.) Therefore it is fully comprehensible to us why Iran will not permit Sunni missionary groups to operate on Iranian soil. But we become completely mystified when we see the double standards of Iran itself sending missionaries, or acquiescing to the funding and sending of missionaries to communities such as ours who are not in a position to defend its faith through political or legal power.

Crux of the issue This issue does not revolve simply around Ibn Saba. It goes much further than that. It has to do in the first instance with each groups claim to being the true form of Islam, and by logical extension, with the way in which each group accounts for the existence of the other.

The Shiah and the Ahl as-Sunnah both claim that their form of Islam is the true one. This assertion is probably beyond contention from either side. The real problem lies in the implication of these respective claims. If A lays claim to the truth, it is simultaneously claiming that the claim of B is false, and vice versa. We know that this perspective of the relationship between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah is an extremely sensitive one, but it is a question that must be addressed if we are to have an appreciation of all the various dimensions to this issue. Shiism makes no secret of the fact that it regards the faith and practice of the Ahl as-Sunnah as the corruption of Islam by the Companions of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam) primarily, and the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties secondarily. References to support this contention abound in the books of the Shiah, some of which are now quoted here: God knows what misfortunes Islam has suffered from its inception down to the present at the hands of these evil ulama! Abu Hurayra was one of the fuqaha, but God knows what judgements he falsified for Muawiyah and others like him, and what damage he inflicted upon Islam. (Ayatullah Khomeini, Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini, p. 114, translated and annotated by Hamid Algar) We conclude here that the Shiah are the true followers of the Prophetic Sunnah... Whereas the Ahl as-Sunnah have expressly contradicted the Prophetic Sunnah. (Muhammad Tijani Samawi, The Shiah: The Real Followers of the Sunnah p. 314, Ansariyan Publications, Qum 1995) It is self evident that the Khulafa ar-Rashidun (except Imam Ali) have practised ijtihad with their opinions against the Prophetic Sunnah. (ibid. p. 315) The religion was exploited for the political needs. Both the Omayyids and the Abbasids deepened and strengthened sectarian and religious prejudices among the Muslims in order to use them for their own purposes. They exaggerated and amplified the idea of seniority of persons other than Ali in the matter of the Caliphate. In these efforts of theirs, they were helped by those Ulema (scholars) who cared much for the worldly positions. The rulers spent money on such scholars who in turn reported fabricated Traditions suitable to the rulers, especially during the Omayyid period, as we have already said. People follow the religion of their kings. They also said what their rulers did. Then came those who were not aware of the real situation. saw these fabricated traditions and made-to-order injunctions and took them for true ones. They further passed them on in their books. Those who came later found these Traditions in the books attributed to great personalities which made them accept them as true. Thus these traditions got disseminated between the people. Everyone read them, talked about them in their gatherings and discussed them in their classes and schools. In this time passed on and such ideas got currency amongst the common masses so much so that those who knew the truth were swept away by the pressure of public opinion and these false ideas, which it is proper to discuss, took the form of a regular creed. (Hasan ul-Amine, Shorter Shiite Encyclopaedia, pp. 78-79, Ansariyan Publications, Qum, 1997) (For further reference, see the books an-Nass wal-Ijtihad by Abd al-Husayn Sharaf ad-

Deen, and Maalim al-Madrasatayn by Murtada al-Askari.)

We hope that notice will have been taken here of the fact that the quoted sources were published in Iran within the last five years. If the Shiah thus have a freedom of using the printed word for disseminating their own opinion about the origin of Sunni faith and practice, we are baffled as to why umbrage should be taken when the Ahl as-Sunnah express their honest opinion about the origins of Shiism. If Iranian sensors find nothing objectionable in literature such as the quoted sources, why should Sunnis be expected to practice reservation? And, if such inflammatory statements do not give you, the Shiah, reason to regret that in an era when the Muslims need to more than ever unite against their fierce enemies; especially so amongst the two main schools of thought namely Sunnis and Shias; such disturbing accusations are spread out, why are we, the Ahl as-Sunnah, being told that making accusations like this spells disaster for Muslim unity? Surely the authors of the quoted sources were also not giving enough time and means to Sunnis and their beliefs. For as long as the Shiah will persist to view Muslim unity as a one-way street in which they alone have the exclusive right to fling the stones and hurl the sticks, it will remain the mirage it presently is. If, on the other hand, it is argued that these are things that are historically verifiable, we would submit that if the act of verifying the truth is supposed to have a preconceived result, it is a meaningless exercise. On the other hand, if it is going to be a completely objective process, it will inevitably threaten the Muslim unity whose destruction you fear. But let us, for the sake of demonstration, engage in just one such exercise.

Abdullah ibn Saba Let us discuss, first of all, the historical existence, and thereafter, the role of Ibn Saba, in order to ascertain whether the Sunni position that he was the founder of conventional Shiism is based on scientific research, or unfounded accusations.

The existence of Ibn Saba Murtada al-Askaris entire argument for denying Ibn Sabas historicity rests upon the fact that Ibn Jarir at-Tabaris Tarikh, as the major reference for historical material on Ibn Saba, uses Sayf ibn Umar atTamimi as his sole source for describing the character and exploits of Ibn Saba. He states on page 20:

All historians agree that the story [of Ibn Saba] was told first of all by Saif. He then gives a list of 22 historians, all of whom have relied, directly or indirectly, upon the information supplied by Sayf, and remarks: The above list gives evidence to the fact that the story of Abdullah Bin Saba has been started by Saif and cited primarily from Tabari. (Murtada al-Askari, Abdullah ibn Saba and Other Myths, Part One, p. 21, second edition, published by A Group of Muslim Brothers, Tehran 1981) This is exactly the Achilles heel of al-Askaris research. He hasintentionally or unintentionally displayed myopic scholarship by asserting that Sayf ibn Umar is the only source for the existence of Ibn Saba. A mere look at the biography of Sayf in Ibn Hajar al-Asqalanis Lisan al-Mizan (vol. 4 p. 22 of the edition published by Dar Ihya at-Turath al-Arabi, and edited by Muhammad Abd ar-Rahman alMarashli) would have revealed to him just how erroneous his assertion is. The sources from which Ibn Hajar has drawn, such as the 70 volume Tarikh Madinat Dimashq by Ibn Asakir, and the Musnad by Abu Yala al-Mawsili have been published, and by means of their chains of narration that pass through authorities other than Sayf ibn Umar, eloquently testify to the intellectual deception practiced by al-Askari. (See Ibn Asakir, Tarikh Madinat Dimashq vol. 29 pp. 3-10, where he has filled seven pages with information on Ibn Saba.) Al-Askari did in fact make mention of the history of Ibn Asakir in his survey of the historical sources that mention Ibn Saba. However, in his eagerness to create the (false) perception that all the historical threads link up to Sayf ibn Umar, he committed the deception of singling out one of the twelve independent accounts as being derived by Ibn Asakir through Sayf, and making as if the remaining 11 reports do not exist. (See Abdullah ibn Saba and Other Myths, p. 47) The fact is that 10 of the remaining 11 reports pass through authorities other than Sayf, but that is a fact that al-Askari conveniently chose to overlook. The term intellectual deception might seem a bit too harsh a description for a researcher who was probably not informed about that wealth of information. But it appears very justified when it is considered that the existence of Ibn Saba is attested to in the legacy of the Shiah themselves, and by the Imams of the Shiah themselves. If it could be pleaded that al-Askari was ignorant of the historical information documented by Ibn Asakir and others, there is no way that same plea could ever be accepted in terms of the legacy of the Shiah. After all, a learned researcher who spent so much time and effort fine-combing the voluminous works of history is definitely expected to encompass the contents of his own legacy first. In his survey of historical works, which he purports to be exhaustive, not a single mention has been made of the literature of the Shiah. Not a single classical Shii source features on the chart he gives on page 50. The fact is that the existence of Ibn Saba is attested to in almost every Shii biographical work. Dr. Sadi al-Hashimi in his book Ibn Saba: Haqiqah La Khayal (pp. 25-28, Maktabat ad-Dar, Madina 1406) has listed over 20 Shii sources that testify to the existence of Ibn Saba. We might mention by way of example just one of those works. Incidentally the book happens to be one of the books contained in the list you mentioned in your letter. The only difference is that your copy is computerised, while ours is a printed book. The book we refer to is Ikhtiyar Marifat ar-Rijal, which is Abu Jafar at-Tusis

recension of Abu Amr al-Kashshis 4th century biographical dictionary of Shii hadith narrators. In this book the entry for Ibn Saba spans a full two pages (323-324), and consists of five separate reports, their numbers running from 170 to 174. Below we give you a list of the Imams with whom these five reports originate: 170: Imam Muhammad al-Baqir 171: Imam Jafar as-Sadiq 172: Imam Jafar as-Sadiq 173: Imam Zayn al-Abidin 174: Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (See Ikhtiyar Marifat ar-Rijal, pp. 323-324, ed. as-Sayyid Mahdi ar-Rijali, published by Muassasat Al al-Bayt, Qum, 1404) The reporters of these narrations are all of the Shiah. Therefore, if we were to apply al-Askaris hypothesis to these reports documented by al-Kashshi, we would have to conclude that Sayf ibn Umar even succeeded in pulling wool over the eyes of these venerable Imams by making them believe that Abdullah ibn Saba, who is supposed to be a figment of his own imagination, actually existed. I think you will agree that such a conclusion is highly absurd. It wouldnt take a genius to figure that the source of that absurdity is al-Askaris hypothesis, that the story of Abdullah Bin Saba has been started by Saif and cited primarily from Tabari. Another book you have listed iThe Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam by S.H.M. Jafri. Please be informed that Jafri does not make any definitive conclusions about Ibn Saba. His words are: Whether Abd Allah bin Saba, to whom the history of the ghulat is traced, was a real personality or not, the name as-Sabaiyya is often used to describe the ghulat in Kufa who believed in the supernatural character of Ali. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam, p. 300, Ansariyan Publications, Qum)

We have thus far had one Shii writeral-Askariwho completely denies the historicity of Ibn Saba, and anotherJafriwho is undecided. We will add a citation from the work of a third contemporary Shii writer who categorically affirms the existence of Ibn Saba. Shaykh Muhammad Husayn az-Zayn al-Amili writes in his book ash-Shiah fit-Tarikh: However it may be, Ibn Saba definitely existed and manifested ghuluww (extremism), even though some people doubt his existence and made him out to be an imaginary character created by personal interests. As for us, on grounds of the latest research we have no doubt concerning his existence and his extremism... Yes, Ibn Saba exhibited

extremism in his religion. This innovation of his seeped into the thinking of a group that was by no means small, and that group was named after him. (Muhammad Husayn azZayn, ash-Shiah fit-Tarikh, p. 213, Dar al-Athar, Beirut, 1979)

Here we have three different positions on the existence of Ibn Saba. All three belong to Shii writers. Two of them are listed by you as sources for seekers of truth and followers of scientific and historic debates. Do we have the freedom of choosing the one which seems most likely to be the truth, or is the selection of the true opinion the prerogative of the Shiah?

The role of Ibn Saba Now, having dealt with the problem of Ibn Sabas existence, we may move on to discuss his role in the historical development of Shiism. Ibn Saba is held responsible for the introduction of many phenomena which later developed into hallmark aspects of Shiism. The Shiah (or at least those of them who accept his existence, like Shaykh Muhammad Husayn az-Zayn al-Amili) admit that he exhibited extremist tendencies. In the Tarikh of Ibn Asakir he is on record as having 1. vilified Abu Bakr and Umar (Ibn Asakir vol. 29 pp. 8,9) 2. believed the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam) to have imparted to Ali special knowledge which was not known to anyone but him. (Ibn Asakir vol. 29 p. 9) 3. believed Ali to have been the Dabbat al-Ard, the creator and the giver of sustenance (Ibn Asakir vol. 29 p. 9) The first two of these beliefs are common features of Ithna Ashari Shiism, while the third one with its extremist overtones is more reminiscent of the Ghulat. We have already seen what Jafri has written about Ibn Sabas role in the origin of the Ghulat. That particular aspect of Ibn Sabas role finds further corroboration in the Shii biographical literature. Al-Kashshi, for example, reports the following Hisham ibn Salim reports that Abu Abdillah (Imam Jafar as-Sadiq) told his companions the story of Ibn Saba, and his claims of divinity for Amir al-Muminin. He said: When he made those claims Amir al-Muminin asked him to repent. He refused to repent, so Amir al-Muminin burnt him fire. (Ikhtiyar Ma`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 323) Extremist tendencies like these were originally introduced by Ibn Saba. Before him no one, not even the little group of Sahabah like Abu Dharr and Salman al-Farisi, whom the Shiah look upon as the early Shiah, ever made such claims, neither did any one of them ever speak ill of

Abu Bakr and Umar. This too, was invented by Ibn Saba. Extremism did not die with the death of Ibn Saba. It persisted, and the centre of its activities, as Jafri tells us in The Origins and Early Development of Shiah Islam (p. 300), was the city of Kufa. Here we stand before an interesting observation that was brought to light by Jafri. He writes: There is another important point that must be discussed here briefly. A considerable number of traditions are to be found, especially in the earliest Shii collection of hadith, Al-Kafi, which describe the Imams as supernatural human beings. What was the origin of these traditions, and to what extent are the Imams themselves responsible for them? These traditions are reported, as indeed are all Shii traditions, on the authority of one of the Imams, in this case from Al-Baqir and Jafar. But were these Imams really the authors of such traditions, which describe their supernatural character? The first thing which must be noted in this connection is that while AlBaqir and Jafar themselves lived in Medina, most of their followers lived in Kufa. This fact brings us to a crucial problem. Kufa had long been a centre of ghulat speculations and activities. Whether Abd Allah bin Saba, to whom the history of the ghulat is traced, was a real personality or not, the name as-Sabaiyya is often used to describe the ghulat in Kufa who believed in the supernatural character of Ali. According to the heresiographers, Ibn Saba was the first to preach the doctrine of waqf (refusal to recognise the death of Ali) and the first to condemn the first two caliphs in addition to Uthman. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam, p. 300, Ansariyan Publications, Qum) This same Kufa, which was the hotbed of Shii activities and ghulat tendencies, was also the home of the most prolific narrators of the hadith which the Shiah ascribe to the Imams, and which are documented in their hadith compendiums such as al-Kafi, Man La Yahduruhu alFaqih, Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar. Since it is upon this corpus of narrated material that the entire edifice of Shiism rests, it would be of interest to see what kind of people were these men on whose authority it is narrated from the Imams. Some of the most prolific narrators of the Shiah are 4. Zurarah ibn A`yan 5. Muhammad ibn Muslim at-Taifi 6. Abu Basir Layth ibn al-Bakhtari al-Muradi 7. al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Jufi All four of these men were from Kufah. Let us take a closer look at these men: Zurarah ibn Ayan Sayyid Bahr al-Ulum states that the family of Ayan, of which Zurarah was a scion, was the largest

Shii family of Kufa. (Rijal as-Sayyid Bahr al-Ulum, a.k.a al-Fawaid ar-Rijaliyyah, vol. 1 p. 222) Zurarah has always posed a problem in Shiism, because while is on the one hand regarded as the most prolific narrator from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, the Imams are also recorded as having cursed and excommunicated him. The Shiah attempt to reconcile these two contradictory attitudes through the dubious and completely unconvincing explanation of taqiyyah by the Imams. Regarding the wealth of narrations which Zurarah reports, we are informed by al-Kashshi that had it not been for Zurarah, the ahadith of al-Baqir would have been lost. (Ikhtiyar Marifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 345) Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khui has counted 2094 of his narrations in the four books, all of them from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, (al-Khui, Mujam Rijal al-Hadith vol. 7 p. 249) On the other hand, al-Kashshi records that Imam Jafar as-Sadiq cursed Zurarah. The following quotation is but one of several places where his cursing of Zurarah is on record: By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! (Ikhtiyar Ma`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 361) Despite Imam Jafar as-Sadiqs cursing of Zurarah, he is still accepted by the Shiah as the most prolific and reliable authority for the ahadith of the Imams. He hails from Kufa, the centre of the successors of Ibn Saba; he is cursed by the Imam as Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna Ali; and yet he is respected as a trustworthy and reliable narrator of the ahadith which form the basis of Shiism!

Muhammad ibn Muslim Muhammad ibn Muslim is another Kufan narrator whose credentials as a narrator are extremely suspect, but who is accepted by the Shiah as a reliable narrator all the same. This Muhammad ibn Mus, who claims to have heard 30 000 ahadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, and a further 16 000 from his son Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (See Ikhtiyar Marifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 391) is also recorded by alKashshi to have been cursed by Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (vol. 1 p. 394) just as Ibn Saba was cursed by his great-grandfather! Abu Basir al-Muradi In Abu Basir we have another very prolific Kufan narrator whose character fails to convince anyone of his trustworthiness. He, together with Zurarah, is regarded of those who preserved the legacy of the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq. He is one of a very select group of narrators about whom it is said that there is consensus amongst the Shiah to accept what is authentically narrated from them. (See alMamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 171) However, Mir Damad in his annotations to Rijal al-Kashshi notes that the Shii hadith critic Abul Husayn ibn al-Ghadairi said of him:

Abu Abdillah (Imam Jafar as-Sadiq) used to get annoyed and upset with his presence, and his companions are in disagreement amongst themselves about him. I (Ibn alGhadairi) believe that he was cursed on account of (matters pertaining to) his religion, not his narrations. To me he is a trustworthy narrator. (Ikhtiyar Ma`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 397. See also al-Ardabili, Jami ar-Ruwat vol. 3 p. 43) Again we have here a most prolific Kufan narrator who was cursed by Imam Jafar as-Sadiq just like Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna Ali!

al-Mufaddal ibn Umar Here we have another Kufan narrator who is regarded by eminent Shii hadith critics as a reliable transmitter of the Imams hadith. Al-Ardabili in Jami ar-Ruwat (vol. 2 p. 258) records that Shaykh Mufid mentioned al-Mufaddal as belonging to the inner circle, reliable and pious Fuqaha of Imam Jafar as-Sadiqs followers. Abu Jafar at-Tusi too, is quoted as having mentioned al-Mufaddal amongst the mamduhin (praiseworthy). But Imam Jafar is recorded by al-Kashshi to have addressed by calling him, You Kafir! You Mushrik! (See Ikhtiyar Marifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 612) Another lengthier narration of al-Kashshi runs as follows: Abdullah ibn Miskan says: Hujr ibn Zaidah and Amir ibn Judhaah al-Azdi came to Abu Abdillah [Imam Jafar] and told him: May we be ransomed for you! Mufaddal says that you [the Imams] determine the sustenance of the people. He [Imam Jafar said]: By Allah, no one besides Allah determines our sustenance. One day I needed food for my family. I was under difficult circumstances and thought hard about it, until I managed to secure food for them. Only then did I feel content. May Allah curse him and disown him. They asked: Do you curse and disown him? He replied: Yes, so you too, curse him and disown him. May Allah and His messenger disown him. (Ikhtiyar Marifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614) The above narration clearly identifies al-Mufaddal with the heresy originally introduced by Ibn Saba. In the biography of Ibn Saba given in al-Kashshis Rijal, Imam al-Baqir is reported to have stated that Ibn Saba claimed himself to be a prophet, and Ali to be Allah (See Ikhtiyar Marifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 323). If we return to al-Mufaddals biography in the same book we find the following: Al-Kashshi says: The extremist Tayyarah mention in some of their books on the authority of al-Mufaddal that he said: Seventy prophets were killed with Abu Ismail, meaning Abul Khattab, each one of whom had seen and announced his prophethood. [They also say] that he said: Twelve of us were admitted to the presence of Abu Abdillah [Imam Jafar as-Sadiq]. Abu Abdillah started greeting each one of us, calling each of us by the name of a prophet. To some he said, Peace be upon you, O Nuh. To

some he said, Peace be upon you, O Ibrahim, To last one he greeted he said, Peace be upon you, O Yunus. Then he said, Do not distinguish between the Prophets. (Ikhtiyar Marifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614) This Mufaddal, whom al-Kashshi says was of the extremist Khattabiyyah sect, the followers of Abul Khattab, whose beliefs derived directly from Ibn Saba himselfthis Mufaddal is exonerated by contemporary Shii scholars such as Shaykh Abdullah al-Mamaqani, and Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khui as a most reliable and trustworthy transmitter of the knowledge of the Imams. Al-Mamaqani gives a lengthy explanation about what exactly constitutes ghuluww (See Tanqih al-Maqal vol. 3 p. 240 and Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 397) and concludes that the kind of things on account of which alMufaddal was labelled as a ghali has since become of the undeniable tenets (daririyyat) of Shiism.

Conclusion We have used the above three narrators merely as a specimen of the men upon whose narrations the edifice of Shiism rests. We consistently find disturbing points of resemblance between them and Ibn Saba. They are cursed by the Imams just as Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna Ali. Some of them held beliefs that are identical to Ibn Sabas innovations. They hail from Kufa, which Jafri tells us was the stronghold of the Sabaiyyah. Thus, after we have proven the historical existence of Ibn Saba, this investigation into the men responsible for the narration, or creation, of the hadith legacy of the Shiah leads us to the unequivocal conclusion that what exists today as Shiism, and specifically Twelver Shiism, contains a substantial chunk of the original heresy of Ibn Saba. We therefore feel that we have quite convincing reasons to look upon Abdullah ibn Saba as the Founder of Shiism. If this conclusion fails to find favour in Shii circles, that cannot be helped. Just as the concern of the Shiah for Muslim unity in the face of the vicious enemies of Islam has never constituted an impediment for them to state exactly how and what they perceive the faith and practice of the Ahl asSunnah to be, similarly, we feel that it is only fair if the Ahl as-Sunnah too, can exercise the right to publish their viewpoint on the origin of Shiism, without anyone, and least of all the Shiah, demanding from them to consider the danger that poses to Muslim unity. If the state of Iran and its diplomatic representatives in South Africa are sincere in their concern for Muslim unity, we suggest that they take a very serious look at the extent to which Shiism is being propagated in South Africa, as well as the provenance of the funding that supports those missions. Only when you have proven your sincerity for the cause of Islam by removing that essential stumbling block would we feel that your protest against the publication of an article like Abdullah ibn Saba: the Founder of Shiism deserves something more than a decisive dismissal. Yours in the service of Islam

____________________

NB: We have copies of all the books you listed except Bihar al-Anwar. It would be greatly appreciated if the embassy could arrange for us to have a copy of Bihar since it is such an invaluable source of reference.

Next page

The event of
Ghadeer Khum

in
Quran, Sunnah & History

L:
By Seif

As you know that the Shi`a say that Ali (rah) is the one who should have been the first khalifa and not Abu Bakr (rah) (or Umar (rah) or Uthman (rah)). They bring some evidences from the Sunni books (Bukhari, Muslim,..) and one of them is the hadeeth of Ghadeer Khumm. Before we start, we should Say that Ali (rah) is the husband of the daughter of the prophet (peace be upon him), Fatima (rah, the best woman of the people of the Jannah), he is the cousin of the prophet (peace be upon him), and he is the fourth of the rightly-guided khalifahs and his qualities are all well known to us. However, we are not talking about the qualities of Ali (rah), because we all know it. We are discussing whether or not the hadeeth of Ghadeer Khumm is evidence that Ali should have been the first khalifa.

We start by reading the hadeeth from Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5920: Yazid b. Hayyan reported, I went along with Husain b. Sabra and 'Umar b. Muslim to Zaid b. Arqam and, as we sat by his side, Husain said to him: Zaid. you have been able to acquire a great virtue that you saw Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) listened to his talk, fought by his side in (different) battles, offered prayer behind me. Zaid, you have in fact earned a great virtue. Zaid, narrate to us what you heard from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). He said: I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not compel me to do that. He then said: One day Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) stood up to deliver sermon at a watering place known as Khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and. exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren't his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and the offspring of 'Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes. This hadeeth is also narrated in other books: Tirmithi, Ahmed, an-nasai, al-hakem and others. Almost all the links are for pages in Arabic. I will translate the important points inshaAllah as I go along. Mosnad of Ahmed: Ibn Namir told us that Abd Al-Malik (Ibn Abi-Sulayman) told us according to Attia Al-`ufi who said: I asked Zayd Ibn Arqam and I told him that some people told me a hadeeth according to you about Ali (rah) in the day of Ghadeer Khumm and I want to hear it from you. So Zayd said: You people of Iraq, you have what you have. I told him: Do not worry about me. He said: Yes we were in Al-Juhfa and the prophet(peace be upon him) came to us holding the hands of Ali (rah) and said: O people don't you know that I am <awla> with the believers from their selves. They said: Yes. He said: <man kuntu mawlaah fa Ali mawlaah>. [Attia] said: Did he say: <Allahumma waali man waalah wa `ad man `adaah> (O Allah: Befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him). [Zayd] said: I told you as I heard it.

The saying "man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah" is correct and strong. The addition <allahummu wali man walaah wa `adi man `adaah>, "O Allah: Befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him" is also correct, albeit weaker. However, the scholars of hadeeth classify any extra additions as <mawdoo`> and hence we will not talk about. We will only talk about the authentic versions shown above. This hadeeth is used to prove that Ali is the khalifa. The Shia says that "mawla" means "wali" (leader) and hence this incident means that the prophet is telling the Muslims that Ali is the next khalifa. This is their point regarding this hadeeth. The difference, then, is the meaning of "man kuntu mawlah, fa Ali mawlah". The shi`ah says that it means "man kuntu waleeh, fa Ali waleeh". The Sunnah says that it means love and close relation. Muwalat is the opposite of Mu`adat. The proof comes from the first addition: "oh Allah waali man walaah wa `adi man `adaah". (O Allah befriend whosover befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him). So we are talking about muwalah and mu`adat (love and enmity). It is about the love of the people to Ali (rah). Before we talk about that, let us talk about why the prophet said so. The Shi`ah claim that the prophet ( peace be upon him ) stopped people in this place in the hot weather and they say that their number was more than 100 thousand and that this was the place where all the people of Hajj were gathered and the main reason is that the prophet ( peace be upon him ) wanted to tell the people "man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah" in addition to their additions. The reason for this hadeeth is as follows: Read this hadeeth from Bukhari volume 5, Book 59 Number 637: Narrated Buraida: The Prophet sent 'Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and 'Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus." In other narrations (al-tirmithi and ahmed), in addition to the above, the prophet said: "O buraida man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah" So Ali took one of the slaves named Waseefa as his slave and then after having sexual act with her, he was taking a bath. Buraida (rah) became angry. He thought why would Ali

take one of the slaves for himself. So he mentioned this to the prophet(peace be upon him). Al-bayhaqi narrates from Abu sa'eed that Ali prevented them from riding the camels of the sadaqa that they acquired. He then made a person to be their leader and went to the prophet (peace be upon him). When Ali came back, he found that their leader gave them permission to ride the camels. When Ali saw that, he became angry and he blamed the leader. (In another narration, it mentions that they were new clothes that Ali prevented them from wearing but they wear them despite his orders). Abu sa'eed said that when we went back to madina, we mentioned to the prophet the harshness that we have seen from Ali. The prophet said: Stop O saad ibn Malik: O By Allah I have known that he is done good for the sake of Allah. (Ibn Katheer says that this hadeeth is <jayed> on the conditions of AlNasaie) Ibn Katheer said that the people in the army started to talk about Ali (rah) because he prevented them from riding the camels and took back the new clothes that they acquired. Because of that, after the prophet ( peace be upon him ) was done with the Hajj and while returning back to Madina, he stopped to explain to the people how some of the qualities of Ali and stress the closeness of Ali to him and the importance of loving Ali. He did so to remove what was in many of the hearts of some of the people against Ali. That's why the prophet ( peace be upon him ) delayed talking about this topic until they were close to Madina and he didn't talk about it in Makkah during the Hajj. On the day of Arafa, the prophet ( peace be upon him ) spoke to the people and and he never mentioned this topic at all. After he finished his sermon, he said "Did I convey the message" and the people said "Yes" then he said "O Allah be my witness". Why did he delay the topic till after Hajj? Because this topic is only of concern to the people of Madina because those who talked about Ali were from Madina as they were the ones who went with Ali to the battle. He talked about it in a place called ghadeer khumm in a place called Jufa, which is about 250 km from Makkah. (See map:

A simple look at the map is enough to refute the shi`ah claim that this is the gathering place of the the Hajeej. People gather for Hajj at Makkah and leave the Hajj at Makkah. The Hajeej don't leave from a place 250 km from Makkah. After Hajj, the people of Makkah stay at Makkah. The people of Al-Taif go to Al-Taif. The people of Yemen go to Yemen.

The people of al-kufa go to al-kufa and so on. All the tribes go back to their homes. The people that went with the prophet(peace be upon him) were the people of Madinah and those who are using the road of Madina to go to their dwellings. These are the ones that the prophet( peace be upon him ) talked to when he said: "man ..". Also the speech was not only about Ali despite the fact that Ali deserves the speech and more (may Allah be pleased with him). But in the speech, the prophet ( peace be upon him ) reminded the people with the Quran and its importance. He also reminded the people of the love of his household (may Allah be pleased with them) and then he mentioned Ali (rah). So there were more than one topic that the prophet ( peace be upon him ) talked about. The meaning of ( Mawla ) Ibn Al-Atheer says that the word (mawal) in the Arabic language could only mean: rabb = Lord malik = owner mun`im = benefactor mu'tiq = liberator naser = helper muheb = lover haleef = ally aabd = slave (for example: Zaid ibn haretha was the mawla of the prophet ( peace be upon him )) sihr = brother-in-law ibn al `am = cousin The arabs would use the word mawlah to mean all of the above. But what did the prophet ( peace be upon him ) mean by his word? First the hadeeth has no evidences for the imamah (leadership) because if the prophet ( peace be upon him ) wanted to mean khilafah or imamah, he wouldn't have used a word that can have all these meanings. He would have said something like: Ali is your khalifa (or imam) after me, or when I die, listen and obey to Ali ibn Abi Talib. But the prophet didn't

use any of these clear words. He said: "man kuntu ...". Imam Shafi'i says that this is the walaa of Al-islam because Allah(swt) says in the Quran (Surat Muhammad,verse 11: That is because Allah is the Protector (mawala) of those who believe, and because the unbelievers shall have no protector for them (47:11) In the Quran (Surat Al-hadid (The Iron), verse 15), Allah (swt) says: So today ransom shall not be accepted from you nor from those who disbelieved; your abode is the fire; it is your friend (mawlakum) and evil is the resort. He called the hell fire "mawla" for the extreme closeness to it by the kuffar. Note also that the word mawlah is different than the word waly. The waly comes from walayah which is the leadership. Whereas mawlah comes from wilayah which is love and nusrah (help and aid). Allah (swt) says in the Quran (Surat At-tahrim ,verse 4): Then surely Allah it is Who is his Guardian (mawlah), and Jibreel and -the believers that do good, and the angels after that are the aiders. It means love, nusrah and help. The prophet ( peace be upon him ) used the word mawla not only to describe Ali but to others as well. The following hadeeth is narrated in Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 715 & and others. Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "The tribes of Quraish, Al-Ansar, Juhaina, Muzaina, Aslam, Ghifar and Ashja' are my helpers (mawaalii),, and they have no protector (i.e. Master) except Allah and His Apostle." There are other examples as well but I think that the above is sufficient to make the point. It is also important to point out that the prophet ( peace be upon him ) did not say "after me" (in any authentic narration). He only said "man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah" without giving any time frame. This means that this fact is timeless. If the prophet ( peace be upon him ) had meant "whoever among you is under my leadership, he is also under the leadership of Ali", which is the meaning that the Shi`a understands, if the prophet had meant it as such, then there would be a big problem. Two leadership for the Muslim ummah

at the time of the prophet ( peace be upon him ) does not make a lot of sense. Of course, the prophet did not mean it that way and also the companions at that time did not understand it that way, otherwise there would be a great fitnah. However, it is possible to have more than one mawla at the same time - to love, help and aid the prophet and to love help and aid Ali (rah). I hope that the above is simple and clear. If, however, you have any particular doubts or confusions, please let me know and inshaAllah I can delve more into it. The Sunni view is that the hadeeth of ghadir khum has nothing to do with who the leader is after the prophet (peace be upon him). It means, however, that Ali is loved by the prophet (peace be upon him) and that we should love him and give nusrah to him. May Allah (swt) join us with Ali and the rest of the companions (may Allah be pleased with them all) on the pool to drink from the honorable hands of the prophet ( peace be upon him ).

Unmasking the other villains of Karbal


Retelling the tragedy of Karbal has traditionally been an important feature of Sh spirituality. The passion plays of Iran and the Indian subcontinent, the literature, both prose and poetry, composed upon the subject of the martyrdom of Sayyidun Husayn radiyallhu anhu and the general atmosphere of mourning that reigns amongst the Shah during the month of Muharram, all bear eloquent testimony to importance of that event in the Sh calendar. To the Shah, shur is probably the most important day of the year. However, it is regrettable that despite the huge amount of attention the subject of Karbal enjoys, the event is persistently portrayed as two-sided. It is always depicted as Husayn against Yazd, Right rising up against Wrong, the Quest for Justice against the Forces of Oppression. Many an opportunist has even gone to the extent of superimposing upon the event the theme of Shah against Ahl as-Sunnah. In this partial retelling that concentrates upon what actually happened at Karbal, and conveniently draws attention away from the other guilty party in the shr tragedy, lies another tragedy in itself. For while Husayn's martyrdom has been oft commemorated, and his physical opponents and killers identified, cursed and eliminated, no one has spared a moment's anger for those who deserted him at the crucial hour. It is these men in the shadows, who squarely deserve to be called the real villains of Karbal, upon whom this article seeks to cast light.

It was in Ramadn 60AH that the letters from Kfah started to arrive at the house of Abbs ibn Abd alMuttalib in Makkah where Husayn ibn Al was staying after his flight from Madnah, letters urging him to lead the K fans into revolt against Yazd ibn Muwiyah, and assuring him of their loyalty and allegiance. Muwiyah died two months earlier, and there was much resentment for his son Yazd for whom the bayah was taken as his successor. The people of Kfah especially were looking at Husayn for leadership, and soon there was stream of letters coming in from Kfah. On certain days there would be as many as 600 letters, with messengers who enthusiastically described the support he would receive from the Kfans. Kfah was a unique place, and the Kfans a peculiar people. In 37AH Sayyidun Al radiyallhu anhu shifted his capital from Madnah to Kfah, and ever since that city became the home of those who claimed partisanship of the Ahl al-Bayt. After the reconciliation between Hasan and Muwiyah in 41AH many of those who had been in Sayyidun Hasan's army settled in Kfah. At the time of Muwiyah's death in 60AH pro-Alid sentiments were still to be found in abundance in Kfah. At the time of Muwiyah' s death in 60 AH Kfah was still very strongly pro- Alid. Thus when the opportunity arose the Kfans, who still regarded themselves as the Shah (supporters) of the Ahl alBayt, turned to Husayn to lead them against Yazd. Sayyidun Husayn decided to send his cousin Muslim ibn Aql to investigate the situation in Kfah. If he found it feasible he would write to inform Husayn, who would depart with his family from Makkah to join him in Kfah. Muslim arrived in in Dhul Qadah. The Kfans, when they learnt of his arrival presented themselves at the residence of Muslim ibn Awsajah al-Asad where he was staying. Soon there were 12 000 Kfans who had given their solemn pledge to support and protect Husayn with their lives and all they possessed. When this number rose to 18 000 Muslim felt confident enough to dispatch a messenger to Husayn informing him of the bayah of the Kfans, and urging him to proceed from

Makkah. Rumours of what was happening in Kfah soon reached Yazd in Damascus. He immediately replaced Num n ibn Bashr, the governor of Kfah, with the ruthless Ubaydullh ibn Ziyd with orders to find Muslim ibn Aql and kill him. Ibn Ziyd entered Kfah early in Dhul Hijjah, accompanied by seventeen men on horseback. With the end of his turban drawn over his face he was unrecognisable, and the people of Kfah, who were expecting Sayyidun Husayn, mistook him for Husayn. " Peace upon you, o son of Raslullh," they hailed him. Thus it was that Ibn Ziyd learnt the truth of the rumours. It was only when one of his mounted men shouted at them, " Stand back! This is the governor Ubaydullh ibn Ziyd!" that the Kfans realised the seriousness of their blunder. Soon after reaching the governor's residence Ubaydullh sent a servant of his own with a bag containing 3000 dirhams to pose as a newcomer from the Syrian town of Hims eager to join the imminent revolution, and thereby discover the whereabouts of Muslim ibn Aql. He located Muslim in the house of Hn ibn Urwah, and took the pledge of allegiance at his hands. The money he handed over to Ab Thummah al-mir who was acting as Muslim' s treasurer. After staying with them for a few days, during which he learnt most of what there was to know about their intrigue, he returned to Ibn Ziyd and informed him. Hn ibn Urwah was arrested. At first he denied all knowledge of Muslim' s whereabouts, but when the " newcomer from Hims" was brought before him he confessed. But he still refused to reveal where Muslim ibn Aql was. In the meantime Muslim came to hear about the arrest of Hn ibn Urwah. Realising that the hour for a decisive encounter had arrived, he raised his battle cry " Y Mansr" , at which 4000 of the men who had given him their oath of allegiance and loyalty to Husayn gathered around him and proceeded towards the governor' s fort. When he saw Muslim ibn Aql with the Kfans at his gate, Ubaydullh sent some of the tribal leaders of Kfah to speak with their people and draw them away from Muslim and warn them of the wrath that would descend upon them when the armies from Damascus arrived. Soon Muslim' s army was upon by mothers telling their sons, " Come home , there are enough other people here," and fathers ominously warning their sons, " What will happen tomorrow when the Syrian armies start arriving from Damascus? What will you do?" The resolve of the men who had taken a sacred oath to support and defend the cause of Husayn and the Ahl al-Bayt against Yazd and his Syrian armies, the men upon the strength of whose oaths of allegiance and loyalty Sayyidun Husayn was on that very moment making his way to Kfah with his nearest and dearest, the resolve of those men of Kfah could not hold in the face of such threats and discouragement. One by one they deserted Muslim ibn Aql under the gates of the governor' s fort. At sunset he was left with only 30 men. He led them in Maghrib, and then moved away to the doorway of the Kindah quarter of Kfah. He went through that door with no more than 10 men, and before he knew it, he was all on his own in the streets of Kfah. Of all those who had so anxiously and enthusiatically written to Husayn to come and lead them in revolt against Yazd, and out of the 18 000 men who but days before placed their right hands in his, solemnly pledging allegiance to the cause for which they had invited the grandson of Raslullh sallallhu alayhi wasallam, not a single one was there to offer Muslim ibn Aql the solace of their company or refuge from the night. Eventually, parched with thirst, he knocked at a door. The occupant, an old lady, took him in when she learnt that he was Muslim ibn Aql. She hid him away in her house, but her son, from whom she extracted a promise not to tell anyone of his presence there, waited only till the morning to take the

news to the governor' s residence. The next thing Muslim realised was that the house was surrounded. Thrice he managed with his sword to drive the attackers out of the house, but when they started putting fire to the house he was forced to face them outside. It was only when Abd ar-Rahmn ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ashath, one of those sent to arrest him, promised him the safety of his life, that he lowered his sword. It was a mistake, for they took away his sword and mounted him upon an ass to be taken to Ibn Ziyd. Muslim knew his death was at hand. Tears flowed from his eyes, not at hisown fate, but at the thought of Husayn and his family travelling through the harsh, merciless desert towards a fate much more harsher and merciless, to an enemy firmly resolved to bring an end to his venture, and to the most treacherous of partisans whose desertion at the hour of need had brought his life to this tragic end. He begged Ibn al-Ashath to send someone to Husayn with the following message: Ibn Aql has sent me to you. He says to you: Go back with your family. Do not be deceived by people of Kfah. They are those same supporters of your father from whom he so dearly wished to part, by death or by being killed. The Kfans have lied to me and have lied to you, and a liar has no sense. Later that day the Day of Arafah, the 9th of Dhul Hijjah Muslim ibn Aql was taken up to the highest ramparts of the fort. As he was being led up, he recited the tahll, tasbh, takbr and istighfr. His last words reflect his intense disappointment with the people of Kfah, " O Allh, You be the Judge between us and our people. They deceived us and deserted us." From high upon the ramparts his head fell down in the dust, in full view of those whose invitations and oaths of allegiance had given him so much to hope for, but whose cowardice and treachery had left him with nothing but despair. And Husayn was on his way Ubaydullh ibn Ziyd had entered Kfah with only seventeen men. For each man that came with him there was over a thousand who had taken the oath of allegiance at the hands of Muslim ibn Aql. Yet not a single sword was raised in his defence. Not a single voice had the courage to protest his execution. And these were the same men who had been telling Husayn, Come, we are with you. Upon receipt of Muslims letter, Sayyidun Husayn started making arrangements to travel to Kfah. He immmediately despatched a messenger, Qays ibn Mus-hir, to inform the Kfans of his imminet arrival. This messenger was captured by Ubaydullh ibn Ziyd, who ordered him to mount the walls of the fort and publicly curse Husayn and his father. Instead he praised Sayyidun Al and Sayyidun Husayn, telling them that Husayn was on his way, and exhorting them to assist him as they had promised. He ended his brief address by imprecating curses upon Ibn Ziyd. Upon the order of Ibn Ziyd he was flung from the ramparts and killed. Despite this impassioned plea, the men of Kfah were unmoved. In Makkah, a number of the eminent Sahbah and children of Sahbah tried to dissuade Husayn from going to Kfah, and reminded him of the fickleness of the Kfans with both his father and his brother. Abdullh ibn Abbs, Abdullh ibn Umar, Jbir ibn Abdillh, Ab Sad al-Khudr, his own brother, Muhammad, and his brother-in-law and cousin , Abdullh ibn Jafar all remonstated with him and tried to persuade him not to go to Iraq. His mind, however, was made up. He set out from Makkah on the 8th of Dhul Hijjah, not knowing of the sad end of Muslim ibn Aql. After an arduous jorney of almost a month, his party reached Iraq. It was there that he first heard of the treachery of the Kfans and the death of Muslim ibn Aql. Later he also learnt of the death of Qays ibn Mus-hir. A large number of desert Arabs had by that time attched themselves to his party, thinking that Kfah was already practically his. Husayn addressed them, saying, " Our Shah have deserted us.

Therefore, whoever wants to leave is free to do so." Soon he was left with only those who left Makkah with him. With them he continued towards Kfah. Meanwhle Kfah was placed under heave surveillance by Ibn Ziyd. When news of Husayns appraoch reached him, he despatched a 4000 strong contingent, which was on its way to fight the Daylamites, to stop Husayn. This contingent was put under the command of Umar ibn Sad. There can be little doubt that the Kfans witnessed the departure of this force from Kfah with their own eyes. This would be their last chance to honour the oaths of allegiance to Husayn which they had taken upon the hands of Muslim ibn Aql. This was the final opportunity to rush to the side of the grandson of Raslullh sallallhu alayhi wa-lih wasallam. It was after all their invitations and assurances of support that encouraged him to abandon the safety of Makkah for the precarious battlefields of Iraq. But once again faithfulness, courage and commitment was found lacking in the people of Kfah. Only a handful emerged to join Husayn at Karbal. And when the sun set on the 10th of Muharram, it was too late for the faithless Shah of Kfah to make amends, for the sands of Karbal was stained red with the blood of Sayyidun Husayn and his seventyone followers.

L:
Four years later the Shah of Kfah attempted to make amends for their desertion of the family of Raslullh sallallhu alayhi wa-lih wasallam. There emerged a group of Kfans calling themselves the Tawwbn (Penitents) who made it their duty to wreak vengeance upon the killers of Husayn. On their way to Syria in pursuit of Ibn Ziyd they passed by Karbal, the site of Sayyidun Husayn' s grave, where they raised a great hue and cry, and spent the night lamenting the tragedy which they allowed to happen four years earlier. Had they only displayed that same spirit of compassion for Husayn when he was so much in need of it the history of Islm might have taken a different course. There have been attempts by certain writers to absolve the Shah from the crime of deserting Husayn. Some find an excuse for them in Ibn Ziyds blockade of Kfah. S. H. M. Jafri writes in his book The Origins and Early Developments of Shiah Islam:
it should be noted again that the blockade of all the roads coming into Kfa and its vicinity made it almost impossible for the majority of those Shs of Kfa who were in hiding, and also for those residing in other cities like Basra.2

This explanation of their desertion does not seem plausible when one considers the large number (18 000) of those who had taken the bayah at the hands of Muslim ibn Aql. Ibn Ziyd, as we have seen, entered Kfah with only 17 men. Even the force that he dispatched to engage the party of Sayyidun Husayn at Karbal consisted of only 4000 men.3 Furthermore, that force was not recruited specifically for Karbal; it was only passing through Kfah on its way to fight the Daylamites. It is not at all credible to assume that Ibn Ziyd was able to cow the Kfans into submission with forces such as these, whom they outnumbered by far. It was rather their own treacherousness and fickleness that led them to abandon Sayyidun Husayn. This can be clearly seen in the manner they deserted Muslim ibn Aql.

There is also the tendency of claiming that those who deserted Sayyidun Husayn were not of the Shah. Jafri writes:
of those who invited Husayn to Kfa, and then those 18,000 who paid homage to his envoy Muslim b. Aql, not all were Shs in the religious sense of the term, but were rather supporters of the house of Al for political reasons - a distinction which must be kept clearly in mind in order to understand the early history of Sh Islam.4

Jafri' s motive in excluding the deserters of Sayyidun Husayn from the ranks of the religious (as opposed to the political) supporters of the house of Sayyidun Al is quite transparent. He is clearly embarrassed by the fact that it was the Shah themselves who abandoned their Imm and his family after inviting him to lead them in revolt. What leads us to reject this distinction between religious and political supporters is the fact that Sayyidun Husayn himself, on more than one occasion, referred to the Kfans as his Shah. There are also the numerous references to the people of Kfah as the followers (albeit capricious followers) of his father and brother. And were we to assume that many, or even most of them were not Shah in the religious sense, the question which next presents itself is: Where were the real Shah when their Imm required their help? Were they only that handful who emerged from Kfah? It is strange that while there is so much reluctance on the part of the Shah to accept the deseof Kfah as their own, they are quite proud and eager to identify themselves with the movement of the Tawwbn. The speeches made at the inception of the movement of the Tawwbn very clearly prove that they were the same people who invited Sayyidun Husayn and then deserted him.5 Their very name is indicative of their guilt in this regard. The attempt by the Shah to absolve themselves from the crime of deserting Sayyidun Husayn is therefore at best nothing more than pathetic. Karbal was not to be the last act of treason by the Shah against the Family of Raslullh sallallhu alayhi wa-lih wasallam. Sixty years later the grandson of Sayyidun Husayn, namely Zayd ibn Al ibn Husayn, led an uprising against the Umayyad ruler Hishm ibn Abd al-Malik. He received the oaths of allegiance of over 40 000 men, 15 000 of whom were from the very same Kfah that deserted his grandfather. Just before the battle could start they decided upon a whim to ask his opinion about Ab Bakr and Umar. Zayd answered: I have never heard any of my family dissociate himself from them, and I have nothing but good to say about them. Upset with this answer, they deserted him en masse, deciding that the true imm could only be his nephew Jafar as-Sdiq. Out of 40 000, Zayd was left with only a few hundred men. On the departure of the defectors he remarked: I am afraid they have done unto me as they did to Husayn. Zayd and his little army fought bravely and attained martyrdom. Thus, on Wednesday the 1st of Safar 122 AH another member of the Ahl al-Bayt fell victim to the treachery of the Shah of Kfah.6 This time there could be no question as to whether those who deserted him were of the Shah or not. The fact that the thousands of Shah who deserted Zayd ibn Al looked upon Jafar as-Sdiq as their true Imm shows that by and large they were the same as the Ithn Ashar, or alternatively Imm or Jafar Shah of today. Why then, if he had so many devoted followers, did Imm Jafar not rise up in revolt against the Umayyads or the Abbsids? The answer to this question is provided in a narration documented by Ab Jafar al-Kulayn in his monumental work al-Kf, which enjoys unparallelled status amongst the hadth collections of the Shah:
Sudayr as-Sayraf says: I entered the presence of Ab Abdillh alayhis salm and said to him: By

Allh, you may not refrain from taking up arms. He asked: Why not? I answered: Because you have so many partisans, supporters (Shah) and helpers. By Allh, if Amr al-Muminn (Sayyidun Al) had as many Shah, helpers, and partisans as you have, Taym (the tribe of Ab Bakr) and Ad (the tribe of Umar) would never have had designs upon him. He asked: And how many would they be, Sudayr? I said: A hundred thousand. He asked: A hundred thousand? I replied: Yes, and two hundred thousand. He asked again: Two hundred thousand? I replied: Yes, and half the world. He remained silent. Then he said: Would you accompany us to Yanbu? I replied in the affirmative. He ordered a mule and a donkey to be saddled. I quickly mounted the donkey, but he said: Sudayr, will you rather let me ride the donkey? I said: The mule is more decorous and more noble as well. But he said: The donkey is more comfortable for me. I dismounted. He mounted the donkey, I got on the mule, and we started riding. The time of salh arrived and he said: Dismount, Sudayr. Let us perform salh. Then he remarked: The ground here is overgrown with moss. It is not permissible to make salh here. So we carried on riding until we came to a place where the earth was red. He looked at a young boy herding sheep, and remarked: Sudayr, by Allh, if I had as many Shah as there are sheep here, it would not have been acceptable for me to refrain from taking up arms. We then dismounted and performed salh. When we were finished I turned back to count the sheep. There were seventeen of them.7

It seems from this narration that the tragedy of Karbal taught Imm Jafar as-Sdiq something about those who claimed to be his followers which the Shah of today are still refusing to come to terms with: that in the trials and misfortunes of the Family of Raslullh sallallhu alayhi wa-lih wasallam the role of the Shah was as great, if not greater, than that of their physical enemies. It therefore does not come as a surprise that none of the supposed Imms after Husayn ever attempted an armed insurrection against the rulers of their times. Karbal had taught them the fickleness and treacherousness of those who claimed to be their Shah. It is about them that Imm Jafar is reported to have said:
No one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love us.8

Imm Jafar is also reported as having said:


No verse did Allh reveal in connection with the Munfiqn, except that it is to be found in those who profess Shism.9

Before Sayyidun Husayn, his elder brother Sayyidun Hasan was the victim of the treacherousness of the Kfans. In his book al-Ihtijj the prominent Sh author Ab Mansr at-Tabars has preserved the following remark of Sayyidun Hasan:
By Allh, I think Muwiyah would be better for me than these people who claim that they are my Shah.10

When Sayyidun Hasan eventually became exasperated at the fickleness of his so-called Shah, he decided to make peace with Muwiyah. When someone protested to him that he was bringing humiliation upon the Shah by concluding peace with Muwiyah, he responded by saying:
By Allh, I handed over power to him for no reason other than the fact that I could not find any supporters. Had I found supporters I would have fought him day and night until Allh decides between

us. But I know the people of Kfah. I have experience of them. The bad ones of them are no good to me. They have no loyalty, nor any integrity in word or deed. They are in disagreement. They claim that their hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us.10

Imm Ms al-Kzim, the son of Imm Jafar, and the seventh of the supposed Imms of the Shah, describes them in the following words:
If I had to truly distinguish my Shah I would find them nothing other than pretenders. If I had to put them to the test I would only find them to be apostates. If I were to scrutinise them I would be left with only one in a thousand. Were I to sift them thoroughly I would be left with only the handful that is truly mine. They have been sitting on cushions all along, saying: " We are the Shah of Al." 11

L:
If today shr will be commemorated as a day of struggle and sacrifice, let it also be remembered as a day of treachery and desertion. When the names of Yazd ibn Muwiyah, Ubaydullh ibn Ziyd, Umar ibn Sad and Shamir ibn Dhil Jawshan are mentioned and curses invoked upon their memories, then let us not forget the treachery of the Shah of Kfah. The time has long been due for the Shah to reintroduce into their shr ceremonies an aspect that was in fact part of the very first commemoration ceremony of the Tawwbn. That lost aspect is the admission of their own guilt, along with that of Ibn Ziyd, Yazd and others, in the shedding of the holy blood of Sayyidun Husayn ibn Al radiyallhu anhum.
___________________________________________________________________ NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. The historical material for this study has been taken largely from al-Bidyah wan-Nihyah of Ibn Kathr.
The Sh source Maqtal al-Husayn by Abd ar-Razzq al-Msaw al-Muqarram (5th edition published by Maktabah Basrat, Qum in 1382) was also consulted.

2. See S. H. M. Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shiah Islam p. 198 (Ansariyan Publications,
Qum, n.d.)

3. The figure of 80 000, given in certain Sh sources, and quoted recently on local radio, is clearly
fictitious. Apart from contradicting reliable historical sources, its origin in the emotionally charged hyperbolism of the Shah is self-evident.

4. Jafri, p. 195 5. ibid. p. 223 6. Muhammad Ab Zahrah, Trkh al-Madhhib al-Islmiyyah, p. 613 (Dr al-Fikr al-Arab, Cairo, n.d.) 7. al-Kulayn, al-Kf (Usl) vol. 2 p. 250-251 (Dr al-Adw, Beiru1992)

8. Abdullh al-Mmaqn, Miqbs al-Hidyah vol. 2 p. 414 (Muassasat l al-Bayt li-Ihy at-Turth,
Beirut 1991) quoting from Rijl al-Kashsh.

9. ibid. vol. 2 p. 407 10. Ab Mansr at-Tabars, al-Ihtijj vol. 2 p. 290-291 (Muassasat al-Alam, Beirut 1989 11. al-Kulayn, Rawdat al-Kf vol. 8 p. 288

Fadak Area between Abu Bakr & Fatimah

by Muhammad Al-Khider

ooo

FADAK is a hamlet in Hijaz that used to be inhabited by a group of Jews. After Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam had accomplished the conquest of Khaybar, Allah cast fear into the hearts of those Jews.They therefore conclude a treaty with Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam in terms of which Fadak was ceded to him. Thus, not having been conquered by force of arms, it became the personal property of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam. The difference between the Khalifah Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah was an acceptable difference in which either side had an opinion founded on proof. However, sensitivity towards the person of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr has led some people to view the issue out of its proper perspective, with the result that an anthill was transformed into a mountain. To illustrate this with an example: if we had to substitute the two sides in this dispute Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimahwith two Shii jurisprudents, or two of the

Maraji of the Shiah, each side would be seen to retain the dignity of his position, and no vehement criticism would be directed at either side. The position of both disputants would then be viewed with equal respect and appreciation, in consideration of the fact that both persons base their claims upon textual evidence and proof, albeit that one of the two opinions would ultimately take precedence over the other. However, when it comes to Abu Bakr and Fatimah there is a complete change of attitude. To the Shiah Abu Bakr is the enemy, and for as long as he be the enemy he will be considered evil incarnate, and error is inseparable from any of his judgements. Thus it is that sentiments have become the standard by which matters such as this are judged. Sentiments do not qualify as a standard to judge by even in trivial disputes. What remains then to be said for the use of sentiments as a criterion in the study of history and the formulation of religious precepts from it? To the unbiased observerwho does not submit to sentiment, but yields only to the Truth, wherever it is might bethis is an issue that must be approached tentatively.

The status of Fadak The land of Fadak can be only one of two things:
q

It was either INHERITED by Fatimah from Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, or it was a GIFT given to her by Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam on the day of Khaybar.

FADAK
AS INHERITANCE Its status as inheritance is contained in the report documented by al-Bukhari, Muslim and others, wherein it is stated that
after the demise of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, Fatimah came to Abu Bakr requesting her inheritance from the Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam, from

Fadak, his share in Khaybar, and other places. Abu Bakr said: I heard Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam saying, We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity. (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no. 49)

The same reported in Musnad Ahmad reads:


We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs. (Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462)

Fatimah radiyallahu anha became displeased with Abu Bakr, since she viewed the issue in the general scope of the verse, Allah directs you in (the matter of the inheritance of) your children: to the male a portion twice the portion of the female. (Surah an-Nisa:11) At this point, let us be neutral, and let us forget that the person requesting her inheritance is a personality whom we love and respect because she is the daughter of our Prophet, and that she has that revered position both within our hearts and with Allah. Let us say: The words of Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam takes precedence over the words of anyone else. Therefore, if a hadith like this is authentic, what reason have we to lay blame at the door of Abu Bakr for following the dictates of the hadith and for applying it in practice? The fact of the matter is that the hadith We, the Prophets do not leave heirs is authentic by both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah. Why is it then that Abu Bakr is condemned for appropriating an authentic statement of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, and that he be accused of fabricating the hadith in order to dispossess Fatimah of Fadak? With the Ahl as-Sunnah the authenticity of the hadith by the Ahl as-Sunnah is in no need of clarification. The following section clarifies the authenticity of the hadith in the sources of the Shiah and by their standards.

Authenticity of the hadith Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi:


Abu Abdillah (Imam Jafar as-Sadiq) says that Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam said: ... And the Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)

Regarding the authenticity of this hadith, Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi states in his commentary on al-Kafi, entitled Mirat al-Uqul:

[This] hadith has two chains of narration. The first is majhul [contains an unknown narrator], and the second is hasan or muwaththaq. [Together] they do not fall short of being sahih. (Mirat al-Uqul, vol. 1 p. 111)

It is then a fact that this hadith is reliable. Why do the ulama of the Shiah refrain from using it, despite the fact that it so well-known in their ranks? The strange thing here is that the hadith is authentic enough for Khomeini to utilise it as evidence of the validity of his monumental political theory of Wilayat al-Faqih (the Rule of the Jurisprudent). He writes under the heading Sahihat al-Qaddah (the authentic narration of al-Qaddah):
Ali ibn Ibrahim narrates from his father, from Hammad ibn Isa, on the authority of [Abdullah ibn Maymun] al-Qaddah that Abu Abdillah [Imam Jafar as-Sadiq] alayhis salam said: Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam said: Whoever walks a path seeking therein knowledge, Allah will lead him on a road to Jannah... And the Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion. (al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-Ilm, Bab Sifat al-Ilm wa-Fadlihi, hadith no. 2)

To this narration Khomeini appends the following remark:


The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable; he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators. (al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-Azam, Beirut)

Thereafter Khomeini points to another narration to the same effect that is recorded in alKafi with a weak chain of narration, and comments as follows:
This narration has been narrated with a slight difference to the same effect through another chain of narration that is weak, meaning that the chain is authentic up to Abul Bakhtari, but Abul Bakhtari himself is weak. That narration is as follows: [It is narrated] from Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa, from Muhammad ibn Khalid, from Abul Bakhtari, that Abu Abdillah [Imam Jafar as-Sadiq] alayhis salam said: Verily the Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya. That is because the Ambiya do not leave dirhams or dinars as inheritance, but they leave their words. . (alHukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133)

It might be concluded from the above that the hadith which states that the Ambiya do not

leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge is authentic in one of its two chains of narration, as attested to by Khomeini, and before him by Majlisi. Why should an authentically narrated statement of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam be spurned when it is a matter of consensus that there can be no Ijtihad when a Nass (text) exists? Again, why does this hadith qualify to be used in support of Wilayat alFaqih, but not for the issue of Fadak? Is this issue being judged subjectively?

The prayer of Zakariyya The argument in favour of the Ambiya leaving inheritancthat appropriates as proof the words of Zakariyya alayhis salam in Surah Maryam Grant me from Your side an heir who will inherit me and inherit the posterity of Yaqub is a pathetic argument that lacks logic in every respect. That is for the following reasons:
q

It is not fit or proper for a pious man to ask Allah for an heir to inherit his possessions. How can it then be found acceptable that a noble prophet like Zakariyya alayhis salam asked Allah for a son to inherit his wealth? What Zakariyyah alayhis salam really asked for was a son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Yaqub would continue. It is well know that Zakariyya alayhis salam was a poor man who earned his living as a carpenter. What wealth could he have had that would prompt him to request an heir from Allah? In fact, it was a general rule with the Ambiya that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and that they spent any surplus in charity. The word al-irth (inheritance) does not refer to material possessions exclusively. It is also used to denote knowledge, prophethood or sovereignty. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir:32, where Allah says: Thereafter We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen; and in Surah al-Muminun:10-11, where Allah says: Those are the Inheritors (alwarithun) who will inherit Paradise. The aforementioned hadith which states that the Ambiya do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge explicitly negates the possibility of the Ambiya leaving a material legacy as inheritance. This alone is sufficient proof.

Sulayman as the heir of Dawud The same is applicable to the argument in which the verse And Sulayman inherited Dawud (an-Naml:16) is used as proof that the Ambiya do leave a material inheritance. The inheritance in this case was not of material possessions. Rather, it was of prophethood, wisdom and knowledge. This is proven by the following two facts:
q

It is well known that Dawud alayhis salam had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He had numerous children from these wives and concubines. If this verse is assumed to speak of the inheritance of material possessions, why is Sulayman mentioned as the sole heir? If this verse is assumed to speak of material inheritance there does not remain much sense for it being mentioned in the Quran, since it is then reduced to an ordinary and trivial matter. Material inheritance is not something laudable, neither to Dawud nor to Sulayman alayhimas salam. Even a Jew or Christian inherits the material possessions of his father. The purpose of this verse is to extol the excellence of Sulayman and to make mention of that which was granted specifically to him. Inheriting material possessions is an ordinary and trivial matter that is common to everyone, like eating, drinking and burying the dead. This is not the kind of thing that would be mentioned about the Ambiya, since it is simply inconsequential. Only such things would be related about the Ambiya which carry lessons or benefit. Things like He died, and his son inherited his property, or They buried him, or They ate and drank slept is not the kind of information that would be conveyed in the stories of the Quran. (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah, vol. 1 p. 240, with minor adjustments)

A Womans Inheritance A more astounding revelationof which many people happen to be uninformedis the fact that in the Fiqh of the Imami Shiah a woman does noty inherit land or fixed property. How is it that the Shiah accept it for Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu anha to inherit Fadak, when their own jurisprudence does not allow the succession of a woman to land or fixed property?
q

In al-Kafi al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled Women do not inherit land. In this chapter he narrates a hadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property. (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1)

Al-Tusi in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar have narrated from Maysarah that he asked Imam Jafar as-Sadiq about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied: They will get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the fixed property, they will get no inheritance from that. (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar alAnwar, vol. 104 p. 351) Al-Tusi records in Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar from Muhammad ibn Muslim that Imam Muhammad al-Baqir said: A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property. (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152) He also records from Abd al-Malik ibn Ayan that either Imam Muhammad al-Baqir or Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said: Women will have nothing of houses or land. (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)

In addition, if Fadak had to be inheritance, the wives of Rasulullah sallallahi alayhi waalihi wasallam like Aishah, and his daughters like Zaynab and Umm Kulthum would have had a share in it. However, Abu Bakr, for the sake of the hadith, did not give anything of it to the wives or daughters of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, not even to his own daughter Aishah. Why are the wives and the other daughters of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam not mentioned as parties in the dispute over Fadak, and why is all attention focused only on Sayyidah Fatimah?

FADAK
AS A GIFT
All of the above concerns the status of Fadak as inheritance from Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam. On the other hand, if it is maintained that Fadak was a gift from Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallamas claimed by al-Kashani in his tafsir, as-Safi (vol. 3 p. 186)the matter needs to be looked into. This claim is first and foremost contradicted by authentic reports of both the Ahl asSunnah and the Shiah which state that Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu anha requested Fadak as her inheritance from Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam. However,

even if this claim is assumed to be an authentic, we still cannot accept it. We cannot accept it since it is diametrically opposed to the precept of parental fairness to children espoused by Islam. The Sahabi Bashir ibn Sad came to Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, telling him that he had given one of his sons a garden as a gift, and requesting Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam to be witness thereto. Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam asked whether he had given a similar gift to all of his children. When he replied in that he had not in fact done so, Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alih wasallam told him, Go away, for I will not be a witness to injustice. (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Hibat, no. 14) Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam denounced the act of giving one child more than the other as injustice. Is it then at all plausible that one such as he, as an infallible Nabi who refuses to be witness to injustice, would himself perpetrate that injustice? Is it imaginable that he, who is entrusted with the Trust of the Heavens, could breach a mundane trust of this world by giving Fadak as a gift to Fatimah alone amongst all his daughters? We all know that Khaybar was taken in the 7th year after the Hijrah, and that Zaynab died in the 8th year, and Umm Kulthum in the 9th year after the Hijrah. How can it then be thought that Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam would give something to Fatimah but not to his other daughters? In any event, what is reliably contained in the documented reports is that when Sayyidah Fatimah requested Fadak, she requested it as her inheritance, and not as a gift that was given to her by Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam.

CONCLUSION
It is therefore concluded that Fadak was neither inheritance nor a gift. This was exactly the position of Imam Ali. When he became the Khalifah he did not treat Fadak as the estate of his deceased wife Sayyidah Fatimah, by taking a quarter for himself and distributing the remaining three quarters between , Husayn and Umm Kulthum according to the rule to the male twice the share of the female. This is an established fact of history. Why is Abu Bakr execrated for something which was also done by Ali? In fact,

Sayyid Murtada (known as Alam al-Huda) narrates in his book on Imamah entitled ashShafi, that when Ali became the khalifah he was approached about returning Fadak. His reply was: I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by Umar. (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231; and Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4) I was on the verge of closing the file on the Fadak issue and a discussion of the various arguments issue when my eye fell on a narration which throws light upon the condition of those who are bent upon finding fault with Abu Bakr, by whichsoever means they can, legitimate or illegitimate. Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi:
Abul Hasan [Imam Ali ar-Rida] came to [the Abbasid khalifah] al-Mahdi and saw him redressing grievances and returning property to its owners that was unrightfully appropriated. He [Imam Rida] asked, What about our grievance? Why is it not returned? Al-Mahdi asked. And what might that be, Abul Hasan? He replied, When Allah granted his Prophet the conquest of Fadak... Al-Mahdi asked, Abul Hasan, describe to me the extent of this property. He [Imam Rida] replied, One side of it is Mount Uhud. Another side is al-Arish in Egypt. Another side is the coastline. Another side is Dawmat al-Jandal. (al-Kafi, Bab al-Fay wal-Anfal, vol. 1 p. 543; also Bihar alAnwar, vol. 48 p. 156)

How can a piece of land in Khaybar possibly fit this description? Is this the extent to which people will allow themselves to be duped and deceived?

[EXPLANATORY NOTE: Mount Uhud, of course, is in Madinah. This is given as the south-eastern point. The north-eastern point is stated to be Dawmat al-Jandal, a location close to the Saudi-Jordanian border. Al-Arish lies in Egypt, on the edge of the Sinai desert. It is given as the north-western point. The western boundary is stated as the western coastline of the Arabian peninsula. The area described here corresponds roughly to the area lying between latitudes 25 and 30, and longitudes 35 and 40. It is the entire north western quarter of the Arabian peninsula, and is twice as large as modern Jordan.]

The Marriage of umm kulthum


daughter of Ali ibn Abi Talib

to Umar ibn al-Khattab t

by Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi

MISREPRESENTATION OF HISTORY

A major part of the edifice upon which Shiism has constructed itself is its idiosyncratic portrayal of the early history of Islam. It is especially in its representation of the relationships that existed between Ali ibn Abi Talib t and the eminent Sahabah like Abu Bakr t and Umar t that Shiism has acquired a character of its own. Shii historians seemed little troubled by the fact that their own reconstruction of history would inevitably involve the invention of events, or versions of actual events, that would be at variance with standard sources. They seem to have been considerably confident that the emotional appeal of their version of history would override, and indeed obviate the need for a critical comparison of their narratives with those of other historians of repute. Their confidence appears to have been well founded, for a milennium has passed and still there is evidence in abundance of an emphatically emotional and sentimental approach to issues whose historicity needed to have been critically scrutinised in a spirit of emotional detachment. In this belated century that prides itself on the advancement of research methodology and techniques, the anomaly of a methodology that has emotive appeal as its central component stands out like a very sore thumb.

It is this spiritof emotional prejudice overriding objective scholarshipthat Shii propagandists up to this very day insist on "revealing" to their Sunni audiences the "truth" about the "persecution" suffered by the Ahl al-Bayt y at the hands of the Sahabah y . They can often be found launching into their particular misrepresentations of history, with no respect for standards of historic authenticity, and even less in awe of the way in which they are in actual fact bringing disgrace upon the Family of Rasulullah r . Their audiences too, are just as often completely captivated by these "revelations". The last thing on the mind of both propagandist and audience is the grievous contradictions the writer or speaker makes himself guilty of in his emotionally laden corruption of history.

"PERSECUTION" OF THE AHL AL-BAYT


One such case of the invention of history is the "persecution" mentioned by Shii reporters of history to have been meted out to Ali ibn Abi Talib and his wife Sayyidah Fatimah immediately after the demise of Rasulullah r . The incidents as mentioned by these unscrupulous narrators of Umar ibn al-Khattab threatening to burn down the house of Fatimah with her and her family inside of Umar ordering the door of the house to be broken, with Fatimah being wounded and losing her unborn child in the process, and six months later dying from that same injury and of her husband, the valiant Ali being dragged out of his house like a common criminal to give his oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr all of these have to the Shii mind become undisputable and incontestible facts of history, no matter how spurious their origin, or how blatantly they clash with authentic historical facts. Abu Bakr and Umar will ever be thought of by the Shiah in terms of the "deeds" of that day, and no true Shii who believes in these stories as factual truth could ever be expected to harbour the merest ounce of goodwill towards Abu Bakr and Umarlet alone the rest of the Sahabah who stood with them and paid allegiance to them. However, let us take this version of history that weaves itself around the core element of persecution, and its concomitant of mutual hatred between Ali ibn Abi Talib and the rest of the Sahabah, and let us compare it with some other facts, the historic authenticity of which is accepted by both Ahl as-Sunnah and Shiah. For example, the fact that Ali ibn Abi Talib himself names three of his sons Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. (See al-Shaykh al-Mufid, Kitab al-Irshad, pp. 268-269, where these three sons of Ali are listed as numbers 12, 6 and 10 respectively.) No one, not even the most magnanimous of people, names his son after his enemies who were responsible for the death of his wife. That is why one simply cannot find a Shii today named Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman. In fact, reports from Iran have it that Shii officials will not allow Iranian Sunnis to give their children these names. (See the article "The Dismal Reality of the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran" at http://www.islam.org.au/articles/24/iran.htm) Another fact of history which clashes with the alleged persecution of Ali and Fatimah by the Sahabah

is the marriage of Umm Kulthum, the daughter of Ali and Fatimah, to Umar ibn al-Khattab. This marriage, in which Ali ibn Abi Talib gave this daughter borne to him by Fatimah, in marriage to Umar ibn al-Khattabthe very same man whom the Shiah allege caused the death of Fatimahassails the foundations of Shiism in a way that few issues can. It threw the house of Shiism into violent disorder, and the ulama of the Shiah, reeling under its impact, found themselves lunging at just about any twig in sight. This paper looks at the various Shii responses to the marriage of Umm Kulthum to Umar ibn al-Khattab, and demonstrates the embarrasment in the Shii camp to which this contradictory cacophony of responses eloquently testifies.

THE MARRIAGE OF UMM KULTHUM


Umm Kulthum was the second daughter of Ali and Fatimah, and the youngets of their four children. She was born in about the year 6 AH. She became of marriagable age during the khilafah of Umar ibn al-Khattab, and the khalifah asked for her hand in marriage. This is recorded by Ibn Sad in his work atTabaqat al-Kubra (vol. 8 p. 338, ed. Muhammad Ab al-Qadir Ata, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1990) as follows: I was informed by Anas ibn Iyad al-Laythi, who reports on the authority of Jafar ibn Muhammad [as-Sadiq], and he from his father [Muhammad alBaqir] that Umar ibn al-Khattab asked Ali ibn Abi Talib for the hand of Umm Kulthum in marriage. Ali said, "I had kept my daughters for the sons of Jafar." Umar said, "Marry her to me, O Abul Hasan, for by Allah,there is no man on the face of the earth who seeks to achieve through her good companionship that which I seek to achieve." Ali said, "I have done so." Then Umar came to the Muhajirun between the grave [of Rasulullah r ] and the pulpit. TheyAli, Uthman, Zubayr, Talhah and Abd arRahmanused to sit there, and whenever a matter used to arrive from the frontiers, Umar used to come to them there and consult with them. He came to them and said, "Congratulate me." They congratulated him, and asked, "With whom are we congratulating you, O Amir al-Muminin?" He replied, "With the daughter of Ali ibn Abi Talib." Then he related to them that the Nabi r said, "Every tie of kinship, and every association will be cut off on the Day of Qiyamah, except my kinship and my association." [Umar said,] "I have had the companionship of Rasulullah r ; I would like also to have this [kinship]." Two children were born from this marriage, namely Zayd and Ruqayyah. After the martyrdom of Umar she was married to her cousin Awn ibn Jafar, and after his death to his brother Muhammad ibn Jafar. Ultimately she died while married to a third of the sons of Jafar, namely Abdullah during the

first half of the fourth decade after the Hijrah. Her son Zayd died on the same day as his mother, and the funeral prayer for mother and son was performed together. The marriage of Umm Kulthum has been unanimously accepted as a fact of history by all major biographers and historians. Its authenticity has never been contested by anyonenot even the staunchest Shiahduring the first four centuries after the Hijrah. It was only during the fifth century that ash-Shaykh al-Mufid (died 413 AH) appears to have woken up to the threat that the acceptance of this marriage holds for the doctrine of the Shiah and their particular view of history. At this moment it needs to be noted that the above narration was recorded by Ibn Sad from a man called Anas ibn Iyad al-Laythi, who report directly on the authority of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq, and he from his father Muhammad al-Baqir. In other words, we have here a purely Shii chain of narration. Anas ibn Iyad al-Laythi is regarded by reputable Shii rijal, critics such as an-Najashi and Ibn Mutahhar al-Hilli, as a companion of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq who was "thiqah, sahih al-hadith" (reliable, a transmitter of authentic hadith). (See al-Ardabili, Jami ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 109, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1983) Since he narrates directly from the "infallible" Imam, there can be no question about the veracity of his report. Thereupon, his report is corroborated by a wealth of other narrations all of which affirm the historicity of this marriage. Above it all is the fact that for over three centuries this marriage remained uncontested. In later centuries the marriage of Umm Kulthum would become a major bone of contention for Shii polemicists. This marriage as a topic in Shii theology owes its importance to its open contradiction to Shii views of religion and history. This is expressed by the Shii authors Muhammad al-Hassun and Umm Ali Mashkur in their book Alam an-Nisa al-Muminat (p. 182) in the following terms: The marriage of Umm Kulthum to Umar ibn al-Khattab is counted amongst the important issues presented to us by Islamic history, and as one of those matters around which debate and research has continued at lengthand still continues. Those who regard this marriage as an authentic fact use it to prove the righteousness of her husband [Umar] and Alis u acceptance of him. Otherwise, why would he give him his daughter in marriage? As for those who reject the historic occurrence of the marriage, or are of the opinion that it took place under pressure which Umar brought to bear upon Ali u use this issue to justify the unrighteousness and viciousness of Umar, and that Ali u did not approve of him. Shii writings on the marriage of Umm Kulthum The same authors then proceed to enumerate a list of five independent books on the marriage of Umm Kulthum written by the ulama of the Shiah from as early as the 4th century, down to as late as the present age. This list is not exhaustive, and excludes discussions of the same issue in other larger works. The works listed are: al-Masalah al-Muwaddihah an Asbab Nikah Amir al-Muminin by ash-Shaykh al-Mufid (died 413 AH). It is alternatively entitled Inkah

Amir al-Muminin Ibnatahu min Umar. This book is metioned by Aqa Buzurg Tehrani in adh-Dhariah (vol. 2 p. 396 no. 3641) and a manuscript of it is kept at the library of Ayatullah Marashi Najafi in Qum. Jawab as-Sual an Wajh Tazwij Amir al-Muminin Ibnatahu min Umar by Sayyid Murtada (died 436 AH). It is also mentioned by Aqa Buzurg Tehrani (vol. 5 p. 183 no. 811) and a copy is preserved at the library of Ayatullah Marashi Najafi in Qum. Tazwij Umar li-Umm Kulthum by Shaykh Sulayman ibn Abdullah al-Mahuzi (died 1121 AH). It is mentioned by Tehrani in adh-Dhariah. Tazwij Umm Kulthum bint Amir al-Muminin wa-Inkar Wuquihi by Shaykh Muhammad Jawad al-Balaghi (died 1352AH/1932). It is mentioned by Tehrani at two places in adh-Dhariah (vol. 4 p. 172 and vol. 11 p. 146). an independent treatise by Sayyid Nasir Husayn of Lucknow, India (died 1361AH/1941). The above clearly demonstrates the attention the marriage of Umm Kulthum has enjoyed with Shii authors, and indicates the strategic importance of this marriage in Sunni-Shii polemics and dialogue. Chronologically speaking, attitudes amongst the Shiah towards the marriage of Umm Kulthum can be divided into three stages: (1) before the 5th century AH, (2) after the 5th century AH, and (3) after the establishment of the Safavid Empire in the 10th century. Each of these stages will now be dealt with separately.

PRIOR TO THE FIFTH CENTURY


Shii activity during the first century after the Hijrah had been confined to a large extent to revolutionary insurrections, starting from the campaign of the Tawwabun who sought to avenge the murder of Husayn, and continuing in the exploits of people like Mukhtar ath-Thaqafi and Abu Muslim al-Khurasani. It was only during the latter half of the second century that evidence begins to surface of some sort of intellectual activity amongst the Shiah. However, here too, the scope of that activity was limited to the documentation of the sayings which the Shiah ascribe to their Imams. The fourth century after the Hijrah witnessed the compilation of Muhammad ibn Yaqub al-Kulaynis monmumental work al-Kafi. This work enjoys the following distinctions: in it the author sought to document the minor compilations of Shii hadith by previous

authors into one major compendium it was compiled in Baghdad during the Minor Occultation of the Hidden Imam (as stated by Aqa Buzurg Tehrani in adh-Dhariah, vol. 17 p. 245) at a time when the representative of the Imam resided in that city, which afforded the opportunity for its contents to be scrutinised an ratified by the Imam himself (as stated by Ibn Tawus in his book Kashf al-Mahajjah, p. 159) This is in itself proof of the authenticity of the narrations contained in the book (says al-Hurr al-Amili in Wasail ash-Shiah, vol. 20 p. 71). it actually bears the seal of approval of the Hidden Imam himself, and he was the one who named it "al-Kafi" (meaning "sufficient") by saying, as reported by al-Khwansari in Rawdat al-Jannat (vol. 6 p.116): "hadha kafin li-shiatina" (This is sufficient for our Shiah). In this work the author has documented at least FOUR traditions to the Imams which affirm the marriage of Umm Kulthum to Umar. In fact, he has devoted the 23rd chapter in the Book on Marriage (Kitab an-Nikah) in Furu al-Kafi to the marriage of Umm Kulthum (bab tazwij Umm Kulthum). Two of the four traditions are contained in this chapter, while the other two are found in a related chapter on where a widow whose husband has died should spend her waiting period, or iddah (bab al-mutawaffa anha zawjuha al-madkhul biha ayna tataddu wa ma yajibu alayha). However some of these traditions impart a unique flavour to the entire episode, in that now for the first time it becomes presented as a marriage concluded by sheer force and terror, in which Ali ibn Abi Talib, for all his nobility and courage, could not protect his young daughter, and was compelled, on threat of physical violence to his person, to give her to the khalifah. The traditions documented in alKafi are as follows: Ali ibn Ibrahimfrom his fatherfrom Ibn Abi Umayrfrom Hisham ibn Salim and Hammadfrom Zurarah, who narrates that Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said regarding the marriage of Umm Kulthum: "That was a woman who was taken from us by force." (Furu al-Kafi, vol. 5 p. 347, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1992) [The word woman here is an attempt from the writer of this article to preserve the honour of the Ahl al-Bayt, since a literal translation of the original Arabic would prove too vulgar.] Muhammad ibn Abi UmayrHisham ibn Salim, who narrates that Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said: "When [Umar] proposed to Amir alMuminin, he said, She is a child. Then he [Umar] met Abbas and asked him, What is wrong with me? Is there a problem with me? Abbas asked, Why? Umar replied, I

asked your nephew for his daughters hand in marriage, and he rejected me. Oh, I swear by Allah, I will fill the well of Zamzam with earth, I will destroy every honour that you have, and I will set up two witnesses to testify that he stole, that I may cut off his right hand. Abbas thereupon came to Ali and informed him of what had transpired. He asked Ali to put the matter in his hands, and Ali complied." (Furu al-Kafi, vol. 5 p. 347-348, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1992) Humayd ibn ZiyadIbn SamaahMuhammad ibn ZiyadAbdullah ibn SinanMuawiyah ibn AmmarImam Jafar as-Sadiq: [Muawiyah ibn Ammar says:] I asked him about a woman whose husband died: Should she spend her iddah in her house, or where she wants to? He replied, "Where she wants to. When Umar died, Ali u came and took Umm Kulthum to his house." (Furu al-Kafi, vol. 6 p. 117, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1992) Muhammad ibn Yahya and othersAhmad ibn Muhammad ibn IsaalHusayn ibn Saidan-Nadr ibn SuwaydHisham ibn SalimSulayman ibn Khalid, who says: I asked Imam Jafar as-Sadiq about the woman whose husband has died: Where should she spend her iddah? In her husbands house, or where she wants to? He said: "Where she wants to. When Umar died, Ali u came, took Umm Kulthum by the hand, and took her to his house." (Furu al-Kafi, vol. 6 p. 117, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1992) Authenticity We have here four chains of narration up to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq. An investigation into the authenticity of these chains of narration by Shiiand not Sunnistandards reveals that each and every one of them is a highly reliable and accurate chain. NARRATION 1 al-Kulayni received the reports from Ibn Abi Umayr through his teacher Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi, who is his source for about one third of the material in al-Kafi. Ali ibn Ibrahim is the author of an early Tafsir of the Shiah, and is highly regarded by Shii rijal critics such as anNajashi and Ibn Mutahhar, who declare him to be "thiqatun fil hadith, thabt, mutamad, sahih al-madhhab" (reliable in hadith transmission, reliable dependable, correct in belief.) (Jami ar-Ruwat vol. 1 p. 545) Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi reports from his father Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-

Qummi. He is reputed to have been the first to spread the hadith of the Shiah from Kufah to Qum. Reports via him abound in al-Kafi, through his son. He has been generally accepted by the Shiah as a reliable narrator. He is even mentioned by Abu Jafar at-Tusi as having met the 9th Imam. (Jami ar-Ruwat vol. 1 p. 38) His reliability as a narrator is attested to in a contemporary work on the authority of his son, Ali ibn Ibrahim, Ibn Tawus and al-Allamah al-Hilli. (Abu Talib at-Tajlil at-Tabrizi, Mujam athThiqat, p. 5) Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi reports on the authority of Muhammad ibn Abi Umayr. This Ibn Abi Umayr is one of the most reliable Shii narrators ever. Abu Jafar at-Tusi says of him: "kana min awthaq annas" (he was of the most reliable of people). (al-Fihrist p. 169) More importantly, he was of the elect group of Shii narrators called the Ashab alIjma (Men of the Consensus). What this means is that when the chain of narration is proven authentic up to one of these men, the rest of the chain up to the Imam may automatically be assumed to be authentic too. (See the details of this consensus in al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah fi Ilm adDirayah, vol. 2 pp. 171-208) The authenticity of this narration is therefore proven on grounds of this consensus. NARRATION 2 This report also came down to al-Kulayni through Ali ibn Ibrahim, from his father, from Ibn Abi Umayr. The discussion on the first chain of narration is therefore fully applicable to this chain too. NARRATION 3 al-Kulayni reports this narration from his teacher Humayd ibn Ziyad. This Humayd is graded by the Shii rijal critics as "alim jalil al-qadr, wasi al-ilm, kathir at-tasnif, thiqah" (a learned scholar, of great status, wide knowledge, a prolific author, reliable) (Jami ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 284) Ibn Samaah is properly known as al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Samaah. He was one of the foremost Shii fuqaha of Kufah, and is described as "kathir al-hadith, faqihun thiqah" (a prolific narrator of hadith, a jurist, reliable). (Jami ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 225) Muhammad ibn Ziyad is properly known as Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ziyad al-Attar. He is described as "thiqah" (reliable). (Jami ar-Ruwat, vol. 2 p. 91) Abdullah ibn Sinan was an eminent Imami Shii of Kufah about whom it is stated: "thiqatun min ashabina, la yutanu alayhi fi shay" (one of our reliable associates against whom no criticism whatsoever can be levelled).

(Jami ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 487) Muawiyah ibn Ammar was an eminent and leading Shii narrator of Kufah who narrates from Imam Jafar as-Sadiq. His Shii biographers have documented about him that he was "wajhan min ashabina muqaddaman, kabir ash-shan, azim al-mahall, thiqah" (a leading figure amongst our associates, pre-eminent, great in status, exalted in position, reliable). (Jami ar-Ruwat, vol. 2 p. 239) The opinions of the Shii critics of hadith regarding the narrators of this report as reproduced here unequivocally indicate that what we have here is a authetic report. NARRATION 4 al-Kulayni recorded this report on the authority of his several of his teachers, one of whom is Muhammad ibn Yahya alAttar al-Qummi. He was regarded as "shaykhu ashabina fi zamanihi, thiqah, ayn, kathir alhadith" (the shaykh of our associates in his time, reliable, an outstanding personality, a prolific narrator of hadith). (Jami ar-Ruwat, vol. 2 p. 213) Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa al-Qummi was "shaykh al-Qummiyyin, wa-wajhuhum, wa-faqihuhum, ghayra mudafa" (the shaykh of the people of Qum, and their undisputed leader and jurist). (Jami ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 69) Abu Jafar at-Tusi and al-Allamah al-Hilli have unequivocally declared him "thiqah" (reliable). (ar-Rijal p. 366; and al-Khulasah p. 13) al-Husayn ibn Said is described as "ayn, jalil al-qadr" (an outstanding personality of great stature) and"thiqah" (reliable). (Jami ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 241) an-Nadr ibn Suwayd is rated as "Kufi,thiqah, sahih al-hadith" (a reliable Kufan who transmits authentic hadith). (Jami ar-Ruwat, vol. 2 p. 292) Hisham ibn Salim is credited with having been a student of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq. His reliability as a transmitter of hadith is attested to by the emphatic statement of al-Allamah and an-Najashi: "thiqatun thiqah" (reliable, and once again reliable). (Jami ar-Ruwat, vol. 2 p. 315) Sulayman ibn Khalid is mentioned as having been a student of Imam alBaqir. His death is recorded to have caused Imam Jafar extreme grief. He is universally acclaimed as "thiqah" (reliable). (Jami ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 378) This investigation concludes that each of the narrators of the four narrations affirming the marriage of Umm Kulthum documented in al-Kafi was a reliable Imami Shii transmitter with whose abilities and trustworthiness in hadith transmission the Shii authorities have expressed their satisfaction. The

significance of this fact will come to light when we discuss the turnabout that occurred after the development of Shii kalam (scholastic theology) at the hands of ash-Shaykh al-Mufid in the fifth century. Besides al-Kulayni, there were during this time other Shii authors too who affirmed the marriage of Umm Kulthum in a way much similar to that of al-Kulayni. One of these was Abul Qasim al-Kufi (died 352 AH). He devoted a number of pages in his book al-Istighathah fi Bida ath-Thalathah to the marriage of Umm Kulthum, and after presenting several arguments and counter arguments, he concludes the following: Rasulullah r entrusted upon Ali u all that he needed at the time of his death. He informed him of everything that will be done to him by his Ummah, mentioning the usurpers one by one. Ali u said, "What do you command me to do?" and Rasulullah r answered, "Have patience and forbearance until the people return to you of their own volition. At that time you must fight the breakers of oaths, the unjust and those who out of the fold. Do not oppose any of the Three, for thereby you will bring about your own destruction, and the people will go from hypocrisy to disunity." Ali u was thus keeping this covenant, protecting thereby the oppressed Muslims, and preserving the Religion, so that people would not return to open Jahiliyyah, with tribes seeking to stir up sedition by settling old scores. Thus, when Umar asked for the hand of Umm Kulthum, Ali u thought to himself: "If I say no, he will want to kill me, and if he tries to kill me I will protect myself, and that would mean breaking the covenant with Rasulullah r and going against his command. Should that happen, that thing would come to pass which Rasulullah r tried to prevent, and for which reason he asked me to exercise patience, which is that people will fall into apostasy." It was better to hand over Umm Kulthum to him than to kill him. He thus handed her over to him, knowing fully well that what the man had usurped of the wealth of the Muslims and of their government, and what he had perpetrated by denying his (Alis) right and sitting on the place of the Prophet r , and his changes to and corruption of the laws and ordinances of Allah were far more terrible and dreadful than his forcible possession of his daughter. He handed her over, and resigned himself to patience, just like the Prophet r had ordered him to do. In doing so he placed his daughter in a position similar to that of Asiyah bint Muzahim, the wife of Firawn, since Allah mentions her in the words: "She said: O my Lord, build for me a house by you in Paradise, and save me from Firawn and his doings, and save me from the unjust people." Indeed, what Firawn had wreaked upon Bani Israilkilling their infants and raping their womenin his search for Musa was much more ghastlier than his forcible possession of his wife Asiyah, and his marriage to her. She is a believing woman and of the people of Paradise, as attested to by

Allah Himself. The case of this man with Umm Kulthum is the same as the case of Firawn with Asiyah. His unjust usurpation of leadership, wherein he opposed Allah and His Messenger r , by denying the Imam his right, and his confiscation of the goverment of the Muslims, whilst governing their wealth, their persons and their lives with laws other than the laws of Allah and His Messenger r all of that was more dreadful in the sight of Allah than his forcible possession of the bodies of a thousand believing women, not even to mention the body of a single woman. (al-Istighathah fi Bida ath-Thalathah p. 90) Abul Qasim al-Kufi seems not to spare a moments thought for the fact that this was not just any woman. This was the daughter of Ali and Fatimah. This was the granddaughter of Rasulullah r . This was the sister of Hasan and Husayn. What the Shiah here seek to subject their Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib to is unspeakable. Which father would sit by idly while his daughter is being forcibly taken by an abominable enemy? This is the extent to which their twisting and corruption of history has led themthat they are prepared to place upon their Imams the kind of shame that even the simplest ones amongst themselves would never bear. And the evil plot only entraps its own people. (al-Fatir:43) In addition, this attempt by Abul Qasim al-Kufi to explain the marriage of Umm Kulthum is full of discrepancies, some of which we will make mention of hereunder: The comaprison between Umm Kulthum and Asiyah is unjustified. Asiyah was not the daughter of a Nabi who was forced to hand her over in marriage to a tyrant. She was married to him even before Musa was born. Her marriage to Firawn was not concluded under threat and compulsion, neither could it have been caused her father (whoever he was) any sort of embarrasment. Abul Qasims report speaks of Rasulullah r informing Ali of exactly what would be done to him by each of the three khulafa. He must therefore have known that Umar will demand his daughter. Yet when the time comes to pass he refuses the marriage on grounds that she is too young (see the second narration from al-Kafi), and even Abul Qasims own report mentions him weighing his options. Someone who knows what is coming has no need to weigh his options. The reason for preserving the peace with the three khulafa is given as the fear that people will revert into apostasy. Yet in a narration from Imam alBaqir documented in al-Kafi, apostasy is mentioned to have set in immediately after the death of Rasulullah r : "Kana n-nasu ahla riddatin bada Rasulillahi r illa thalathah" (After the death of Rasulullah r the people were apostates, except three.) (Rawdat al-Kafi, vol. 8 p. 167, no. 341) If they were thus already apostate, what reason did he have to sacrifice his own daughters honour and chastity in order to preserve the

non-existent? However, despite all Abul Qasim al-Kufis effort in working out a logical explanation of why Ali ibn Abi Talib gave his daughter in marriage to Umar ibn al-Khattab, later Shii scholars like al-Mufid could find no place for his arguments within their recension of Shii doctrines.

AFTER THE FIFTH CENTURY


With the ascendancy of the Shii Buyids at Baghdad during the latter half of the fourth century, Shii scholarship gained the patronage it required, and there developed under ash-Shaykh al-Mufid a school of Shii theology that was to leave its lasting upon Shiism. This school took full advantage of the methods and techniques of the existing schools of theology, especially the rationalist approach of the Mutazilah. It adopted and appropriated Mutazili methods to its own advantage, and rationalised much of what had earlier been left to the domain of textual authority. The marriage of Umm Kulthum did not escape this process of rationalisation. When this issue was discovered to run against the grain of Shii theologya theology that has its roots in a particular perspective of historythere was but one of two options open to the rationalisers. They could choose the way of Abul Qasim al-Kufi, al-Kulayni and other traditionists, and accept the marriage as a union achieved by force and threats of violence. But this option, instead of solving the problem, created another problem. The other option left open to them was to do a complete trunabout and deny that this marriage ever took place. Ash-Shaykh al-Mufid The lead was taken by ash-Shaykh al-Mufid himself. He wrote an independent treatise about the marriage of Umm Kulthum, and discussed it in his other works as well, most notably al-Masail asSarawiyyah. The tenth question in this books deal with the marriage of Umm Kulthum. It reads as follows: TENTH QUESTION: What is his (al-Mufids) view regarding Amir alMuminin marrying his daughter Umm Kulthum to Umar ibn al-Khattab, and regarding the Nabi r marrying his daughters Zaynab (sic) and Ruqayyah to Uthman? ANSWER: The report speaking of Amir al-Muminin marrying his daughter to Umar ibn al-Khattab so unfounded. It is narrated via Zubayr ibn Bakkar, and its chain of narration is well known. He was untrustworthy in transmission. There is suspicion on him in what he mentions. He used to hate Amir al-Muminin. What Ali ibn Hashim claims to narrate from him is untrustworthy. This hadith was included by Abu Muhammad al-Hasan

ibn Yahya in his book on genealogy, and account of that people thought it to be true, thinking that it is narrated by an Alawi (descendant of Ali). However, the fact is that he narrates it from Zubayr ibn Bakkar. The hadith in itself is a forgery. It is sometimes narrated that Amir alMuminin himself performed the ceremony, and sometimes it is narrated that it was Abbas who performed it. Sometimes it is narrated that the marriage took place only after menacing by Umar and threats against Banu Hashim; and sometimes it is mentioned that the marriage took place freely and voluntarily. The some narrators claim that a child named Zayd was born from this marriage, while others claim he was killed before consummating the marriage. Some say Zayd ibn Umar left offspring, while others say he was killed without leaving children. Some say he and his mother were killed, and some say his mother lived after him. Some say Umar gave Umm Kulthum a dowry of 40 000 dirhams, others claim it was 4000 dirhams, and yet others claim her dowry was 5000 dirhams. The origin of this claim, as well as the amount of contradiction in it renders the hadith null, so it is of no consequence. At this point the benefit of investigating the authenticity of the four reports in al-Kafi will become apparent. It can be seen here that al-Mufid places the responsibility for inventing the marriage of Umm Kulthum on the shoulders of the historian Zubayr ibn Bakkar. However, even a cursory comparison with the narrations in al-Kafi and the one quoted earlier from Tabaqat Ibn Sad (all of which are but a drop in the ocean) demonstrates clearly that Zubayr ibn Bakkar features nowhere in any of those chains of narration. Each of the narrators of those reports was a Shii about whose trustworthiness the ulama of the Shiah were fully satisfied. Not a single on of those reports originated with Zubayr ibn Bakkar. On the contrary, each one of them is traced back to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq. Al-Mufids protestations are thus completely bereft of substance. If anything, it shows the mans desperation for finding some grounds, no matter how flimsy or spurious, on which to dismiss the marriage of Umm Kulthum. Aside from trying to make Zubayr ibn Bakkar responsible for the invention of the marriage of Umm Kulthum, al-Mufid tries to dismiss the incident by drawing attention to the discrepancies regarding certain lesser details. A simple response to this is that when a multitude of reports all share one common element, the common element cannot be dismissed because of differences negligible details. An objective scholar who is not prejudiced by his idiosyncratic notion of what history should actually be like will never stoop to the level al-Mufid has. Objectivity here would require thoroughly sifting through the available historical material and accepting the version that fulfils the criteria of authenticity, such as have been demostrated in the case of al-Kulaynis narrations in al-Kafi. If an historical incident could be denied for a reason as flimsy as discrepancies in minor details, one could well reject the battle of Badr on grounds of the fact that there are differences regarding the exact date on which it took place, or differences in the amount of combatants, or even the amount of persons killed and taken captive. Here we are once again treated to the spectacle of a scholars desperation to superimpose the idiosyncracies of his theology over the facts of history, even if it means he has to discard the most basic standards of objectivity. At the end al-Mufids nonchalance failed to convince anyoneincluding himself. Therefore, two

paragraphs after denying the occurrence of Umm Kulthums marriage he comes back to fall into the queue of traditional Shii scholarship behind people like al-Kulayni and Abul Qasim al-Kufi, and writes: Amir al-Muminin was coerced to marry his daughter to the man, because he was threatening and menacing him. There can thus be no argument against Amir al-Muminin because he was forced into it for his own safety and that of his Shiah. He therefore complied under duress, just as we say that duress allows for even the pronunciation of Kufr. Allah says: "Except him who is forced, but his heart is content in faith." There is no end to ones amazement at seeing how this man would place the safety of the Shiah ("for his own safety and that of his Shiah") over the chastity and honour of his Imams daughter, and the granddaughter of Rasulullah r . After al-Mufid The first explanation produced by al-Mufidthat of denying the historicity of the marriagewas so ludicrous that he failed to convince even himself. His own student, the eminent Sayyid Murtada (died 436 AH), brother of the compiler of Nahj al-Balaghah, Sayyid Radi, was even less impressed by his teachers artifices. He solemnly stuck to the line of traditional Shii scholarship, insisting that the marriage was one of coercion and force. He dealt with the marriage of Umm Kulthum in two of his books. In the book ash-Shafi he discussed it at considerable length, the gist of which he later incorporated into his other book Tanzih al-Ambiya wal-Aimmah, where he writes: As for giving his daughter in marriage, we have mentioned the answer to this in the book ash-Shafi in detail, and that he only consented to give his daughter after he had been threatened and menaced and after there had been altercations at length. After Sayyid Murtada, Abu Ali al-Fadl ibn Hasan at-Tabarsi, the Shii mufassir of the 6th century (died 502 AH) stuck to the same line. He writes in his book Ilam al-Wara bi-Alam al-Huda (p. 204): As for Umm Kulthum, she is the one whom Umar ibn al-Khattab married. Our associates say that he (Ali) only married her to him after putting up a lot of resistance, severe refusals and finding excuses. Ultimately he was forced by circumstances to turn her matter over to Abbas ibn Abd alMuttalib who married her off. A later Shii scholar, Shaykh Abd an-Nabi al-Kazimi, writes in his book Takmilat ar-Rijal: The well known view of our associates, and the well known narrations are that Umar married her by force, as Sayyid Murtada emphatically insists in his treatise on the issue. In light of the narrations this is the more correct view. These narrations remove whatever doubt there might have been regarding how Amir al-Muminin could marry his daughter to him, when according to what the Shiah believe it is not supposed to be permissible to

have marital ties with him, since forcible possession and duress render everything permissible. The same applies to the objection regarding how he could have borne this forcible taking of his daughter when the very Hashimite spirit and Arab sense of honour would not tolerate such utter humiliation and insult. These texts settle the matter completely. Having found this niche of the "forced taking" of Umm Kulthum, these ulama of the Shiah took refuge in it from the torrent of questions and the utter indignation of anyone who witnesses the way in which they have shed their own shame and dishonour upon the memory of Sayyiduna Ali, Sayyidah Fatima, and their daughter Umm Kulthum, the granddaughter of Rasulullah r . Year in and year out they wail and lament the death of Sayyiduna Husayn, but for the honour of his sister Umm Kulthum they have not the slightest sympathy, blithely asserting that she was "forcibly taken" by Umar ibn alKhattab. Wouldnt it be simpler, easier and indeed more honourable and truthful just to accept the course of history as it was? But no, to them that would mean the destruction of this edifice of theirs called Shiism. So it is better for them to sacrifice the honour of the granddaughter of Rasulullah r than to forgo the doctrines which their own minds facshioned. As al-Mufid indicated, rather secure the safety of the Shiah than protect the honour of Umm Kulthum bint Ali.

AFTER THE FOUNDING OF THE SAFAVID EMPIRE


The founding of the Safavid empire in Iran at the dawn of the 16th century CE opened a new chapter in Shii history. Shii scholarship in particular benefitted from the patronage of the Safavid monarchs who invited them to fill the void left by the extermination and exile of the Sunni ulama of Iran. Though at first reluctant, they soon flowed into Iran in large numbers from Iraq, Bahrain and Syria, to fill posts created by the newly established Shii state, and to spread their faith amongst the people of Iran, the vast majority of whom were at that stage still Sunni. The establishment of a Shii state did not bring discussion around the marriage of Umm Kulthum to an end.

Question
It has been alleged that either Muawiyah or his son Yazid was involved in the poisoning of Sayyiduna Hasan. It is claimed that one of them persuaded one of Sayyiduna Hasans wives to administer poison to him. What is the truth of this claim?

Answer
Any claim of a historical nature must be substantiated with proof. An accusation made without providing proof is slanderous, and should accordingly be dismissed as such. But even the mere presentation of evidence is not sufficient to prove the claim. There is one very important condition that has to be met, and that is authenticity. The onus rests upon the claimant not only to provide evidence for his claim, but also to authenticate his evidence. For as long as he fails to prove its authenticity his claim is nothing more than an empty and worthless accusation. This is a general rule which applies to all historical claims, and not only those to do with alleged misdeeds of the Sahabah. Let us look, for example, at the issue of the "satanic verses" which was so maliciously taken advantage of by the notorious Salman Rushdie. Mr. Rushdie did not suck the incident out of his thumb; he found it in historical books. However, what he failed to do was to authenticate. Why? The reason is obvious. He had his own agenda and his own preconceived notions. Thus when someone accuses Muawiyah or anybody else of poisoning Sayyiduna Hasan, and does not care to examine the authenticity of the evidence for his accusation for no reason other than the fact that he dislikes Muawiyah, he is no less guilty than Salman Rushdie and his ilk. Let not your enmity for a person become your only motivation for finding him guilty.
And do not ever let enmity for a people carry you away into injustice. Be just; that is closer to piety. And fear Allah. Verily Allah is aware of what you do. (al-Maidah : 8)

It is authentically narrated that when Sayyiduna Hasan lay on his deathbed, dying from poisoning, his brother, Sayyiduna Husayn came to him and asked him, "Brother, tell me who is the one who poisoned you." Sayyiduna Hasan asked, "Why? That you may kill him?" Sayyiduna Husayn said, "Yes," to which Sayyiduna Hasan responded, "I will not tell you anything. If it is the one I think it is, then Allahs revenge is harsher. And if it is not he, then by Allah, no innocent person will be killed on account of me."1 This authentic narration shows that even Sayyiduna Hasan was not exactly sure of the identity of the poisoner. Over and above that, he refuses to tell his own brother who he suspects. It is strange that Sayyiduna Hasan himself displayed such great caution in the matter, fearing that he might be accusing an innocent person, but that people today can blurt out, without the blink of an eye, that "Muawiyah

poisoned Hasan". The greatest concern Sayyiduna Hasan had was the preservation of the Ummahs unity. It was on account of this concern that he made peace with Muawiyah in 41AH. It was also this outstanding accomplishment of his which was predicted by his grandfather, Rasulullah r , in the well known hadith "This son of mine is a sayyid, and soon the time will come when through him Allah will reconcile two great masses of Muslims." He had this concern of not causing strife in the Ummah, right upto the time of the death. It was his dearest wish to be buried with his grandfather, Rasulullah r , in the room of Sayyidah ishah, but he instructed Sayyiduna Husayn not to resort to violence in the event Banu Umayyah tried to prevent his burial there, and to bury him with his mother in Jannat al-Baqi. Sayyiduna Hasan was prepared to sacrifice the things nearest and dearest to him in order to preserve the peace and unity of the Ummah. Therefore, if it was Muawiyah whom he suspected of having him poisoned he would rather have been expected to tell Sayyiduna Husayn something like "I fear that you will cause civil war if you try to revenge yourself upon the one I suspect". In the fact that he does not allude to the prospect of disunity and sedition at all, but rather expresses fear at an innocent person being killed on account of him, we therefore have reason to see that the one whom Sayyiduna Hasan suspected of poisoning him was not Muawiyah. Muawiyah lived for ten more years after the passing of Sayyiduna Hasan. In all that time the valiant and fearless Sayyiduna Husayn was alive, and so was his brother, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah, his cousins Abdullah ibn Jafar and Abdullah ibn Abbas, and numerous other members of the Ahl alBayt. However, not a single one of them ever confronted Muawiyah on the poisoning of Sayyiduna Hasan. In fact, they maintained cordial relations with him, especially Ibn Abbas and Abdullah ibn Jafar. They never uttered a word about Muawiyahs alleged involvement in the death of Sayyiduna Hasan, neither in public nor to their closest followers. This gives us so much more reason to dismiss the allegation against Muawiyah as unfounded. Now let us look at the material in the books of history on the basis of which the allegation is made. The only report in which Muawiyah is implicated in the death of Sayyiduna Hasan is narrated by the historian, Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqidi. This report appears as follows:
[Al-Waqidi] says: I heard some people saying that Muawiyah secretly made one of his servants administer poison to him.2

As a report of history, this narration suffers from two fatally serious defects. The first is the universally recognised untrustworthiness of al-Waqidi. Details of his unreliability as a narrator would probably fill several pages, but all of it may be suitably condensed into a statement by Imam ash-Shafii, who was his contemporary, and who knew him personally. Ash-Shafii has the following to say: "In Madinah there were seven people who used to forge chains of narration. One of them was al-Waqidi."3 The second defect is much more glaring. Note that al-Waqidi does not mention the names of his informants, and that he merely says "I heard some people say". This particular report comes after a number of other reports in which al-Waqidi clearly mentions the names of his informants. When he comes to this one, he merely says "I heard some people say". Is it on the basis of such flimsy evidence

that people today are bold enough to level an accusation of murder? Indeed, this smacks of a total disregard for academic integrity for the sake of nothing but personal sentiments and prejudice. There is another report in which the wife of Sayyiduna Hasan, namely Jadah bint al-Ashath, is implicated in his murder by poisoning. This report has it that it was Yazid ibn Muawiyah who set her up to do it, promising to marry her thereafter. This report is narrated by Muhammad ibn Salam alJumahi. It is reproduced by al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal as follows:
Muhammad ibn Salam al-Jumahi narrates on the authority of Ibn Judubah that Jadah, the daughter of Ashath ibn Qays, was the wife of Hasan ibn Ali. A message was sent to her in secret by Yazid, telling her, "Poison Hasan, and I will be your husband." So she did it. When Hasan died she sent a message to Yazid asking him to fulfil his pledge. But he told her, "By Allah, we didnt approve of you as Hasans wife. Shall we approve of you as our own wife?"4

This is the way the report is found in the history books. To the uncritical reader who has no knowledge of the criteria of authenticity and their application, it might well appear to be acceptable evidence. To the one whose emotions have already caused him to be favourably disposed towards Sayyiduna Hasan, and unfavourably disposed towards Yazid, it is nothing less than incontrovertible evidence. But the true scholar never lets emotion make his decision for him. He first weighs the evidence, examines it and scrutinises it, and only if it merits approval and acceptance will he accept it. To the discerning scholar, emotions are shaped by evidence, and not evidence by emotions. Now we return to the report under discussion. Ibn Judubah, who is Muhammad ibn Salams source for this report, is properly known as Yazid ibn Iyad ibn Judubah. He lived in Madinah during the time of Imam Malik. Imam Maliks student, Abd ar-Rahman ibn al-Qasim, once asked his opinion about a person called Ibn Saman. The Imam replied, "He is a liar." Ibn al-Qasim then asked, "And Ibn Judubah?" Imam Malik replied, "An even bigger liar, an even bigger liar."5 All other rijal critics who ever expressed themselves on his status as a narrator have concurred with Imam Malik in some way or the other. Furthermore, Ibn Judubah died in the days of the Abbasid khalifah, al-Mahdi, whose reign came to an end in 169 AH. If we assume that that he died in 165 AH, and that he lived a life of 70 years, we could say he was born in about 95 AH. In other words, by the time of his birth, almost a half a century had passed after the death of Sayyiduna Hasan. The "Yazid-Jadah plot" therefore either came to his knowledge through sources whom he refrains to mention, or it was the product of his own mendacious and fertile imagination. In light of what his contemporaries thought of him (Ahmad ibn Salih al-Misri, for example says of him "I think he used to invent hadith for the people."6) one is inclined to believe that the whole plot was of his own invention. Looking at the times in which he lived the early Abbasid period , we find more reason to believe that the report is a forgery by Ibn Judubah. During the early Abbasid times sentiments were running high against the recently ousted Umayyads, and a person like the notorious Yazid would have been the perfect scapegoat. To come back now to the alleged involvement of Jadah bint Ashath: There is one other report which implicates her in the poisoning of Sayyiduna Hasan, but it does not mention anything about Yazid.7 It is narrated from Umm Musa, who was a bondswoman of Sayyiduna Ali.8 The chain of narration up to Umm Musa is reliable. However, we might pose a question here with regard to Umm Musa herself: Did

she identify Jadah as the culprit out of knowledge of her guilt, or must her words here be construed as the emotional outburst of a bereaved woman who simply must find someone to blame for the cause of her bereavement? We do not pose this question out unnecessary skepticism. There are two things which prompt us to ask it: Firstly, Sayyiduna Hasans own reluctance to name the person he suspected. Keep in mind also that he himself merely suspected, and did not know it for a fact. Secondly, if there were reasonable grounds for suspecting Jadah bint Ashath, no man would readily marry her, especially a man of the Ahl alBayt. But with Jadah we find that after the demise of Sayyiduna Hasan she was married by his fathers cousin Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Abbas, and that she bore him a son, Muhammad, and a daughter, Quraybah.9 From the above discussion we may then draw the following conclusions: The report implicating Muawiyah is narrated by an extremely unreliable narrator alWaqidi from unnamed people The report implicating Yazid and Jadah are narrated by a known liar Ibn Judubah who was born almost 50 years after the incident and names no sources at all. His report comes into circulation during the early Abbasid period in which anti-Umayyad sentiments, and more particularly anti-Yazid sentiments, are common. The report from Umm Musa which implicates Jadah is more likely the emotional outburst of a bereaved woman than an allegation based on factual knowledge. Sayyiduna Hasan himself refused to disclose the identity of the one he suspected. He restrained his brother Sayyiduna Husayn from taking any action. After the death of Sayyiduna Husayn the Ahl al-Bayt maintain good relations with Muawiyah in Damascus. In light of the above we fully endorse the statement by Ibn Kathir that none of these reports is authentic.10 We hope that this demonstration of how the words of a bereaved woman, a report by unknown reporters, and a forgery by a known liar came to be regarded as factual history will bring to light the need of critically examining historical sources before levelling accusations against anybody.
___________________________________________________________________ NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. See Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah vol. 7 p. 41 (Dar al-Hadith, Cairo 1414/1994); adhDhahabi, Siyar Alam an-Nubala vol. 3 p. 273 (7th ed., Muassasat ar-Risalah, Beirut 1410/1990); al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 6 p. 251 (Muassasat ar-Risalah, Beirut 1413/1992); Ibn Hajar, al-Isabah vol. 2 p. 13 (Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, n.d.); Ibn Abd al-Barr, al-Istiab vol. 1 p. 390 (Dar al-Jil, Beirut 1412/1992)

The narration is authentic on account of the fact that all its narrators are well known for reliability and trustworthiness, and that the chain of narration is uninterrupted from beginning to end. 2. al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah vol. 7 p. 41; Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 6 p. 251 3. Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 p. 194, in a footnote 4. ibid. vol. 6 p. 253 5. ibid. vol. 32 p. 223 6. ibid. vol. 32 p. 224 7. ibid. vol. 6 p. 253 8. Ibn Hajar, Lisan al-Mizan vol. 7 p. 543 (Dar al-Fikr, Beirut 1407/1987) 9. Ibn Sad, at-Tabaqat al-Kubra vol. 5 p. 241 (Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1410/1990) 10. al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah vol. 7 p. 41

Questions & Answers


Wald, the Sahb military commander, killed Mlik ibn Nuwayrah, and married his widow on the very eve of his murder, without even waiting for her iddah to expire. What is the truth of this allegation?

It is alleged that during the khilfah of Sayyidun Ab Bakr t , Khlid ibn al-

The incident of Mlik ibn Nuwayrah is one of those cases which are frequently cited

by Sh propagandists whose first step in the direction of convincing and converting the Ahl as-Sunnah almost invariably assumes the form of an attempt to prove how innately corrupt and evil the Sahbah were (nadhu billh). These are historical issues, and must be treated as such. This means that in judging their historicity one should firstly include all the evidence which exists around the issue, both general and specific, and secondly, be objective enough to look critically at the authenticity of ones material. Seeking to brand persons, and more especially the Sahbah y , as corrupt and irreligious on grounds of only one side of the available evidence, and stubbornly refusing to critically scrutinise the historical material upon the basis of which a claim of this serious nature is made, can only point to the fact that the accusers have an agenda an agenda which they are committed to promote and uphold, no matter to what extent truth and honesty might be compromised in the process. It is indeed a sad indictment of the objectivity of the Sh propagandists that they refuse point blank to take into consideration, when discussing the Sahbah y , the wealth of yt in the Qurn which announce the merits of the Sahbah y . Similarly, they refuse to pay any attention to the numerous ahdth, both general and specific, in which Raslullh r himself extolls the virtues of his companions. Thirdly, they cannot bear to even cast a glance at the services rendered to the cause of Islm by any particular Sahb. To them the vaguest notion of a black spot on the character of a companion of Raslullh and a champion of Islm even if amounts to nothing more an unsubstantiated, or even forged, report in a book on history is enough to render null and void decades of dedicated service to the cause of Islm, despite the fact that his service had been rewarded with approval by Allh and His Rasl r . Let us turn now to the actual issue. We will discuss it under two headings: (1) The execution of Mlik ibn Nuwayrah (2) Khlids alleged marriage to Mliks wife

The execution of Mlik ibn Nuwayrah Shortly after the demise of Raslullh r a number of tribes in the Arabian peninsula turned away from Islm. With many of them apostasy was expressed in the form of a refusal to pay the zakh. From Madnah Sayyidun Ab Bakr t dispatched a number of punitive expeditions. Khlid ibn al-Wald was placed in command of one such expedition. After his victory against some of the apostate tribes, Khlid set out for Ban Sulaym, another of the apostate tribes. On his way towards Ban Sulaym he passed through the lands of Ban Tamm. Mlik ibn Nuwayrah was a member of this tribe, and he had been appointed zakh-collector of Ban Tamm by Raslullh r . Reports had been circulating that Mlik too, was withholding the zakh.1 There were even more disturbing reports about him having started to speak ill about Raslullh, and referring to him in derogatory terms.2 Sayyidun Khlid t had orders from Sayyidun Ab Bakr t to inspect the practices of the people of the various locations he passed by in order to find out whether they were Muslims or whether they too, had forsaken Islm. If they heard the adhn and saw the people performing salh they could conclude that they were Muslims, and if they did not see them upholding the salh that would be an indication that they were not Muslim.3 In the case of Ban Tamm, Sayyidun Khlids spies differed: some claimed that they did not make salh, while others claimed that they did.4 According to one report, their muadhdhin, a person by the name of Abul Jall, was absent, which was the reason why no adhn was heard.5 It has even been reported that they encountered armed resistance from Mlik and his men at an oasis called al-Badah.6 Those who put up the resistance, including Mlik, were captured and brought before Sayyidun Khlid. He decided that they must be put to death. This is how Mlik ibn Nuwayrah was killed. In Sayyidun Khlids party was the Sahb Sayyidun Ab Qatdah t . He was amongst those who claimed that they had seen Mliks people making salh. He was thus understandable upset at the decision of Sayyidun Khlid, and returned immediately to Madnah to complain to Sayyidun Ab Bakr t . Sayyidun Umar t insisted that Khlid be removed from his position as commander on account of his impetuousness. Khlid was summoned back to Madnah and interrogated by the khalfah, who concluded that Khlids deed was an error of judgement, for which it was not necessary to dismiss him.7 Sayyidun Ab Bakr t was guided in this decision by two things. Firstly, the hadth of Raslullh r wherein he described Khlid as the sword which Allh unsheathed against the Unbelievers. The second was the fact that a similar occurrence took place in the time of Raslullh r , also with Khlid ibn al-Wald. He was put in command by Raslullh r of an expedition to Ban Jadhmah. When Khlid asked them to accept Islm they responded by saying saban, saban, a word which literally means We have become Sabeans, but which had come to be used in the general sense of changing ones religion. To Khlid this was not sufficient evidence of their acceptance of Islm, and he gave the order for their execution. When the news of their execution reached Raslullh r he lifted his hands and said, O Allh, I dissociate myself from what Khlid has done.8 Although Raslullh r dissociated himself from the haste Khlid made himself guilty of, he did not punish him, since it was an

error in judgement on his part. A very regrettable error it was, but it was still an error. It was for this reason that Raslullh r did not hesitate to give Khlid command over other expeditions as well. Shortly after the Ban Jadhmah incident Raslullh entrusted him with the mission to destroy the temple of the pagan goddess Uzz at a place called Nakhlah.9 In Jumd al-Ul in the year 10 AH he was sent on a dawah mission to Ban Hrith ibn Kab, and they accepted Islm at his hands without a drop of blood being shed.10 It was also to Khlid that Raslullh r entrusted the expedition to Ukaydir ibn Abd al-Malik.11 Above all there was the day, at the battle of Mutah in the year 8 AH, when Khlid ibn al-Wald would prove his valour and military genius by saving the day for Islm and the Muslim ummah in its first ever encounter with the Roman Empire. The three generals appointed by Raslullh r all attained martyrdom in succession, and the standard was taken over by the valiant Khlid, who through his sheer genius managed to save the honour of Islm by effecting a tactical withdrawal after what seemed like certain defeat. Raslullh was informed by Allh of what had happened at Mutah, and although his eyes were filled with tears at the martyrdom of his beloved cousin Jafar ibn Ab Tlib, his adopted son Zayd ibn Hrithah and the poet Abdullh ibn Rawhah y , he saw reason to give the Muslims in Madnah the glad tidings of Khlids victory, saying, then the standard was taken up by a Sword from amongst the Swords of Allh, and upon his hands did Allh grant victory.12 All of this show that Raslullh r saw the Ban Jadhmah incident, as regrettable as it was, as a mistake on the part of Khlid. In not punishing Khlid for the execution of Mlik ibn Nuwayrah, and not dismissing him from his post as commander, Sayyidun Ab Bakr t was thus completely justified. His interrogation of Khlid revealed that Khlid had committed an error of judgement, and the insistence of Sayyidun Umar t that Khlid be dismissed was met by a resolute answer form Sayyidun Ab Bakr t : I will not sheath the sword that was drawn by Allh.13 Like Raslullh r did in the case of Ban Jadhmah, Sayyidun Ab Bakr paid out blood money to Mliks brother Mutammim, and ordered the released of all captives taken by Khlid.13

Khlids alleged marriage to Mliks wife With the passage of time the incident of Mlik ibn Nuwayrah became the object of the attention of certain unscrupulous transmitters of history. An obnoxious tail was soon introduced into the story in the form of Mliks wife, who is named as Umm Tamm bint Minhl. Khlid, it was said, was so enamoured of the beautiful Umm Tamm that he saw fit to slaughter Mlik and his entire tribe in order to possess her, and barely was the slaughter over when he took her as his own wife. In an allegation as serious as this one would have expected the party levelling the accusation to produce reliable evidence to support their claim. However, all that is ever produced is fragments of statements by historians. The accusers consistently fail to realise that a quotation is of no value for as long as it cannot be authenticated. While they display great vigour in levelling the accusation and stating their references, complete with volume and page numbers, they conveniently and consistently forget to authenticate those facts. The great imm Abdullh ibn al-Mubrak stated a most profound truth when he said:

Isnd (stating the chain of narration) is part of Dn. Were it not for isnd, anyone could have said just what he wished.14

A study of the texts wherein reference is made to the story of the Mlik ibn Nuwayrah reveals that not a single one of them is reported with an uninterrupted chain of narration that consists of reliable authorities. We may confidently say that we have looked at almost all the available material on the issue of Mlik ibn Nuwayrah, and we have found that they may be classified into two types: (1) reports in which no mention at all is made of Mliks wife, and (2) reports in which she is mentioned. The former type includes material narated via authentic as well as unauthentic chains of narration. As for the latter type (the reports which make mention of Mliks wife), they have been handed down exclusively through highly unreliable chains of narration. They all suffer from two deficiencies: untrustworthy or unknown narrators, and suspicious interruptions in the chain of narration. We might, for example, look at the reports about Mliks wife mentioned in sources like at-Tabars Trkh and Ibn Hajars al-Isbah:

(1) Khlid married Umm Tamm the daughter of Minhl, and left her till her clean period ended.15

This report appears in a long narrative documented by at-Tabar on the authority of the following chain of narration:

at-Tabar (narrrates from) as-Sar ibn Yahy (who narrrates from) Shuayb ibn Ibrhm (who narrrates from) Sayf ibn Umar (who narrrates from) Sahl (ibn Ysuf) (who narrrates from) Qsim (ibn Muhammad) and Amr ibn Shuayb, who say...

This isnd is extremely defective, on several counts. Firstly, it runs through the historian Sayf ibn Umar at-Tamm, whose extreme unreliabilty is a matter of consensus among the rijl critics. Ibn Hibbn has summed up their opinions of him in the words: He narrates forged material from reliable narrators. They (the critics) say he used to forge hadth. He adds that Sayf was suspected of zandaqah (secret heresy).16 Of recent there has been much protest by Sh authors about reliance upon Sayfs narrations about Abdullh ibn Saba, (despite the fact that Sayf is not the only historian who mentions Ibn Saba and his role). However, it seems when the very same Sayf narrates historical material in which the Sahbah y are maligned, a blind eye must be turned to his proven mendacity. The second problem is with the person who narrates from Sayf, namely Shuayb ibn Ibrhm. This

person, we are told by Ibn Hajar in Lisn al-Mzn, was virtually unknown. He quotes Ibn Ad who says: He is not known. He narrates ahdth and historical reports which uncorroborated to a certain extent, and in which there is an element of prejudice against the Salaf (early Muslims). 17 Is it in any way acceptable to use information that was handed down by a non-entity such as this to malign a man who was named the Sword of Allh by Raslullh r , and who is one of those of whom it was stated in the Qurn:
Those of you who spent (their wealth) before the conquest (of Makkah) are not equal (to the rest). They are greater in status than those who spent thereafter and fought. And all of them have been promised good by Allh. (al-Hadd:10)

Khlid ibn al-Wald t became Muslim before the conquest of Makkah. The third point of criticism against this isnd is the person who appears as Sayfs direct source: Sahl ibn Ysuf al-Ansr. This person, like Shuayb ibn Ibrhm, is unknown.18 The same may therefore be said of him as a narrator, and of the nature of his narration in maligning the character of a Sahb who sacrificed so much for Islm, as was said of Shuaybs narration. Finally, even if we were to assume, for arguments sake, that this isnd is free from all defects right up to Sahl ibn Ysuf, there remains one crucial problem. The persons who allegedly narrate the story appear here as Qsim ibn Muhammad and Amr ibn Shuayb. Neither of these two figures were even born at the time when the incident of Mlik ibn Nuwayrah occured. Whichever way one looks at it, this report simply does not conform to the two most basic conditions for authenticity: reliability of the narrator, and an uninterrupted chain of narration. Let us now look at another narration in Trkh at-Tabar:
(2) Umar told Khlid: You enemy of Allh! You killed a Muslim man and thereafter took his wife. By Allh, I will stone you.19

The chain of narration on the authority of which this report reached at-Tabar is as follows:
at-Tabar (narrrates from) (Muhammad) ibn Humayd (ar-Rz) (who narrrates from) Salamah (ibn al-Fadl ar-Rz) (who narrrates from) Muhammad ibn Ishq (who narrrates from) Talhah ibn Abdillh ibn Abd ar-Rahmn ibn Ab Bakr who says that it used to be Ab Bakr as-Siddqs instruction to his armies...

This isnd too, is defective and unreliable. It is unreliable on account of Muhammad ibn Ishq, who was a much more truthful historian than Sayf ibn Umar, but who used to commit tadls. Tadls is when a narrator intentionally omits the name of his direct source and ascribes his information to a source higher up in the chain of narration. Ibn Hibban states about him: The problem with Ibn Ishq is that he used to omit the names of unreliable narrators, as a result of which unreliable material crept into his narrations. However, if he makes it clear that he has actually heard from the person whom he states as his source, then his narration is authentic.20 When we look at the way in which Ibn Ishq has narrated this incident from Talhah ibn Abdillh ibn Abd ar-Rahmn ibn Ab Bakr, we find that he has not explicitly

stated that he heard this information from him. He uses the ambiguous term an, which was a common device used by narrators committing tadls. Ibn Ishq, we are told by Ibn Hajar, was well-known for committing tadls by omitting the names of unreliable and unknown persons, and even from narrators who are regarded as unreliable for more serious reasons.21 Besides Ibn Ishq himself, it must also be taken into consideration that Muhammad ibn Humayd arRz, who appears in the isnd as at-Tabars direct source, has come under severe criticism from the muhaddithn. Many of them have outrightly labelled him as an outright liar. He has also been proven to be dishonest in his claim to narrating the Maghz of Ibn Ishq from Salamah ibn Fadl. Some of the muhaddithn who at one stage entertained a good opinion of him had to change their opinions when it became clear that the man was a shameless forger. One critic expresses his opinion as follows: I have never seen a natural liar, except for two persons: Sulaymn ash-Shdhakn and Muhammad ibn Humayd. He used to memorise all of his ahdth, and his hadth used to grow longer every day.22 Besides the above, it must not be forgotten that the final source for this narration wasnt even born when Sayyidun Umar t allegedly spoke these words to Sayyidun Khlid t . These were events that supposedly took place in the time of Sayyidun Ab Bakr t , but the one who tells us about it is his great grandson three generations later. Like the previous report, this one too, suffers from a huge gap in the chain of narration. Sh authors have the habit of supplying incidents like this with multiple references. In order to fully convince the uninformed Sunn reader, they will quote not only at-Tabar as the source for the incident, but also Ibn Kathrs al-Bidyah wan-Nihyah, Ibn al-Athrs al-Kmil, etc. They conveniently forget that Ibn Kathr and Ibn al-Athr, and like them, most later historians, draw directly from at-Tabar, and have stated as much in their respective introductions. It is thus of no benefit to quote them as separate references, since all they do is quote at-Tabar. And as for at-Tabar himself, he has never claimed all the material in his huge work to be the truth. On the contrary, he states very clearly in his introduction:
Whatever is to be found in this book of mine as quoted from some past source, which the reader finds unacceptable or the hearer deems repugnant for the reason that he does not see any authenticity in it or does not find real meaning in it, let it be known that we are not responsible for it. The one responsible for it would be one of those who transmitted it down to us. We for our part have only reproduced what has been transmitted to us.

A third report mentioning the wife of Mlik ibn Nuwayrah, which is widely quoted by those wishing to add a tragically romantic flavour to their basic aim of harming the reputation of Sayyidun Khlid t , is the following:
(3) Khlid saw the wife of Mlik ibn Nuwayrah. She was very beautiful. Thereupon Mlik told his wife, You have killed me, meaning that she will be the cause of his death. And so it happened.23

This twist to the story is usually quoted with Ibn Hajars work al-Isbah as reference. Closer inspection of that work reveals that Ibn Hajar quoted it from a source called ad-Dalil by one Thbit ibn Qsim. Despite a lenghty search for information about this author or his book, we were unable to unearth a single fact about him in any of the biographical dictionaries available to us. Neither the classical works

(such as the biographical works of al-Bukhr, Ibn Ab Htim, Ibn Hibbn and al-Khatb al-Baghdd) nor the works of later scholars (such as adh-Dhahab and Ibn Hajar) provide any clue as to who Thbit ibn Qsim was, when his book ad-Dalil was composed, and what it contains. Even a contemporary work like al-Alm of az-Zirikl contains no information whatsoever about a person called Thbit ibn Qsim. Therefore we may say with a great degree of confidence that this report, as tragic and romantic as it may be, amounts to nothing more than a fable spurned by the fertile imagination of some unscrupulous person. A fable such as this would only be used against a Sahb like Sayyidun Khlid ibn al-Wald t by a person whose hatred of the Sahbah y has blinded him against all truth and reason.

It is extremely unfortunate that the vicious and unscrupulous propaganda of the Sh missionaries has succeeded in turning the sentiments of many a Muslim against this great son of Islm and the pride of its military commanders. Having swallowed the story about the wife of Mlik ibn Nuwayrah hook, line and sinker, they now cannot bear to think of Khlid ibn al-Wald except in the vilest of terms. They find themselves unable to associate his name except with the concocted legend of the wife of Mlik ibn Nuwayrah. All his services rendered to Islm, and even the title of Sayfullh given to him by Raslullh r are simply ignored, and on the basis of nothing but a fable. It is heart rending to see the brazenness with which Sh authors like Muhammad Tijani Samawi in his book Then I was Guided challenge the title of Sayfullh (Sword of Allh) bestowed upon Sayyidun Khlid t by none other than Raslullh r , and to see them labelling him the crippled sword of the devil.24 Such, unfortunately, is the destiny of those whose faith is founded upon fables and legends. There is another point which definitely merits mention in this regard. The Imm (Ithn Ashar) Shah, for all their political rhetoric, have never in the history of Islm been known for positive political or military action.25 It is for this reason that the Shah, unlike the Ahl as-Sunnah, do not have military leaders like Sayyidun Khlid t of whom to be proud, and whose names to invoke as paragons of courage and valour. Thus, when the need arose for a person like Khumayn to speak about Islms military successes of yesterday, he could not find anything of that nature within the legacy of his own tradition. It was the history of the Sahbah y those very same Sahbah whom he and his ilk had been slandering and denouncing as apostates, hypocrites and unbelievers for centuries that he was forced to turn. Look at the tongue-in-cheek manner in which he writes in his book Kashf al-Asrr:
The rulers of Islm in those days did not sit in their courts upon silk carpets, because the Prophet of Islm forbade its use. The religious spirit was firmly implanted within them, to the extent that it led a great Muslim commander to swallow a quantity of lethal poison in the firm belief that the Rabb of Islm and the Qurn will protect him before the enemies of Islm. That is exactly what happened when sixty persons from the Muslim army attacked a Roman army of sixty thousand and gained the upper hand over them. Similarly, a few thousand of them defeated seven hundred thousand Romans, and a small number of Muslims overran the whole land of Iran. All of that was achieved through the power of religion and faith, and not because they thought of religion and its tenets as a shame and a disgrace. What is there in you which resembles that which they had? They believed that death and martyrdom is happiness, and that martyrs enjoy the life of the hereafter by the favour and grace of Allh. It was on account of this that they achieved those such astonishing success. The point is that they had a great amount of love for Dn, belief in the

Unseen and partiality towards religiousness. As for ourselves, we are different in all of those things, and thus will we remain...26

These words speak for themselves. They are in no need of commentary of any sort. However, there is maybe just one thing upon which light needs to shed, and that is the identity of the great Muslim commander who swallowed a quantity of lethal poison in the firm belief that the Rabb of Islm and the Qurn will protect him before the enemies of Islm. That leader was none other than the Sword of Allh, Sayyidun Khlid ibn al-Wald t . The incident is documented by adh-Dhahab in his work Siyar Alm an-Nubal from two separate sources, both of which we reproduce here:
Qays ibn Ab Hzim says: I saw poison being brought to Khlid, and it was asked, What is this? The answer was given, It is poison. He said, Bismillh and drank it. I said, By Allh, this is a miracle, this is true courage. Abus-Safar says: Khlid stayed in al-Hrah at the house of the mother of the Ban Marzibah. They said, Be on your guard against the Persians, lest they poison you. He said, Bring it to me. He took it and said, Bismillh, and did him no harm.27

Maybe we can now understand why Khumayn thought it prudent not to mention the name of that great Islamic leader. But if one such as he could see and admit (albeit grudgingly) that men like Khlid ibn al-Wald had a great amount of love for Dn, belief in the Unseen and partiality towards religiousness and that we ourselves are different in all of those things, and thus will we remain (in other words that we can never compare ourselves to men like Khlid ibn al-Wald) then why is it that some Sh neophytes, who regard themselves as followers of Khumayn, cannot bear to spare even a single good thought for the great Islamic leader Khlid ibn al-Wald, and continue to spread calumnious falsehoods about him? Why does revolutionary Iran, which regards itself as the manifestation of Khumayns political philosophy, flood the Muslim world with literature in which Sayyidun Khlid ibn al-Wald t is acrimoniously denounced as the crippled sword of the devil? Is it in order to achieve the sanctimonious goal of Muslim unity, or simply to score a point for Shism against the Ahl as-Sunnah? We will leave the reader to ponder over these questions.

_________________________________________

REFERENCES

1. Ibn Hajar, al-Isbah vol. 6 p. 36 (Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut n.d.); Ibn Hibbn, Kitb ath-Thiqt vol. 2 p. 164 (Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut,

reproduced from Hyderabad edition) 2. al-Isbah vol. 6 p. 37; compare Trkh at-Tabar vol. 2 p. 273 (Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1408/1988) Note that it is by no means our contention that all of these reports were in fact true or that they have been authentically narrated. We quote it merely to show that there is another face to the narrated material on the issue of Mlik ibn Nuwayrah as well a face that the Sh propagandists would rather keep hidden and unknown. 3. Khalfah ibn Khayyt, Trkh p. 104 (ed. Dr. Akram Diy al-Umar, Dr Taybah, Riyadh, 2nd edition 1405/1985) 4. adh-Dhahab, Siyar Alm an-Nubal vol. 1 p. 377 (ed. Shuayb al-Arnt et al, Muassasat ar-Rislah, Beirut, 7th edition 1410/1990) 5. Khalfah ibn Khayyt, Trkh p. 105 6. ibid. p.104 7. ibid. p. 105. Also cited in Siyar vol. 1 p. 376 8. Sahh al-Bukhr no. 4339 9. Srat Ibn Hishm vol. 4 p. 1282 (Dr al-Fikr, Cairo n.d.) 10. ibid. vol. 4 p. 1448 11. ibid. vol. 4 p. 1378 12. Sahh al-Bukhr no. 4262 13. al-Isbah vol. 6 p. 37 14. Sahh Muslim vol. 1 p. 87 (with an-Nawaws commentary) 15. Trkh at-Tabar vol. 2 p. 273 (Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1408/1988) 16. Cited in al-Mizz, Tahdhb al-Kaml vol. 12 p. 326 (ed. Dr. B.A.Marf, Muassasat ar-Rislah, Beirut, 1413/1992) 17. Lisn al-Mzn vol. 3 p. 176 (Dr al-Fikr, Beirut) 18. ibid. vol. 3 p. 146 19. Trkh at-Tabar vol. 2 p. 274

20. Tahdhb al-Kaml vol. 24 p. 428 21. Ibn Hajar, Tarf Ahl at-Taqds p. 38 (ed. Th Abd ar-Raf Sad, Maktabat al-Kulliyyt al-Azhariyyah, Cairo n.d.) 22. Tahdhb al-Kaml vol. 25 p. 105 23. al-Isbah vol. 6 p. 37 24. Samawi, Then I Was Guided p. 188, (Ansariyan Publications, Qum, n.d.) 25. Khumayns reinterpretation of the doctrine of Wilyat al-Faqh, and his widening of its scope to include the political arena as well, is unprecedented in the history of Shism. (See Nazriyyat Wilyat al-Faqh by Dr. Irfn Abd alHamd Fatth, Dr Ammr, Amman, 1988.) It was, and still is regarded by many of the leading mujtahids of Iran and Iraq as an innovation in Jafar jurisprudence. 26. Khumayn, Kashf al-Asrr p. 23 (translated into Arabic by Dr. Muhammad alBundr, Dr Ammr, Amman, 1987) 27. Siyar Alm an-Nubal vol. 1 p. 376

Are there Hypocrites among the Prophet's Companions?

by Muhammad Al-khider

The following verse of the Holy Quran suffices as an answer to the above-presented question: Allah Almighty says in the Holy Quran: The vanguard (of Islam) the first of those who forsook (their homes) and those who gave them aid, and (also) those who followed them in (all) good deeds, well-pleased is Allah with them, as are they with Him. For them hath He prepared gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever; that is the supreme felicity. Certain of desert Arabs round about you are hypocrites as well as (desert Arabs) among the Madinah folk; they are obstinate in hypocrisy. Thou knowest them not; We know them: Twice shall We punish them: and in addition shall they be sent to a grievous penalty. (9: 100-101)

In the aforementioned verses, Allah Almighty put the Muhajirs (those who forsook their homes in Makkah and emigrated to Madinah,) and the Ansar (the citizens of Madinah who rendered a helping hand to the emigrants) on one scale of the balance, and the obstinate hypocrites among the desert Arabs and the hypocrites of Madinah, on the other

pan of the balance.

Hence, it became incontrovertible to the Sunni Muslims that the title Sahabah is not bestowed except on those who met the Prophet (PBUH), believed in him and died in the state of full belief, worship and obedience to Allah Almighty. However, hypocrites cannot be referred to as Sahabah (Companions of the Prophet) simply because they concealed their disbelief and revealed Islam (Peaceful submission to the Will of Allah and His commands). Any body who dissembled and became a hypocrite during Prophet Muhammads era cannot whatsoever be endued the title Sahabiy.

The bona-fide companions of the Prophet (PBUH) are classified into two major categories according to the Shiite Belief. The following is the illustration:

First: the rightly guided companions who neither recanted nor retraced their steps after the demise of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him). Those are not less than three and no more than seven, according to the Shiite sources. Imam Al-Kalbiy narrated in Al-Kafiy (one of the reliable and credible Shiite Sources of Hadith) that: It was reported that Hamran bin Ayun said: I said to Abu Jafar (may peace be upon him): May God make me your ransom, what a small community we are! If we all assemble at a sheep for a meal, we cannot finish it. Abu-Jafar replied: Should I tell you of a more amazing fact than that? The Muhajirs (those who emigrated from Makkah to Madinah) and the Ansr (the inhabitants of Al-Madinah who received and helped the Muhajirs), have all renounced their religion except three of them. (Al-Kafi 2/191, section, Rearing of the Believers)

Al-Kashiy also narrated in his book about the rightly guided companions as follows: It was reported by Hanan bin Sadeer from his father that Jafar (on him be peace) said: All the people defected from their religion after the death of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) except three. Who are those three? I interjected. He replied: Al-Miqdad bin Al-As-wad, Abu Dharr Al-Ghifariy, and Salman Al-Farisiy.

There is a myriad of texts which indicate that the aforementioned companions of the Prophet were followed in the course of clinging to the right path after the Prophets demise by four others. Thus, the number of the true devoted believers reached seven, according to the Shiite standards. To confirm the aforementioned Shiite illusion, many narratives have been quoted. The following is one of them: It was reported that AlHarith bin Al-Mugheerah An-Nasiriy said: I heard Abdul-Malik bin Ayun ask Abu Abdallah [on him be peace] a number of questions until he reached the statement: So did people recant their faith? To this, Abu Abdullah replied: Yes, I swear by the name of God, they did defect from their faith except three of the companions of the Prophet (PBUH). Then they were shortly followed by: Al-Hussein bin Al-Mundhir (Abu Sasan), Ammar bin Yaser, Shateerah and Thalabah bin Amr (AbuShateerah). Thus, the number totaled seven.

All of the Shiite texts regarding this matter are unanimous that the number of the sincere devoted believers among the ranks of the Prophets Companions did not exceed seven. Abu-Jafar said: Therefore, they were only seven, and no body except those seven knew the rights of the Leader of the Believers viz. Ali bin Abi Talib, save those seven committed sincere companions of the Prophet. (Rijal Al-Kishiy, pages 11&12)

Hence, Abu Abdullah used to swear by the name of God to prove the veracity of that unfounded claim. He said: I swear by the name of God Almighty, no body fulfilled his pledge of allegiance and obedience to Ali bin Abi Taleb save seven people. (Bihar AlAnwar 22/322)

Worthy of mention, is that those seven men, especially the first three, namely: AlMiqdad, Ammar, and Abu Dharr, amazingly were not treating each other like brethren who are affiliated to one faith and creed. It was reported in the book of Rijal Al-Kishiy that the Leader of the Believers (Ali bin Abi Taleb) said: O Abu Dharr! If it so happened that Salman Al-Farisiy revealed to you what he knew, you could instantly state:May Gods grace be on he who kills Salman, out of jealousy. It was also reported that Abu Baseer said: I heard Abu Abdallah [on him be peace] say: Gods Messenger (Peace be upon him) said: O Salman! If your knowledge were to be exposed to Miqdad bin Al-Aswad, he would have become an infidel. O Miqdad! If your

knowledge were to be revealed to Salman, he would have forsaken Islam. (Rijal AlKishiy, page 11)

Hence, they dealt with each other by utmost disguise and concealment of their thoughts, knowledge and agenda. It was reported by Jafar that his father said: I mentioned disguise and concealment once in front of Ali [on him be peace], so he said: If it so happened that Abu Dharr knew what was in the heart of Salman, he would obviously murder him. He mentioned this of them despite the fact that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) had established brotherhood between both of them in Madinah. Therefore, what do you think of the rest of human-folk? Even those seven sincere devoted companions of the Holy Prophet did fein ignorance of each other and concealed whatever they knew in awe of being envied. We confer from the Shiite narratives that the companions of the Holy Prophet who did not recant after his death were seven in number; viz. Al-Miqdad bin Al-Aswad, Ammar bin Yaser, Abu Dharr Al-Ghifariy, Salman Al-Farisy, Al-Hussein bin Al-Mundhir (Abu Sasan), Thalabah bin Amru (Abu Umrah, the Helper inhabitant of Madinah) and Shateerah. The second category comprises the hypocrite and dissembler companions. Their hypocrisy was two pronged; either as spawn of their own vested interests and great desire for the luxury of this ephemeral world or hypocrisy in belief as a result of hatred geared against Islam. Regarding this category, whether you consider it one or two categories, in Islamic perspective, they are an ignominious, despised and held in indignation as one clique conspiring against Islam. According to the Shiite Belief, the rest of the Prophets Companions fall under the second category except the aforementioned seven of them.

Under the influence of such classification, a question presents itself as follows: If only a few of the companions were sincere and good and the majority of them were over-ridden by hypocrisy and their own vested interests, then which type of Prophets Companions does the Holy Quran praise explicitly and profusely a couple of times?

I do not expect anyone to answer that: the Holy Quran, in its continual praise of the companions was referring only to a minority of them who do not exceed seven. That is simply because if there happens to be in a corrupt and wicked society, a small minority of righteous men, it cannot wholly be judged as a good, righteous and prosperous society.

Therefore, how can the Holy Quran praise the rightly guided companions of the Holy Prophet and give them glad tidings that their abode is Paradise beneath which rivers flow, while they are of a mean and debased caliber? From where did this classification come? Did it come from the Holy Quran or from the Sunnah (traditions and narratives of the Holy Prophet)? Or they are rather mere false fancies and caprices of the Shiite Adherents!

Another question that can be presented is: Had the hypocrites, as many as we have earlier stated, ran the state after the sorrowful demise of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), and as such held high ranking positions in the state portfolios. Then how comes that Islam spread all over the world and eventually the flags of disbelief hang half-mast high due to the collapse of the infidel empires of Persia and Rome?

I would like herein to draw the attention of the reader to the following fact: Hypocrites during the era of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) were not an anonymous community; they were rather an uncovered and dishonored cabal. Some of them were exposed personally and others were unmasked by their taints and ill qualities mentioned in the Holy Quran. God Almighty unveiled the marks of the hypocrites in both chapters of the Holy Quran viz. At-Tawbah which was known as the Revealer and Destroyer, due to the fact that it exposed their tainted qualities and intrigues. Thereafter, the status of the believers among the rightly guided companions of the Holy Prophet was mentioned with God Almightys certification. In addition to that, chapter AlMunafiqoon, was revealed primarily to address the ring leader of the hypocrites, Abdallah bin Ubayy bin Salool and his henchmen, as mentioned by At-Tabrisiy, one of the most reputed Shiite Interpreters of the Holy Quran. (Mujmaa Al-Bayan Fiy Tafseer Al-Quran, page 85)

As far as Surat (chapter) At-Tawbah is concerned, it did obliterate the traces of the hypocrites and revealed many of their marks and ill qualities in many verses therein. Allah Almighty says in the Holy Quran: Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask thee for no exemption from fighting with their goods and persons until: And indeed Hell surrounds the Unbelievers (on all sides) (9: 49)

This suffices to reveal to you the quirks and tainted qualities of the hypocrites. It is crystalclear that the sincere devout companions of the Holy Prophet had all gone out to fight in the expedition of Tabook. At the outset, Abu Dharr and Abu Khaithamah had slackened and eventually decided to trace the blazing trail of the Prophet (PBUH). Among the slackers in the beginning were as follows: Kab in Malik, Hilal bin Umayyah, and Mararah bin Rabeei. They were all among the Ansariy folk (those who received, helped and sheltered the Prophet and his companions in Madinah), whose repentance Allah Almighty accepted and forgave them eventually. God Almighty says in the Holy Quran: (He turned in mercy also) to the three who were left behind; (they felt guilty) to such a degree that the earth seemed straitened to them, for all its spaciousness, and their (very) souls seemed straitened to them. And they perceived that there is no fleeing from Allah (and no refuge) but to Him. Then He turned to them, that they might repent: For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. (9: 118)

It is enough for us to mention herein that Allah Almighty, revealed to His entire believing folk all the characteristics, marks and the true state of the hypocrites affairs, after they had been secretly plotting and intriguing against Islam and Muslims. Allah the Omniscient says in the Holy Quran: Or do those in whose hearts is a disease, think that Allah will not bring to light all their rancour? Had We so willed, we could have shown them up to thee, and thou shouldst have known them by their marks: But surely thou wilt know them by the tone of their speech! And Allah knows all that ye do. (47: 29-30)

Therefore, this meaning is confirmed in the interpretation of Al-Ayashi (one of the resounded Shiite Scholars) of the following verse: For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly, and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean. (2: 222)

It was reported that Salman said: I was once with Abu Jaafar (on him be peace), when Hanran bin Aayun entered and inquired about many things. When Hamran was about to depart, he said to Abu Jaafar (on him be peace): Explain to us, may Allah prolong your life and make us enjoy your company, the wisdom behind the fact that whenever we come to you, no body vacates but with a tender heart and think no more about the gains of this fleeting world. Moreover, we do not heed and give much concern to what people possess of the material things of this transient world. However, after we depart from you

and intermingle with the laity and men of trade in their hustle and bustle, suddenly our hearts become pawns of love for the world. He said: Then Abu Jaafar (on him be peace) replied: Indeed our hearts are susceptible to temptation; sometimes they easily defy inclination towards worldly gains and sometimes it is hard for them to resist any temptation.

Then Abu Jaafar (on him be peace) went on to say: Verily the rightly guided and sincere companions of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) said to him: O messenger of God! We are afraid that we might be bearing some traits of hypocrisy! He replied: Why should you fear that? They said: In your presence when you admonish us we feel apprehensively dreaded, as such we forget all the worldly interests as though we are witnessing the hereafter, paradise and Hell-fire. But when we depart from you and enter our houses that we find fragrant with the scent of our children, spouses and presence of wealth, we tend to forget everything as though nothing had happened. Dont you think that the aforementioned qualities might be among the signs of hypocrisy?

The messenger of God (Peace be upon him) calmed them down by saying: Nay, those are the evil steps taken by Devil [Old Nick] to awaken your desire for this ephemeral world. I swear by the name of Allah Almighty, had it so happened that you stayed perpetually in the same situation during your presence with me, as you have earlier explained, then the angels would have shaken hands with you, and you would be walking above water. Had it not been that you commit mistakes and ask for forgiveness from Allah Almighty, He would have created instead of you other people who would commit mistakes after which they would seek His forgiveness. And surely He would forgive them. Indeed a true believer is the one who after being tempted to commit evil, returns often to Allah the Exalted for forgiveness. Dont you read the verse wherein God Almighty says: For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly. (2: 222) and the verse: Seek ye the forgiveness of your Lord and turn to Him in repentance? (11: 03)

Integrity of the Prophet's Companions


by
By Muhammad Alkhider

Some people intentionally or unintentionally do refer to the meaning of Integrity and the concept of Infallibility as synonymous, although the difference between them is crystalclear. As such, they think that attributing virtuousness to the companions of the Holy Prophet necessitates their infallibility. What a grave mistake! Integrity of the Prophets companions means that: they were neither hypocrites, liars, lewd, immoral nor infidels. Besides, they were righteous believers who would err sometimes and correct their mistakes thereafter. They committed mistakes after which they hastened to repent and seek forgiveness from Allah Almighty. They obeyed God, the Most High, and expected His acceptance of their acts of devotion without an iota of doubt. Infallibility requires of a person to be exalted from committing sins or perpetuating shortcomings. Both his mind and body should be immaculate of blemishes and shortcomings that can easily defame his rank and traduce his status. The difference between Integrity and Infallibility is crystal-clear in Islam. The Sunni Muslims do refer to the companions of the Holy Prophet as straightforward, virtuous and honest but not infallible. Impeccability according to the belief of the Sunni Muslims is only attributed to Prophets and Messenger of God Almighty. Regarding the source of integrity and the question whether it is a Philosophical theory or rather an Islamic fact that a host of texts has proved authentic, the answer is as follows: A pondering and reflecting look at the Holy Quran and a study that Muslims render to the Book of God and the authentic traditions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) is able to provide a convincing answer to the aforementioned question. Allah, the Holy One, says in

the Holy Quran: Allahs good pleasure was on the believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquility to them: and He rewarded them with a speedy victory. (48: 18)

God Almighty in the above-mentioned verse explained to His messenger and the entire believing folk that His pleasure was on the believers, men and women, who plighted fealty to Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). He informed his messenger furthermore that He knew what was concealed in their hearts regarding faith in Him and truthfulness. Hence, He sent down tranquility, peace, calm and sense of security and confidence to them. This suffices as testimony from God Almighty regarding the veracity of the companions faith, their truthfulness and sincerity. It has been proven that the messenger of God (PBUH) said: No one among those who swore their fealty to me under the tree will be consigned to Hell except the owner of the red camel. (Related by At-Tirmidhiy in Al-Manaqib [Virtues of the Companions], and Muslim in the same titled book) The man who was doomed to Hell-fire according to the above-mentioned Hadith, was among the arch-hypocrites of Madinah called Al-Jaddu bin Qais. The number of the companions who swore their fealty to the Prophet (PBUH) was 1,400. According to other traditions it reached 1,500. God Almighty testified to their sincere and truthfulness and confirmed to His messenger that there was no grain of hypocrisy in their hearts except one man. The messenger of God (PBUH) eventually revealed his name to the companions. His name was Al-Jaddu bin Qais. He did not swear his fealty to the messenger of God as did the companions under the Tree of Allahs Pleasure. Allah, Exalted in Might, says in the Holy Quran: Not equal among you are those who spent (freely) and fought before the victory (with those who did so later). Those are higher in rank than those who spent (freely) and fought afterwards. But to all has Allah promised a goodly (reward.) (57: 10) God, the Most High, in the above-mentioned verse, promised the companions who spent freely before and after the speedy victory of the liberation of Makkah, a goodly reward. Moreover, He passed a verdict regarding the ones He promised a goodly reward, that they would be safe from the torment of the Hell-fire on the Resurrection Day. He says in the Holy Quran: Those for whom the good (record) from Us has gone before, will be removed far therefrom. Not the slightest sound will they hear of hell. What their souls desired, in that will they dwell. The Great Terror will bring them no grief. (21: 101-103) Allah Almighty also says in the Holy Quran: Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and

believing in Allah. (3: 110) However, it is incredible for a nation (People) that Allah Almighty has referred to as the best of people evolved for mankind, as testimony from Him to be as the Shiite Adherents and Sources maintain! For they say: The emigrants (from Makkah to Madinah) and the Ansar (those who welcomed, helped and hosted the Prophet and his companions who came from Makkah) all of them recanted their religion except three. (Al-Kaafiy, 2/244) Had it been true that they were really as described by the Shiite Sources, Allah Almighty would have not praised and placed them in a lofty rank in the aforementioned verse and in many others. The messenger of God (PBUH) says: Prophet Noah (on him be peace) is going to be summoned by God Almighty on the Resurrection Day. He will say: Here I am at your service O my Lord! Then God Almighty will ask him: Did you convey the message? Noahs response will be: Yes. Then God Almighty will ask Noahs people: Did he convey the message? They will apparently say: No Warner came to us. Then God Almighty will ask Noah (Peace be upon him): Who will testify that you conveyed the message? Noah will obviously say: Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his people (followers). Then the followers of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) will unanimously testify that Noah (on him be peace) delivered the message entrusted to him by God Almighty. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) informed us of the aforementioned situation in his interpretation of the following verse: Thus have We made you an Ummah (nation, people) justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over yourselves. (2: 143) Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the context of his interpretation of the aforementioned verse said: To be justly balanced means: to be straightforward. Related by AlBukhariy Thus the messenger of God (PBUH) confirmed the non-shaky integrity of his honest, truthful and sincere companions.

A Response to PESHAWAR NIGHTS


by Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi

INTRODUCTION
The art of fictional narration The art of fictional narration can be traced back to the earliest civilizations, and has assumed various different appearances over the centuries. The fact that this form of narration is fictitious was never really used to discredit literary fiction, since the lessons the author of Aesops Fables, for example, wished to impart, did not depend upon whether his animal characters could or did really speak. Similarly, Shakespeare, in his quasi-historical works, does not attempt to convey to the reader the notion that the words or actions he ascribes to his characters were really said or done by them. However, it is when the author of the fictional narrative tries to overstep the bounds of fiction and confer upon his work the appearance of historical authenticity, that his work loses the respectable designation literary fiction, and earns for itself the ignominious epithet literary hoax.

The Historicity of Peshawar Nights In the book Peshawar Nights, whose author is styled as Sultan al-Waizin Shirazi, we have an example of a work which purports to be the record of a Sunni-Shii debate. However, an objective analysis of the book leads us to the inevitable conclusion that in this particular work Shirazi has done nothing more than employ the literary device of fictional narrationa device that for centuries has found favour with Shii polemicists.

Shii polemicists were quite aware that to actually engage the ulama of the Ahl as-Sunnah in debate would considerably curtail their advantage, and therefore they resorted to the more convenient ploy of creating their own opponents, since by doing so they would be able to manipulate the opponents arguments to their own advantage. Thus, when Sultan al-Waizin Shirazi decided to choose this style of writing for his book, he was not being original at all. He was merely imitating the precedent set by earlier Shii writers like Abul Futuh ar-Razi and Radiyy ad-Din Ibn Tawus. Below we look at three works in this genre by these two authors. Husniyyah A book by this title appeared during the latter half of the previous century, purporting to be the record of a debate that had taken place at the court of Harun ar-Rashid between Husniyyah, a slave girl owned by a merchant friend of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq, and the Imams Abu Yusuf and ash-Shafii. This slave girl had supposedly stayed with Imam Jafar upto the age of twenty, and had acquired expertise in numerous branches of knowledge from him. In the book she publicly humiliates the two Imams, defeating their arguments and presenting them with incontrovertible evidence of the truth of the creed of the Shiah. The book is full of anachronisms. For one, ash-Shafii came to Baghdad only after the death of Abu Yusuf, so it is impossible that they could ever have taken part together in any discussion. The book also speaks of a third learned man by the name of Ibrahim Khalid of Basrah, who was supposedly regarded by Abu Yusuf as superior in knowledge to them all. When they themselves were unable to answer the arguments of Husniyyah, they referred the matter to this Ibrahim Khalid, but he too, was incapable of responding to her. History, however, has recorded nothing of a person by this name, and the effort to identify him with Abu Thawr, whose name was Ibrahim ibn Khalid, is futile, since Abu Thawr was a Baghdadi by birth and lived there all his life. Far from being regarded as ash-Shafiis superior, he was his student, and one of the four narrators of his qadim views. Even of Husniyyah herself, the annals of history and biography have recorded nothing at all. It is only in this belated document that mention is made of her existence. It is recorded by the prominent Shii bibliographer, Aqa Buzurg Tihrani in his bibliographical lexicon adh-Dhariah that this booklet was originally found in the possession of a sayyid in Syria by Mulla Ibrahim al-Astarabadi when the latter returned to Iran from Hajj in the year 958/1551. He translated it into Persian, and it was first published in 1287/1870. (adh-Dhariah, vol. 4 p. 97 no. 452, 3rd edition, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1401/1981) The Shii biographer Mirza Abdullah Effendi al-Isfahani has done us a favour by exposing the real author of the book Husniyyah, and his purpose in writing such a book. He writes in his book Riyad al-Ulama: Such a degree of learning and eminence is accorded to Husniyyah in this booklet, that it creates the impression of it being the fraudulent work of Shaykh Abul Futuh ar-Razi, written and forged by him. He ascribed it to Husniyyah in order to bring disgrace to the beliefs of the Ahl as-Sunnah, and to humiliate them by exposing their beliefs. (Riyad al-Ulama vol. 5 p. 407 (Maktabat Ayatullah alMarashi, Qum 1401/1981)

This identification of Abul Futuh ar-Razi with the authorship of the booklet Husniyyah is supported by Sayyid Muhsin al-Amin, the author of Ayan ash-Shiah, one of the most authoritative contemporary biographical dictionaries of the Shiah. He states categorically that this book is the work of Abul Futuh ar-Razi. Yuhanna the Christian This same Shaykh Abul Futuh ar-Razi is credited with the authorship of another spurious polemical tract called Risalat Yuhanna an-Nasrani (the tract of Yuhanna [John] the Christian). In this tract, quoted by a number of Shii writers as factual truth, a Christian by the name of Yuhanna engages the Sunni ulama of Baghdad in a debate during which he demonstrates the fallacies in the creed of the Ahl asSunnah. Eventually he declares his acceptance of Shiism as the true religion. Mirza Abdullah Effendi ascribes this work to Abul Futuh ar-Razi. The strength of this polemic is supposed to derive from the fact that even a non-Muslim is able to discern the falsehood of Sunni belief from the truth of Shiism. Abd al-Mahmud the Dhimmi Radiyy ad-Din Ali ibn Tawus belonged to a prominent Shii family that lived at Hillah near Najaf at the time of the sack of Baghdad by the Tartars under Hulagu. Shiite complicity in the fall of Baghdad is a fact of history. This explains why the Mongol conquerors favoured the Shii intellectuals. Ibn Tawus, for example, was appointed Naqib al-Ahsraf by Hulagu, the destroyer of Baghdad. He gladly accepted this office, having earlier persistently refused it from the late Khalifah, al-Mustansir. With the fall of Baghdad came a new surge in Shiite propagation, the like of which was only seen in the days of the Buwayhids during the 5th century. The high positions occupied by Shii dignitaries in the Ilkhanid (Mongol) administration afforded the Shiah the influence and leverage they needed to prosper. In Iraq the town of Hillah soon developed into the most important center of Shii learning. This age also saw the composition of a number of polemical works. As the most prolific Shii author of the time, it would be only natural for Ibn Tawus to contribute to this genre of literature. However, he preferred to do so under an assumed identity. His book, entitled at-Taraif fi Madhahib at-Tawaif, was written under the nom-de-plume Abd al-Mahmud ibn Dawud al-Mudari. He commences his book with the (patently false) statement that he is a man from amongst the Ahl adhDhimmah (Jews or Christians living under the protection of the Muslim state). He then proceeds on to a comparative study of different religious persuasions, and predictably enough, ends up with Ithna Ashari (Twelver) Shiism as the only true religion. Like Abul Futuh ar-Razi before him, he seeks to inject objectivity into his work by assuming the identity of a supposedly unbiased observer. (See Riyad al-Ulama vol. 5 p. 407) ____________________ This survey of the use of fictional narration by Shii polemicists in history creates the background against which we will now proceed to examine the historicity of Peshawar Nights and its contents.

Authorship The first thing which draws the attention of the unbiased reader should be the fact that while there were two sides who participated in the discussion, the book itself came from the peof the Shii participant exclusively. This fact might at first glance escape the notice of the unsuspicious reader who has complete faithto the point of gullibilityin the goodwill of the author. However, no one possessed of a sense of discretion can help but notice this discrepancy. The writer of the foreword seeks to make amends for this serious indictment of the books historicity by stating that four reporters recorded the discussions in the presence of approximately 200 people (Shia and Sunni Muslims), and that local newspapers published these accounts each following morning. Yet, both Shirazi and his publishers fail to produce the least bit of factual evidence in the form of copies of the newspaper reports from which it is alleged that Shirazi ultimately compiled the book. All we have to vouch for the occurrence of this ten-night discussion is the word of Shirazi himself. There is furthermore no external corroboration at all, least of all by the Sunni participant or the five other dignitaries who are alleged in the translators preface (p. xviii) to have publicly acknowledged their conversion to Shiism. Once again, we have nothing but Shirazis own claim to support the historicity of the event upon which Peshawar Nights is based. Publication The book is published not in Peshawar, the city in which the discussion reportedly took place, but in Tehran. It is published not in Urdu or Pushtu, the language of the North West Frontier, but in Persian, the language of Iran. It is highly unlikely that there was a Persian language newspaper in Peshawar, or in the rest of India for that matter, at the time of the alleged debate. In India at that time, Persian had diminished into an archaic language, more suited for the occasional moments of inspiration of the romantic poet than for the practical use of the media. Shirazi himself was merely a visitor to India, and is therefore not likely to have known either Urdu or Pushtu. The question about how he came to transcribe his book from newspaper accounts published in a language he did not know will remain a mystery for as long as one believes that the book is the record of an historical debate. On the other hand, if one accepts the much more plausible, rational, and indeed logical position that the author of the book has employed the literary device of fictional narration, for whatever reason, the mystery is immediately and conclusively solved. The participants The names of the participants are given as Hafiz Muhammad Rashid and Shaykh Abd as-Salam, and they are said to be from Kabul. None of these two persons are identified beyond their first names. Eponymous descriptions that identify persons in terms of their localities or family connections, and which are so common amongst the ulama of India and Afghanistan, are conspicuously absent. The same is true for the third person, Sayyid Abd al-Hayy. Even the Nawab Sahib, whose conversion at the end of the 10th session is prominently touted, is not clearly identified. Why, if the incident and the

personalities were as real as the author tries to make them seem, does he prefer to keep it secret? Furthermore, Sunni-Shii polemics was at that time a very well developed discipline. Shii proselytization in the established Sunni community had led to some Sunni ulama taking up the task of debating and refuting the Shiah. Beginning with Shah Waliyyullah and his son Shah Abd al-Aziz, there were literally scores of Sunni ulama who specialized in Sunni-Shii polemics. At the time this debate was supposedly taking place in the remote city of Peshawar, there lived in India an intellectual giant like Allamah Abd ash-Shakur of Lucknow, a scholar whose devotion to Sunni-Shii polemics had earned him the title Imam Ahl as-Sunnah. In 1345 when this debate allegedly occurred Allamah Abd ash-Shakur was in his prime at the age of 52.(See Nuzhat al-Khawatir, vol. 8 p. 271) The erudite Mawlana Anwar Shah Kashmiri was at that time 53 years of age. (See Nuzhat al-Khawatir, vol. 8 p. 90) If Sultan al-Waizin Shirazi was at all serious about an objective discussion of Sunni-Shii differences, he would have been engaging scholars of this caliber, and not figures of obscure historicity, who probably never existed outside his own imagination. Sources Shirazis citation of sources cannot fail to attract the readers attention. The translators ascribe this to his erudition: Although the dialogue was extemporaneous, such was the erudition of Sultanul-Wa`izin Shirazi ... that the transcript serves as a detailed bibliographical reference to hundreds of Sunni treatises well known and little known, in which the claims of the Shi`ites are acknowledged. (p. xviii) However, to the carefuland knowledgeablereader, this very same manner of citation reveals a fatal fault in the authenticity of the book as a faithful record of a debate in 1345/1927. There are many occurrences of this phenomenon throughout the book, but a few random examples should suffice to clarify its nature to the reader. 1. One of the sources quoted by Shirazi, complete with volume and page numbers, is the book atTarikh al-Kabir by Imam Bukhari. (See p. 229) This work would be printed in Hyderabad, Deccan for the first time ever in the year 1362/1943, no less than 16 years after the debate took place. 2. Another work cited by Shirazi is Hilyat al-Awliya by Abu Nuaym al-Isfahani. (See p. 139) The first edition of this work was published in Cairo, from 1351/1932 to 1357/1938. The printing of this first edition commenced 6 years after the date of the alleged debate in Peshawar, and was completed 12 years after that date. 3. The book Tarikh al-Khulafa by Suyuti is quoted with page number by Shirazi. (See p. 147) Yet the first ever edition of this book would appear in print in 1371/1952, 26 years after the event. 4. The Tarikh of Yaqubi would be published for the first time by Dar Sadir in Beirut only in 1960. Shirazi quotes from it, complete with page reference, 33 years before its first edition would see the light. (See p. 147) 5. The fifth volume of Baladhuris Ansab al-Ashraf would be published by the University Press in Jerusalem in 1936. Sultan al-Waizin Shirazi cites from this very same volume, to the point of

supplying the page number, 9 years earlier. (See p. 146) 6. Muruj adh-Dhahab by Masudi was first published by Dar Sadir in Beirut in 1368/1948, 3 years before Shirazi could quote it with volume and page numbers. (See p. 146) 7. al-Iqd al-Farid by Ibn Abd Rabbih is quoted with page and volume numbers by Shirazi. (See p. 190) Yet it was printed for the first time in Cairo in 1952, a quarter century after the alleged debate in Peshawar. 8. al-Haythamis book Majma az-Zawaid is confidently cited by Shirazi, with page and volume numbers. (See p. 82) Yet the book would be printed for the first time in 1352, 7 years later. 9. Umdat al-Qari by Badr ad-Din alAyni was first published in 1348. Shirazi manages to cite this work by page and volume numbers 3 years before its publication. (See p. 239) 10. The book Tarikh Baghdad was first published by Maktabat al-Khanji in Cairo in 1349/1930. Again Sultan al-Waizin Shirazi manages the impossible by citing from this work with page and volume numbers 4 years before its publication. (See p. 183) Thus Shirazis habit of supplying copious lists of references, and thereupon attempting to inject authority into them by citing page and volume numbers, had an unexpectedand a most definitely undesiredside effect. Instead of bolstering the authority of his book, it destroyed the entire image of the book as the authentic record of an objective debate. Aside from the above cases where Shirazi has made reference to sources which were to be printed several years after the date of his alleged debate in Peshawar, he also has the tendency to list a large number of references which he could never possibly have laid hands or eyes on. Most of his references lack volume and page numbers. This shows that he did not have access to these works, and was merely quoting them from secondary, unnamed sources. A substantial number of them refer to books that have been completely missing for ce, and of which nothing is known besides their titles. _______________ Source methodology One point of criticism which will recur throughout the book is the authors indiscriminate use of sources. In matters of Shariah and history, source methodology accounts for four fifths of any textual argument. No quotation can be presented as an authoritative argument if its authenticity has not satisfactorily been accounted for. The key word here is authenticity. No hadith is authentic simply for the reason of it being documented in a book. Of all people, the Shiah are supposed to be the first to take note of this fact. Whenever they are confronted with the fact that their hadith literature contains a huge number of ahadith (2000, according to Nimatullah al-Jazairi in al-Anwar an-Numaniyyah) indicating that the present Quran suffered interpolation at the hands of the Sahabah. To know just how much importance the Shiah

attach to authenticity, one needs only to look at the vehemence and fervour with which Ayatullah Muhammad Husayn Burujirdithe supreme Shii mujtahid upto his death in 1961rejected the Shii ahadith proving interpolation in the Quran as being extremely weak. (Lutfullah as-Safi, Ma alKahtib fi Khututihi al-Aridah, p. 53) Is authenticity a principle that only the Shiah can invoke when things turn against them? No person possessed of a sense fairness can fail to see the double standards of him who complains when unauthentic quotations from his own legacy are used against him, but freely quotes from the literature of his opponents without bothering to secure the authenticity of what he quotes. In the following pages I will survey the sources of Sunni hadith cited by Shirazi. The sources from which he cites Sunni hadith may be classified under three headings: (1) primary sources (2) secondary sources (3) obscure sources. 1. Primary sources Hadith books in this category are characterized by the fact that they utilize isnads (chains of narration) for their material. It includes books such as the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the six major works of al-Buhkari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, an-Nasai and Ibn Majah, the works of alBayhaqi, ad-Daraqutni, and of authors as late as Abu Nuaym al-Isfahani and al-Khatib al-Baghdadi. The narrated material in any collection utilizing isnads is as a rule only as good as the isnad. In Sahih alBukhari and Sahih Muslim we have a unique case, in that these two authors have applied a rigorous set of criteria to the ahadith which they admitted into their collections. The ahadith in the Sahihayn are therefore all authentic, not simply for the fact that they appear in those books, but because they conform to the criteria of authenticity stipulated by al-Bukhari and Muslim. Books besides the Sahihayn are all subject to scrutiny of their isnads to determine to what extent they conform to the criteria of authenticity. There never has been a claim, neither by the authors of these works, nor by anyone else, that these works incorporate exclusively authentic material. Muhaddithin like al-Hakim, the author of al-Mustadrak, and Ibn Hibban, the author of at-Taqasim walAnwa (commonly known as Sahih Ibn Hibban), have attempted to follow the example of al-Bukhari and Muslim by documenting only authentic ahadith, but their criteria, as well as the extent to which they abided by those criteria left a lot to be desired, and consequently came under censure from later muhaddithin. Indiscriminate quoting from these works would therefore only occur if a person suffers from one of two defects: ignorance of the science of hadith; or a Machiavellian attitude of the endin this case the conversion of the Ahl as-Sunnahjustifying the means. Either of these defects is sufficient to disqualify anyone as an objective polemicist. 1. Secondary sources Books in this category do not use isnads. Instead, they reproduce the texts of hadith from the primary sources, and give a reference to the source from they have taken it. An example here would be the book Majma az-Zawaid by Abul Hasan al-Haythami. In this work the author has collected those ahadith in

the Musnads of Ahmad, al-Bazzar and Abu Yala, and the three Mujams of at-Tabaranial-Kabir, alAwsat and as-Saghirthat do not appear in the six major collections. Since the hadith collections in this category basically draw from the previous category, the same is applicable to it in terms of authenticity as was stated for the primary sources. In fact, when quoting from such secondary sources, the onus to prove authenticity is even greater. Shirazi seems quite oblivious toor ignorant ofthe fact that works such as Majma az-Zawaid merely reproduce ahadith from primary sources. Therefore he thinks nothing of adducing Majma azZawaid as a source after having already ascribed the hadith to al-Mujam al-Awsat of at-Tabarani. (See p. 82) This is but one example of many. One wonders how someone who displays such an astonishing lack of proficiency in hadith could be bold enough to present himself as an erudite scholar. Other books in this category are ad-Durr al-Manthur and Tarikh al-Khulafa, both by as-Suyuti, Ihya Ulum ad-Din by al-Ghazali, Tafsir Mafatih al-Ghayb (also known as at-Tafsir al-Kabir) by Fakhr adDin ar-Razi, Jami al-Usul by Ibn al-Athir, and Kanz al-Ummal by Ali al-Muttaqi. This list is by no means exhausitive. These titles are mentioned merely by way of example. 1. Obscure sources Shirazi has shown an idiosyncratic predilection to quote from obscure and doubtful sources. A number of his sources stand out prominently in this regard: Yanabi al-Mawaddah by Sulayman al-Qanduzi alHanafi; Kifayat at-Talib by Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Kanji ash-Shafii; and Faraid as-Simtayn by alHamawayni. The first of the three, al-Qanduzi, is described in Mujam al-Muallifin (vol. 4 p. 252) as a Sufi who lived during the latter half of the 13th/19th century. Al-Kanji, although very prominently labelled by Shirazi as a Shafii, is completely unknown to biographers of the Shafii fuqaha such as Imam anNawawi in Tahdhib al-Asma wal-Lughat, Ibn as-Subki in Tabaqat ash-Shafiiyyah al-Kubra, Ibn Qadi Shuhbah in his Tabaqat ash-Shafiiyyah, and Jamal ad-Din al-Isnawi in his Tabaqat. Having died in 658 (as stated by Zerekly in al-Alam vol. 7 p. 150) he lived at least a century before an-Nawawi (who died in 767) and two centuries before the remaining biographers. It is therefore of great significance that that not one of these biographers make any mention of him. Of al-Hamawayni I have not been able to locate a single trace in any of the biographical dictionaries. When authors such as these compile works in which they include ahadith the like of which was never heard of before them, what status shall be accorded to such ahadith? Shall they be regarded as authentic ahadith from your own reliable Sunni scholars? I leave this question to the great Imam Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi to answer. In his book al-Mahsul fi Ilm al-Usul (vol. 4 p. 299) he lists the kinds of narrations which are known with certainty to be untrue and baseless. The fourth kind is the following: The narration which is narrated at a time when narrations have already become established, and when it is searched for it cannot be found in books nor in the memories of the narratorssuch a narration is known to be baseless. The same line reasoning is to be found in Abul Husayn al-Basris book, al-Mutamad (vol. 2 p. 79):

A narration which, after the stabilization of hadith, is searched for but cannot be traced in the corpus of hadith, is known for a fact to be a forgery, since we know that the ahadith have been documented. The narration of a hadith after documentation can therefore only be the narration of documented ahadith. So if we do not find that (i.e. we find a hadith being narrated which was not previously documented) then we know it to be an untrue narration. Thus, when you see the gloating manner in which Shirazi cites hadith from latter day Sunni authors such as al-Qanduzi and al-Kanji, or the unknown Ibn al-Maghazili and al-Hamawayni, then pity his gross lack of knowledge of this fieldof hadith, of which he has set himself up as an expert. And if Shirazi deserves pity, how much more deserving of pity would those be whose utter gullibility would lead them to swallow the fruits of his erudite scholarship hook, line and sinker?

_______________

The question one cannot help asking oneself is this: Can a book as elliptical, as blatantly dishonest, and as seriously defective in scholarship as this one ever serve to build bridges over the yawning chasm which separates the Ahl as-Sunnah from the Shiah? This book was never intended for that purpose. Its publication today stands as the unmistakable recommitment by the Shiah of today to the ideal of yesterday. That ideal is to convert the Ahl as-Sunnah to the faith of the Shiah. The author preferred to refer to himself in the book as Dai. This was mistranslated by the translatorswho obviously do not know Arabicas well-wisher. Dai does not mean well-wisher. It means missionary. After this introduction I will proceed to analyze and criticize the arguments of the author in detail. The destruction of the historicity of the book has only removed the veil of objectivity and fair dialogue that was clouding they sight of the credulous reader. Now that the book has been revealed to be the work of a Shii missionary using a deceptive literary device to win the trust and confidence of his credulous reader, the only thing that remains is to critically analyze his arguments. Towards the fulfillment of that objective I seek the aid of Allah.

THE FIRST SESSION

Three issues are discussed by Shirazi in this session. After making reference to the fact that he is a descendant of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam, he has the Hafiz inquire about his line of descent. Then, after having the Hafiz object to his genealogy, he launches into a three page justification of his descent. Thereafter, he introduces a break for the Isha prayer. He uses this juncture to introduce discussion of a phenomenon which is to the lay person one of the most conspicuous points of divergence between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah. This is the issue of combining prayers. The Shiah are known to combine the Zuhr and Asr, as well as Maghrib and Isha prayers; Sunnis perform each prayer in its appointed time. The questioner in this case is the Nawab, being the lay participant in the discussion. By citing a hadith from Sunni books, he attempts to prove the validity of joining prayers, and at the same time makes use of the opportunity to indulge in another favoured strategy of the Shii proselytizer: casting aspersions against Imam al-Bukhari and his book, al-Jami as-Sahih. Shirazi then introduces the matter of how the grave of Sayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu anhu was discovered at Najaf. He gives an apocryphal story of exactly how the grave was discovered, and makes reference to Umayyad atrocities in history. Shirazis genealogy Before the actual discussion ensues, the Hafiz is made to stipulate it as condition that reference be made to ahadith and events that are based on indisputable evidence. He asks that they should refrain from referring to doubtful sources. To this Shirazi readily and confidently agrees, but his lamentable failure to abide by this condition has already been noted in the introduction. In trying to assure his audience of his integrity in this regard, he makes reference to the fact that he is a descendant of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam. He presents his personal pride is this descent as guarantee that he would abide by this condition. The fact that he fails to abide by it demonstrates one of three things: (1) He does not possess the knowledge and skills required to distinguish between authentic and unauthentic sources; or (2) he does not care enough for his genealogy to fulfil the condition for which he has made it a guarantee; or (3) the genealogy itself is doubtful. This third deduction may appear petty and vindictive at first glance, but closer inspection of Shirazis genealogy as stated in the book gives us very solid grounds for having reservations about it. The historian Ibn Khaldun, through an inductive study of genealogies, formulated a method of testing the authenticity of any genealogy. This method is based upon the natural law of averages. It involves the median age to which people of this Ummah live, the age at which they have children, and the fact that at any given time there are three generations in co-existence. Essentially it comes down to assigning 3 persons for every 100 years spanned by the genealogy.

The line of descent given by Shirazi contains 27 persons. The name of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq is missing between Imam Musa al-Kazim and Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, which I assume to be the error of the typesetter or the translators. We may therefore consider this genealogy to contain 28 persons. Considering that the person at the one endSayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu anhuwas born 23 years before the Hijrah, and that Shirazi himself at the other end of the genealogy died 1390 years after the Hijrah, we have a timespan of 1413 years. If we were to assign 3 persons for every hundred years, we would be looking for a genealogy consisting of at least 42 persons. Shirazis genealogy falls short of this figure by at least 14 persons. A difference of 3 or 4 would have been acceptable, but it requires an extremely credulous mind to accept a genealogy that suffers from 14 missing links as authentic. Next we turn to the issue of the descendants of Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu anha. Shirazi makes the Hafiz object to him tracing his descent from the Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam through Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu anha, since he is of the opinion that descent is recognized from the male side only. Shirazi responds firstly by quoting an alleged dialogue between Imam Musa al-Kazim (erroneously described in the text of Peshawar Nights as Imam Musa Jafar) and the Khalifah Harun arRashid. This is the first place in the book where he fails to comply with his undertaking to use only authentic quotations, and it is significant to note that he is quoting from Shii sources. He fails to inform his opponents that the quotation is documented in the books Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida and al-Ihtijaj on the authority of a defective chain of narrators. As-Saduq Ibn Babawayh, author of Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida narrates it on the authority of Abu Ahmad Hani ibn Muhammad al-Abdi, and he on the authority of a person named simply as Abu Muhammad. Abu Mansur at-Tabarsi has in al-Ihtijaj merely reproduced this narration from Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida. (See al-Ihtijaj vol. 2 p. 389) Abu Ahmad Hani ibn Muhammad al-Abdi and his source of information, Abu Muhammad, are completely unknown figures. The only thing known about the former is that Ibn Babawayh narrates from him, and that after mentioning his name, he writes radiyallahu anhu. Shaykh Abdullah al-Mamaqani, the Shii expert on narrator biography, found himself at a total loss for evidence of this persons integrity, and could only rely upon Ibn Babawayhs invocation in his attempt to prove his integrity as a narrator. (See Tanqih al-Maqal vol. 3 p. 290) However, even the acceptance of Hani ibn Muhammad al-Abdi as a reliable narrator fails to solve the problem, since we face an insurmountable problem in the person of the second narrator, named as Abu Muhammad. Nothing at all is known about this person. He is not mentioned by name; only by his ambiguous kunyah, Abu Muhammad. The dialogue between Imam Musa al-Kazim and Harun ar-Rashid is lengthy one. It covers four A4 pages in relatively fine print. It covers a variety of issues and is not restricted to the deduction from the Quran that the progeny of Fatimah are descendants of the Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam. The brilliance of that deduction is marred by a hadith which the Imam supposedly quotes to the Khalifah in the opening paragraph of the dialogue. This hadith, which Imam Musa reportedly narrates on the authority of his forefathers, the preceding Imams, from Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam, says that when blood relations meet one another, the blood in their veins moves and becomes agitated. The Khalifah is reported to hug the Imam in order to test the veracity of this hadith, andpredictably enough experiences an abnormal activity of the blood in his veins. Any person who wants to ascertain the authenticity of this narration merely has to hug a blood relative. He will soon come to know that this entire narrationthe deduction from the Quran includedwas invented, either by Abu Ahmad Hani ibn Muhammad, or by his source of information, the ambiguous Abu Muhammad.

The fact that Sayyiduna Hasan and Sayyiduna Husayn radiyallahu anhuma are the sons of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam has never been an area of contention to the Ahl as-Sunnah. For the Hafiz to contest this fact shows either his own ignorancein which case he is effectively disqualified as a spokesperson for the Ahl as-Sunnahor reveals the manipulative hand of Shirazi himself behind the characters in his drama. Had he been courageous enough to engage recognized scholars like Allamah Abd ash-Shakur of Lucknow in debate, he would not have had the puppeteers freedom to make his marionette say whatever he wishes him to say. What he needed was an opponent with enough flexibility that he can be made to appear helpless in the face of Shirazis own erudition, and thereby effect a victory for Shiism over Sunnism. Since the point is really undisputed, there seems to be no sense in prolonging discussion about it. However, since Shirazi is bent upon ridiculing the knowledge of his self-copponent, he devotes another page to citations from a variety of Sunni books. The first source he quotes is Ibn Abil Hadid, the commentator of Nahj al-Balaghah, whom he describes as one of your own great scholars. Abd alHamid ibn Hibatillah al-Madaini, better known as Ibn Abil Hadid (died 655 AH) is not of the Ahl asSunnah, and never even claimed to be. He was a self-professed Mutazili and a Shii. Shirazi himself calls him Ibn Abil Hadid Mutazali. The Mutazilah never claimed to be of the Ahl as-Sunnah. If anything, they regarded themselves as the opponents of the Ahl as-Sunnah. Is Shirazi so blinded by his proselytizing zeal that he no longer sees his won glaring contradictions? Or is he simply lacking in knowledge? As for Ibn Abil Hadid being a Shii, that is borne out by his own poetry. Some of his most explicit declarations in this regard may be seen in Abul Fadl Ibrahims introduction to his Sharh Nahj alBalaghah. Ibn Kathir describes him as follows in al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah (year 655, vol. 9 p. 82): Ibn Abil Hadid al-Iraqi: the poet Abd al-Hamid ibn Hibatillah ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, Abu Hamid, Ibn Abil Hadid, Izz ad-Din al-Madaini; the man of letters, the eloquent poet, the extremist Shii. He is the author of a commentary on Nahj al-Balaghah in 20 volumes. He was born at Madain in the year 586. Then he went to Baghdad and became one of the poets in the court of the Khalifah. He enjoyed the favour of the wazir Ibn al-Alqami, on account of the two of them having literature and Shiism in common. In the following paragraph Shirazi cites a hadith from Jabir ibn Abdillah: Allah created the progeny of every Prophet from his own generation, but my progeny was created from the generation of Ali. He ascribes this narration to Kifayat at-Talib of Muhammad ibn Yusuf Ganji, and as-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah of Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, both of whom cite it from at-Tabarani. The books as-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah and Kifata at-Talib are both secondary sources; they derive their material from primary sources. In this case the primary source is al-Mujam al-Kabir of at-Tabarani, which was unavailable in print at the time when Shirazi was writing his book. Today this book is in print, and thus reference to the original source is possible. In al-Mujam al-Kabir (vol. 3 p. 45, hadith no. 2630) this hadith is found to be narrated with an extremely defective chain of narrators. One narrator, namely Yahya ibn al-Ala arRazi, is a notorious forger known for narrating falsified ahadith. (See Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 31 pp. 484488) Once again Shirazi fails to fulfil his promise of making reference to authentic ahadith exclusively. The only excuse that can possibly be made for him is ignorance.

A similar narration from Ibn Abbas is quoted from the Manaqib of Khatib Khwarizmi. This author, Abul Muayyad Muhammad ibn Mahmud al-Khwarizmi lived during the seventh century, and died in 655AH. (Mujam al-Muallifin vol. 12 p. 3; al-Alam vol. 7 p. 87) This source therefore falls squarely within the bracket of late obscure sources referred to in the introduction. The fact that al-Khwarizmi can come more than two centuries after the era of documentation, and produce a hadith from Ibn Abbas that no one else before him knew of, is sufficient proof to reject it. Until and unless anyone can produce an isnad for it, and prove the authenticity of that isnad, it will remain an unauthentic quotation. Shirazi, having promised upon the sanctity of his descent to quote exclusively from reliable sources, should have known better than to produce evidence from a source of such obscurity. Next he cites a hadith from the above mentioned al-Khwarizmi in al-Manaqib, Sayyid Ali alHamadhani in Mawaddat al-Qurba, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, and Sulayman al-Balkhi (al-Qanduzi) in his book Yanabi al-Mawaddah. He does not produce page and volume numbers for any of these sources. The text of the hadith is as follows: These my two sons are flowers of this world, and both of them are Imams, whether they are Imams openly or silently sitting at home. Out of the four sources cited, only one is worthy of mention, which is the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. The other sources are all secondary sources by latter day authors who do not document their material with chains of narration. Al-Khawrizmi, as we have seen, died in 655AH; Sayyid Ali alHamadhani died in 786AH (more will be said about his book Mawaddat al-Qurba later); and alQanduzi died as late as 1294AH/1877. It is therefore most unscholarly for Shirazi to cite all three of these sources together with the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, who died in 241AH. Out of the four cited sources, it is only the Musnad that can give us an idea of the authenticity of the hadith. When we turn to the Musnad to look for the hadith, we encounter a most unpleasant surprise. This hadith, so confidently quoted by Shirazi, is nowhere to be found in the Musnad. The concordance alMujam al-Mufahras li-Alfaz al-Hadith an-Nabawi, the 11 volume Mawsuat Atraf al-Hadith anNabawi, as well as modern day computer software have given no trace of any hadith of this kind in the Musnad. It seems therefore that Shirazi, beyond breaking his pledge of citing only reliable ahadith, has even resorted to blatant dishonesty. This would explain why has omitted to supply volume and page numbers for this particular hadith. In what remains of this passage he once again makes reference to al-Qanduzis Yanabi al-Mawaddah, but this time he makes it clear that the author of this book uses material from other sources. However, in one of the names he mentions in this regard, Hafiz Abd al-Aziz ibn Abi Shaybah, he once again reveals his ignorance of history and hadith literature. There never was a person by this name. The Ibn Abi Shaybah family of Kufah had three scions who made a name for themselves as muhaddithin. One was Abu Bakr, the other Uthman, and the last one Muhammad. Allah alone knows where Shirazi unearthed the name Abd al-Aziz ibn Abi Shaybah. His blunt insistence upon producing a authoritative sounding list of references has produced many a ludicrous situation like this. In the next passage he quotes out of the blue from the writings of a person whom he names as Abu Salih. This incoherent citation contains a hadith from Sayyiduna Umar ibn al-Khattab radiyallahu anhu, which he ascribes to Hafiz Abd al-Aziz ibn al-Ahkdar, Abu Nuaym, at-Tabari, Ibn Hajar alMakki and the suppositious Muhammad ibn Yusuf Ganji. However, he consistently fails to provide authentication for the ahadith which he adduces as proof. The same is true for the rest of the references

which he provides in the passage. What Shirazi sadly fails to comprehend is that a hadith is not proven authentic by the amount of books which contain it, but rather by the hadith itself conforming to the criteria of authenticity. It is worthy of note here that in this same passage Shirazi makes reference to the marriage of Umm Kulthum, the daughter of Sayyiduna Ali and Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu anhum without denying its historical occurrence, as many Shii scholars are known to do. He does this in the course of quoting a hadith which he presents as factual evidence. Does this mean that Shirazi accepts the historicity of this marriage? In any event, here we have had our first sampling of Shirazis source methodology. In an issue upon which there really exists no need for protracted debate he felt compelled to brandish as many references as he could lay hands upon. In the process he unwittingly revealed his unfamiliarity with his supposed sources. He also gave ample evidence of a stark lack of expertise in the field of hadith. More importantly, he proved his readiness to resolve to deception for the sake of impressing his reader with references. Combining prayers After having the Nawab ask him the reason for the Shiah combining prayers, Shirazi introduces this phenomenon into the discussion. The Hafiz is made to offer the explanation that the Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam combined prayers only in extraordinary situations, like when he was on a journey, or due to rain, and that he always offered his prayers separately when he was at home. In refutation of this explanation, Shirazi cites a hadith of Ibn Abbas radiyallahu anhuma in which it is reported that Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam combined the Zuhr and Asr, and Maghrib and Isha prayers while in residence. Here Shirazi has used a creative method of citation. The hadith he cites is in reality one single hadith. However, he boldly states that many ahadith confirm this fact. Then, in order to show just how many ahadith confirm this fact, he quotes the hadith of Ibn Abbas several times from a number of different sources. By mentioning the various chains of narration up to Ibn Abbas radiyallahu anhuma, even going to the extent that Imam Muslim quotes a number of ahadith on the issue, Shirazi deceitfully tries to create the impression that there exists a multitude of ahadith that prove the combining of prayers in residence. The fact of the matter is that there is only one hadith, which is that of Ibn Abbas radiyallahu anhuma, which happens to be narrated from Ibn Abbas by a number of his students. The careful reader will not fail to notice that each separate hadith cited by Shirazi ends with Ibn Abbas radiyallahu anhuma, and even the corroboration by Abu Hurayrah radiyallahu anhu is part of Ibn Abbas hadith, and not technically an independent hadith. Be that as it may, the fact that there is only one hadith on this issue is inconsequential as far as its authenticity is concerned. Since it conforms to the criteria of authenticity, it has been accepted as authentic. What now remains to be done is to see how this hadith fits in with the rest of the ahadith on the times of salah. Shirazi has the Nawab express amazement at how this hadith (which is slyly referred to as these ahadith) was ignored by the Ahl as-Sunnah, and how learned men have adopted a different path. He brushes off the explanations of the Sunni scholars as unintelligible, but turns a conspicuous blind eye to (or is perhaps ignorant of) the proper treatment of this hadith by the ulama of the Ahl as-Sunnah.

The hadith literature of both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah concur upon the fact that that the times of salah were given to Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam by Jibril during the Meccan period. They agree that the time for Zuhr and Maghrib were given as separate and distinct from that of Asr and Isha. This is further corroborated by the model example of the Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam. The Shii scholar Ayatullah Musa al-Musawi confirms this where he writes that the habit of Rasulullah by which Muslims should abide, was to perform every prayer within its time. Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam used to lead the Muslims in prayer five times every day. (al-Mutaamirun ala al-Muslimin ash-Shiah p. 173) The only case which represents an ostensible departure from this norm is this hadith of Ibn Abbas radiyallahu anhuma. Shirazi would be well aware of the fact that in the entire hadith literature there is only this one solitary hadith which apparently departs from the established norm. He knows fully well that his argument in favour of combining prayers would be crippled by mention of the fact that such combination is supported by a single isolated hadith. He therefore attempts to make it appear as several ahadith. In any event, the hadith of Ibn Abbas radiyallahu anhuma appears to be out of harmony with the Prophetic norm of performing every prayer within its specified time. This norm is established on the basis of a substantially large number of ahadith, even in the Shii hadith literature, and also the continuous practice of the Ummah. The ulama of the Ahl as-Sunnah were thus faced with two possible approaches: either to harmonise this one irregular hadith with the rest by giving it a suitable explanation; or to regard it as a normative hadith in its own right, which sets an independent precedent. The majority of them opted for the former approach. The reader might at this point get the impression that their opting for this position was based on some sort of subjective bias. But this impression will soon disappear when he learns that what lead them to this option was two aspects of the hadith of Ibn Abbas radiyallahu anhuma which Shirazi, for obvious reasons, preferred to keep unknown to his readers. The first of the two aspects is the fact that not in a single version of the hadith is it stated that either of the two combined prayers was perfomed out of its prescribed time. Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, whose encyclopaedic knowledge of hadith is a matter of consensus, states in Fath al-Bari that in all of the versions of this hadith there is nothing which indicates the exact time when the combining occurred. (Fath al-Bari vol. 2 p. 30) The second aspect to consider here is the fact that one of the students of Ibn Abbas radiyallahu anhuma who narrates this hadith from him, explained the hadith in such a way that it is left fully in accordance with the established norm. This student, Abu ash-Shatha Jabir ibn Zayd, whose version of the hadith is documented by both al-Bukhari and Muslim, and several of the other well-known books of hadith, states that what this combination of prayers entailed was for Zuhr to be performed during the last minutes of its prescribed time, with Asr then being performed immediately upon commencement of its time. In this way the two prayers are combined without the established norm being violated. This explanation for the hadith of Ibn Abbas radiyallahu anhuma was given by Ibn Abbas own student, and was accepted by a large majority of scholars, including the Hanafi jurist Abu Jafar at-Tahawi, the Malikis Ibn al-Majishun and Abul Abbas al-Qurtubi, and the Shafiis Imam al-Haramayn, Ibn Sayyid an-Nas al-Yamuri and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, amongst others. The other approachof regarding this hadith to be normative in its own rightwas adopted by a

minority of scholars of the Ahl as-Sunnah, including Imam Maliks teacher Rabiah ibn Abi Abd arRahman, the tabii Muhammad ibn Sirin, the Maliki jurist Ashhab ibn Abd al-Aziz and the Shafii jurists Ibn al-Mundhir and al-Qaffal ash-Shashi. These scholars allow the combining of prayers, but with the proviso that it be for a need, and more importantly, that it does not become a habit. It is this second point that is the point of divergence between them and the Shiah. The Shiah have permitted the combination of prayers even without a need. This has given rise to a situation where they habitually perform Zuhr and Asr together, and Maghrib and Isha together. Although they theoretically assert the superiority of performing each prayer within its prescribed time according to the Prophetic norm, in practice they are very rarely seen to uphold this norm. As such the combination of prayers has become the hallmark of the Shiah. Shirazi has ventured to pour scorn on some of the explanations given by Sunni commentators in explaining the hadith of Ibn Abbas radiyallahu anhuma. If only he had consulted his own hadith sources before doing so he would have been spared the embarrassment of revealing his ignorance of the hadith of the Shiah. One of the explanations given by the Ahl as-Sunnah for the combining of prayers in the hadith of Ibn Abbas is that it was done due to rain. Shaykh Abu Jafar at-Tusi in his book alIstibsar, which is one of the four major books of hadith for the Shiah, records from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir that on rainy nights the Nabi sallallahi alayhi wasallam used to delay Maghrib and hasten Isha (exactly as explained by Jabir ibn Zayd) and perform the two prayers jointly; and he used to say: Whoever does not show mercy will not be shown mercy. (al-Istibsar vol. 1 p. 267, no. 966) This Shii hadith alone should have been reason enough for Shirazi, and indeed the Shiah in general, to reconsider their habitual joining of prayers for no reason at all. It is therefore very strange to see Shirazi reverently stating that the Shia ulema, in obedience to the Holy Imam and the progeny of the Holy Prophet, have unconditionally pethe offering of prayers together. What sort of obedience is this which ignores the words of the Imam when it goes against their own desires? What sort of obedience is this which abandons the established Prophetic habit of performing every prayer within its prescribed time for an isolated incident which is subject to interpretation? Shirazi makes use of the opportunity to strike a blow at the integrity of Imam al-Bukhari. He has the Hafiz meekly object that the hadith of Ibn Abbas radiyallahu anhuma is not in Sahih al-Bukhari. He has no reason for introducing al-Bukhari into the issue, since it is already accepted that hadith is recorded by Muslim, and its authenticity has thus been established. Even if al-Bukhari did not document it, its authenticity will not be affected. Therefore, this objection from the Hafiz must be read to serve another purpose. That purpose is to malign the character of al-Bukhari. This Shirazi does by asserting that al-Bukhari did in fact document the hadith, but not under the expected chapter heading. He has deceitfully put them away from their proper place. Did it ever occur to Shirazi or his reader that alBukhari was under no compulsion to include the hadith into his book, and that had he wanted to be deceitful, he would have omitted this hadith from his collection altogether? Did it even occur to them that mentioning the hadith under the heading Bab Takhir az-Zuhr lil-Asr (meaning Chapter on the delaying of Zuhr till Asr) is in fact its proper place? Shirazi once again sacrifices his honesty upon the altar of expediency when he asserts that people like an-Nawawi (misspelt as Nuri), Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, al-Qastalani and az-Zurqani (misspelt as Zarqani) have admitted that these ahadith are proofs of the acceptability of combining two prayers.

Yes, they have done so, and so have numerous commentators and jurists before them. But they have never allowed the unconditional combining of prayers like the Shiah do. Without exception, they have made the permissibility of combining prayers subject to certain conditions. However, Shirazi could not find within himself the honesty to reflect the conditions stipulated by the men whose names he mentioned. Lastly, Shirazi has added the name Zakariyya-e-Razi to the above list of well known hadith commentators. There has never been a commentator of Sahih al-Bukhari by the name of Zakariyya-eRazi. The only Razi whose name comes close to this is the famous philosopher and physician Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyya ar-Razi. The last thing a philosopher would contemplate doing is write a commentary on hadith. Mention of his name in this regard must therefore be seen as evidence of Shirazis penchant for inflating his list of authorities so as to impress his gullible reader. This tendency occurs throughout the book ad nauseam. How Shirazis ancestors migrated from Hijaz to Iran A story is briefly related here of how Shirazis ancestor Muhammad al-Abid was murdered in Shiraz on the orders of the Abbasid King. The details of the story have been left out by Shirazi, but we will nevertheless take a closer look at the historicity of this alleged event. Muhammad al-Abid was the son of Musa al-Kazim. Mentioned of him has been made by Shaykh alMufid in his book Kitab al-Irshad (p. 459). However, al-Mufid mentions nothing at all about his supposed murder in Shiraz. Even Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar mentions nothing about this event. If any author had to mention an event of this nature, that author would have been Abul Faraj al-Isfahani, who devoted an entire book, entitled Maqatil at-Talibiyyin, to documenting the killing of the descendants of Sayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu anhu and his brothers, by the Umayyads and the Abbasids. However, Maqatil at-Talibiyyin is conspicuously silent on the murder of Muhammad, Ahmad and Husayn, the sons of Musa al-Kazim, in Shiraz by the order of the Abbasid King. We are justified therefore to question the historicity of the event. The story surrounding how Muhammad al-Abid came to be buried in Shiraz, as related by Sayyid Jafar Al Bahr al-Ulum in his book Tuhfat al-Alim, is that he entered Shiraz in Abbasid times and lived there till he died. He is reported to have made a living by copying the Quran, and is said to have manumitted 1000 slaves. His grave was discovered 6 centuries later during the time of the Zangid dynasty in a garden belonging to a person named as Qutlugh. (Tuhfat al-Alim, published as appendix to Bihar al-Anwar vol. 48 p. 191) This story is supported by Muhammad Madhi al-Kharsan in his footnotes to Bihar al-Anwar (vol. 48 p. 174) He informs us that a large number of those who trace their descent from Musa al-Kazim, including himself, claim descent through this Muhammad al-Abid. Neither of these two sources mention anything about Muhammad al-Abid being killed. More importantly, none of them venture any information about the state of the alleged grave for the 6 centuries before its discovery. His brother Ahmad, commonly known in Shiraz as Shah Chiragh is reported by Sayyid Jafar Bahr al-Ulum to have come to Shiraz during the time of the Abbasid Khalifah al-Mamun. The Abbasid governor of Shiraz, conspicuously named here as Qutlugh Khan, stopped him on his way. A fight ensued and Ahmads followers deserted him. He is reported variously to have been killed in that

skirmish, or to have escaped into the city to where he was followed and killed, and thirdly to have managed to elude his enemies in Shiraz where he lived an anonymous life until he died a natural death. His grave too, was discovered during Zangid times, when for the first time a structure was built over it. As for the third brother, Husayn, known as Ala ad-Din, his story brings a weird twist to the conspicuous Qutlugh. Sayyid Jafar Bahr al-Ulum tells us that during Zangid times, several centuries after Abbasid rule, the governor of Shiraz was a person called Qutlugh Khan. This governor had a garden, and the gardener noticed a wonderful light emanating from the garden at night. Upon investigation they discovered a grave, and through some means or the other they discovered that the person buried in the grave is Husayn ibn Musa al-Kazim. Qutlugh Khan thereupon ordered a building to be constructed over the grave. All three graves were discovered in Zangid times, 6 centuries after the death of persons supposedly buried in them. All three brother came to Shiraz at the same time, but none seem to have known of the others presence. All three became involved with a Qutlugh Khan, but each one in his own unique way. It wouldnt take an expert historian to smell a rat here. A complete and rewarding study could be made of the proclivity of the Iranians, especially in later centuries, to find the graves of sons of the Imams in Iran. Sites called imamzadahs flourish in Iran. The Persian Dairat al-Maarif-e Tashayyu (Encyclopaedia of Shia) lists over 350 such sites in Iran. In several cases the same person is claimed to be buried at different locations. In the case of Ahmad ibn Musa al-Kazim, for example, there is a rival grave for him in Kashan. (Dairat al-Maarif-e Tashayyu vol. 2 p. 433) Muhammad al-Abid too, has an alternate grave in Kakhak. (ibid. p. 432) The rival grave of Husayn ibn Musa al-Kazim is in Tabas. (ibid. p. 322) This embarrassing confusion, and these obvious pointers to the fraud of the ones who invented the graves at Shiraz, help one to understand the reason why Shirazi refused to devote anything more than a 7 line paragraph to the story about how his ancestors originally came to Iran. The actual history of Shiism in Iran will be dealt with later, under the second session, where Shirazi has spoken of Iran and Shiism under the heading Causes of Iranians receptivity to Shiism. The grave of Ali Hereafter mention is made of the discovery of the grave of Sayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu anhu at Najaf 150 years after his death. Shirazi explains the initial secrecy surrounding the location of the graves in light of fear that the Umayyads would desecrate the grave. However, what he doesnot explain is why the location of the grave was revealed by Imam Musa al-Kazim to the Khalifah Harun arRashid when the Abbasids, according to the Shiah, were no less cruel to the Alawis than were the Umayyads. Hasan al-Amin writes in his Shorter Shiite Encyclopaedia: Then came Abbasid rule. They were more severe upon the Alawides in their persecution and cruelty as well as upon the Shiites as compared to the Omayyides. Their rule was more troublesome and bitter for them, as a poet has said: By God, the Omayyids did not do one-tenth in their case, as Banu Abbas did. Amir Abul Faras al-Hamadani says: Banu Harab (Omayyids) did not succeed in these crimes even though though they intended to, as compared to your success. (p. 36)

Harun ar-Rashid is the Khalifah to whom Imam Musa al-Kazim is reported to have revealed the location of the grave. This same Harun is described by Hasan al-Amin as having made himself notorious for his cruelty to the Alawides and their friends and took to extremes in their persecution. (p. 40) It is interesting that just a few lines earlier Shirazi was recalling how his ancestors were slaughtered by the Abbasids, and now he presents the Abbasids as benevolent enough for Imam Musa al-Kazim to reveal to them the location of his grandfathers grave. He cites the martyrdom of Zayd ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn, and that of his son Yahya ibn Zayd as examples of Umayyad cruelty. If the cruelty that was visited upon these two great personalities gives one reason to believe that the Umayyads were given to desecrate graves, why is it that the alleged slaughter of Shirazis ancestors and others gave no one reason to fear that the Abbasids would desecrate the grave of Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu anhu? Shirazi appears ignorant of the fact that the exact manner and time of the discovery of the grave at Najaf is a matter of contention in the Shii hadith literature. He cites the story of Harun ar-Rashid and Musa al-Kazim as the point at which the grave became known, but fails to take note that Mulla Baqir Majlisi has recorded in Bihar al-Anwar (vol. 97 p. 164) a report according to which the location of the grave was known to Abu Jafar al-Mansur, who was Harun ar-Rashids grandfather. Abu Jafar is reported to have actually excavated the site to see if it really contains a grave. He also mentions that Imam Jafar as-Sadiq revealed its location in the time of the first Abbasid ruler Abul Abbas as-Saffah, who died in 130 AH. Shirazi is therefore clearly mistaken to claim that the grave remained virtually unknown until the days of Harun ar-Rashid. His claim that Harun built a structure over the location shown to him by Imam Musa al-Kazim clashes headlong with a report documented by Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar (vol. 42 p. 185) in which a person by the name of Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Duhaym reports visiting the site secretly sometime after the year 260 AH, and found no building. All they found was a few black stones around the grave. Harun arRashid died in the year 193 AH. Furthermore, the discovery of a tablet in Syriac that bore an inscription declaring this grave to have been prepared for Ali radiyallahu anhu by the Prophet Nuh alayhis salam 700 years before the Deluge presents an anomaly in itself. Although Shirazi promised to use only authentic sources, he fails to provide a source for this fantastic story. There is also no trace of this aspect of the story in Bihar alAnwar, a source which has given considerable attention to the issue of the location of the grave. What Majlisi does record is that the grave of Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu anhu is in fact the grave of Sayyiduna Nuh alayhis salam (vol. 97 p. 171) and not only that of Nuh, but also Adam, Hud and Salih alayhimus salam. (vol. 97 p. 173) But let us turn to another matter now. Shirazi has cited as examples of Umayyad atrocities the martyrdom of Zayd ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn and his son Yahya. However, there is an element in the tragedy of Zayd, and even in that of his grandfather Husayn radiyallahu anhuma which the Shiah always carefully avoid. That element is the role of the Shiah themselves in those lamentable tragedies. The Umayyads were only half the problem. The other half was the Shiah. When Zayd ibn Ali declared revolt against the Umayyads, 40 000 of the Shiah pledged allegiance upon his hand, 15 000 of them from the city of Kufah alone. With a force this mighty, the Umayyad

army would have been easily vanquished, and justice would have been established. What happened that at the hour of the battle Zayd was left with only 300 men? The story behind the disgraceful desertion of Zayd by the Shiah is told by virtually every historian who has given a biography of Zayd or recorded the events of the year 122 AH. Just before the battle could start they decided upon a whim to ask Zayds opinion about Abu Bakr and Umar radiyallahu anhuma. His reply was, I have never heard any of my family dissociate himself from them, and I myself have nothing but good to say about them. Upset with this reply, they deserted him en masse, and decided that he could not be the Imam, but that the true Imam was his nephew Jafar as-Sadiq. Out of the 40 000 who had pledged loyalty to him Zayd was left with only a few hundred. On the departure of the defectors Zayd remarked, I am afraid they have done unto me what they had done unto Husayn. It was here too that for the first time in history the Shiah were given the name Rafidah, meaning the rejectors. This name was given to them by Zayd when they rejected him after his refusal to dissociate himself from Abu Bakr and Umar radiyallahu anhuma. If the Umayyads were guilty on that day of shedding holy blood, then just as guilty as them were the thousands of Shiah who would rather see a distinguished member of the Ahl al-Bayt and the son of their Imam perish at the merciless hands of the Umayyads than hear him speak favourably of Abu Bakr and Umar radiyallahu anhuma. It is perhaps for this reason that Imam Jafar as-Sadiq is reported in the Shii hadith literature to have said that no one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love us. (Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 414) However, Shii rancour against Zayd did not stop at that cowardly act of desertion. To this very day their hadith literature is filled with sayings attributed to their Imams in which Zayd is denounced as misguided innovator, and even an unbeliever for falsely claiming to be an Imam. (Tanqih al-Maqal vol. 1 p. 467-471) The Umayyads killed Zayd once, and crucified his body once. The Shiah, on the other hand, insult the memory of Zayd ibn Ali every time that they assert, in terms of the hadith which they ascribe to their Imams, that whoever raises the standard of revolt before the coming of the Mahdi is a taghut (tyrant); and whoever unrightfully claims Imamah is a kafir and a mushrik, even if he

be a descendant of Ali and Fatimah and whoever revolts and calls people towards himself, while there is amongst them someone who is better than him, is a deviant innovator. (Bihar al-Anwar vol. 25 pp. 325-328) It was not only Zayd who was maligned by the Shiah. Even his faithful followers, who courageously kept up the resistance against the Umayyads, were branded as enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (Rijal al-Kashshi vol. 2 p. 494) despite the fact that they too, follow Imams from the Ahl al-Bayt. It is a strange philosophy which denounces those who refused to submit to injustice and humiliation as enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt while lauding those who deserted the Ahl al-Bayt at the hour of need, and whose opposition to perceived injustice was limited to the ritual cursing of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Umar radiyallahu anhuma in the safety of their private gatherings. Therefore, if Zayds martyrdom was a tragic event, then so much more lamentable is the attitude of the Shiah towards Zayd, both at the hour of his martyrdom and all the way

down history up to the present day. Therefore, it is blatant opportunism for Shirazi to tell only half of the story, and to conveniently omit any sort of reference to the treachery of his ancestors, the Shah, and their disgraceful role in that tragic martyrdom.

The Verse of Wilayah

Your Wali is only Allah, His Messenger, and the believers who establish prayer and give charity, and they bow down. (al-Maidah:55)

Meaning and context


This verse is called the Verse of Wilayah due to the appearance of the word wali in it. Linguistically the word wilayah may have one of two meanings. Wilayah as Authority The one meaning is authority. The wali would then be the possessor of authority. The Shiah have arbitrarily latched on to this meaning, seeking thereby to prove the Imamah of Ali radiyallahu anhu. By coupling this meaning of the term to the narrations which

will come under discussion in due coursethe gist of which is that Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu anhu once gave his ring to a beggar whilst in the state of ruku, and that the verse was revealed on that occasionthey draw the conclusion that the only legitimate authority in the Muslim community is that of Allah, His Messenger and the Imam. Any other kind of authority, like that of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman radiyallahu anhum, for example, is then illegitimate and contradicts the Quran.

Wilayah as Friendship The other meaning of wilayah, which in this sense might also appear as walayah, is a relationship of affection, attachment and solidarity in which each individual becomes the friend and protector of the other. In this sense the wali is then that person or entity whom you regard as your friend, your ally, the one with whom you associate, who can be counted upon to protect you and defend your rights. In this sense it stands opposed to terms such as enemy, foe and adversary. In order to see which of these two meanings apply to the verse, one needs to look at the context in which it stands. The Verse of Wilayah is the 55th verse of Surah al-Maidah. In order for us to get the complete picture of the context in which it stands, we need to go back a few verses. In verse 51 Allah Taala says: O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians as your awliya (plural of wali). They are the awliya of one another. Whoever amongst you takes them as his awliya is one of them. Verily Allah does not guide the unjust people. It can be seen from this verse that Allah Taala is definitely not speaking of wilayah in the sense of authority. What is being spoken of here is taking non-Muslims as allies, friends and protectors. When Allah then says in verse 55 that your true wali is only Allah, His Messenger and the Believers it is clear that it is wilayah in the sense of mutual solidarity and friendship, and not wilayah in the sense of authority, that is meant. This meaning of wilayah is repeated again in verse 57: O you who believe, do not take as your awliya those who take your religion for a mockery and fun from amongst those who received the Scripture before you, and from amongst the disbelievers.

In light of the fact that in the preceding as well as successive verses wilayah is used in the sense of the relationship we have described earlier, it is unacceptable, and indeed most incoherent, to claim that in this verse in the middle it has been used in the sense of authority. The meaning of the verse of Wilayah is therefore that a Muslims allegiance should be only to Allah, His Messenger sallallahu alayhi wasallam, and the Believers. Of the exclusive and pre-emptive right to authority which the Shiah seek to read into it, the verse does not speak at all. This is further corroborated by an authentic narration documented by Ibn Jarir at-Tabari and others, which states that verse 51 was revealed in connection with Ubadah ibn Samit radiyallahu anhu and Abdullah ibn Ubayy, both of whom had wilayah relationships with the Jews of Madinah. Ubadah radiyallahu anhu came to Rasulullah and announced that he was severing all ties of wilayah with them, while Abdullah ibn Ubayy insisted on keeping ties with them, saying that he feared a turnabout of circumstances. It was then that the 55th verse of al-Maidah was revealed. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 68)

Narrations
The main grounds for forcing the verse out of its context are the narrations which exist, according to which the verse was revealed when Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu anhu gave his ring to a beggar whilst in the position of ruku. In what follows we will investigate the authenticity of those narrations. It must be remembered, as a matter of principle, that untruthfulness in narrating hadith was a very real phenomenon in the early centuries of Islam, the result of which has been that a lot of spurious, unauthentic material was brought into circulation. Much of this material was later included into hadith collections by compilers who were motivated more by a desire to document a largely oral tradition, than to separate authentic from unauthentic material. Whoever thereafter wishes to utilize the material thus compiled will first have to ascertain the authenticity of the material he wishes to quote. By failing to first prove the authenticity of ones quoted material, the entire argument which is based upon that material is rendered useless. After this very important introductory remark, we now launch into a study of the available narrated material. We will first look at what has been narrated from some of the Sahabah,

and thereafter at what has been narrated with chains of narration that go back only as far as the Tabiin.

1. Narrations from Sahabah


The sources at our disposal contain narrations of the supposed incident whose sanads (chains of narration) go back to four different Sahabah. They are: 1. Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Abbas radiyallahu anhuma 2. Sayyiduna Ammar ibn Yasir radiyallahu anhu 3. Sayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu anhu himself. 4. Sayyiduna Abu Rafiradiyallahu anhu

1.1 Abdullah ibn Abbas t There are at least three separate isnads from Ibn Abbas in which this story is recounted.

1.1.1 The first isnad from Ibn Abbas The first is recorded by Abu Bakr ibn Mardawayh in his Tafsir and al-Wahidi in his book Asbab an-Nuzul. Ibn Mardawayhs Tafsir has not survived, but al-Wahidis book has been published a number of times, and it is known from as-Suyutis ad-Durr al-Manthur (vol. 2 p. 293) that these two sources have at least the last portion of their isnads in common. This last portion is as follows:
Muhammad ibn Marwan Muhammad ibn as-Saib Abu Salih IbnAbbas (See al-Wahidi, Asbab an-Nuzul no. 397)

This isnad is one of the most famous chains of forgery. Each one of the three narrators before Ibn Abbas was a notorious liar. Abu Salih, whose name was Badham or Badhan, was described as a liar by his own student Ismail ibn Abi Khalid. (See Abu Jafar al-Uqayli, ad-Duafa al-Kabir vol. 1 p. 165)

The next narrator, Muhammad ibn as-Saib al-Kalbi, was one of the most notorious liars of Kufah. His biography in al-Mizzis Tahdhib al-Kamal is filled with statements of the ulama of his time who denounced him as an extremely unreliable reporter, and even a blatant liar. (See al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 25 pp. 246-253) Two of the statements in his biography are of particular interest here. The one is a statement by his kinsman Abu Janab al-Kalbi who records Abu Salih as saying that he never narrated any tafsir to Muhammad ibn as-Saib. The second is an admission of guilt by Abu Salih. Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri narrates that al-Kalbi said, Whatever tafsir I narrated from Abu Salih is untrue. Do not narrate it from me. The third person in this isnad is Muhammad ibn Marwan, who is also known as as-Suddi as-Saghir (the younger Suddi). In him we have another notorious forger whose mendacity was exposed by both his contemporaries and the ulama who came after him. (See Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 pp. 392-394) This particular chain of narration (as-Suddi as-Saghir, from al-Kalbi, from Abu Salih) became so infamous amongst the ulama that it was given the epithet Silsilat al-Kadhib, meaning the Chain of Mendacity. (See as-Suyuti, Tadrib ar-Rawi vol. 1 p. 181)

1.1.2 The second isnad from Ibn Abbas The second isnad from Ibn Abbas t is also documented in the Tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh. It runs through ad-Dahhak ibMuzahim from Ibn Abbas. The weak point in this isnad lies in the fact that ad-Dahhak never met Ibn Abbas, leave alone narrate from him. (See Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 71) In the book al-Jarh wat-Tadil by Ibn Abi Hatim ar-Razi there is a narration which throws some light upon the link ad-DahhakIbn Abbas. Ibn Abi Hatim narrates with an authentic isnad from Abd al-Malik ibn Abi Maysarah that he asked ad-Dahhak: Did you personally hear anything from Ibn Abbas? Ad-Dahhak replied in the negative. Abd alMalik then asked him: So this which you narrate (from him), from whom did you take it? Ad-Dahhak replied: From this one and that one. (Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wat-Tadil vol. 4 tarjamah no. 2024) This shows that ad-Dahhak did not exercise great care about the persons from whom he

received the material he later transmitted from Ibn Abbas. Having been a contemporary of Muhammad ibn as-Saib al-Kalbi, it is not at all improbable that he might have heard the story of the beggar from him. 1.1.3 The third isnad from Ibn Abbas The third isnad from Ibn Abbas t runs through the famous mufassir Mujahid ibn Jabr, from Ibn Abbas. It is narrated by Abd ar-Razzaq as-Sanani in his Tafsir. He narrates it from Abd al-Wahhab ibn Mujahid, who narrates it from his father Mujahid. Abd alWahhab ibn Mujahid is described by the rijal critics as matruk, which implies that his unreliability is a matter of consensus amongst them. (Ibn Hajar, Taqrib at-Tahdhib no. 4263) Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri described him as a liar. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 18 p. 517) There is reasonable doubt about whether he ever heard hadith from his father. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 18 p. 517)

An alternative narration from Ibn Abbas t From the above it can be seen that not one of the various narrations from Ibn Abbas is authentic. What adds to the baselessness of that report is the fact that they contradict another more reliable report from Ibn Abbas on the tafsir of this verse. This report is documented in the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir, who narrates it with his isnad from the Tafsir of Ali ibn Abi Talhah. According to this report Ibn Abbas was of the opinion that the words and those who believe, who establish prayer and give charity, and they bow down in the verse refer to all Muslims in general. (Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, Jami al-Bayan vol. 6 p. 186) This interpretation by Ibn Abbas is not only in harmony with the meaning of wilayah as outlined above, it also agrees with the use of the plural form (those who believe) in the verse.

1.2 Ammar ibn Yasir radiyallahu anhu The hadith featuring Sayyiduna Ammar ibn Yasir radiyallahu anhu as its narrator is recorded in al-Mujam al-Awsat (vol. 6 p. 294, no. 6232) of at-Tabrani. Its isnad runs as follows:
Muhammad ibn Ali as-SaighKhalid ibn Yazid al-UmariIshaq ibn Abdilllah

ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn HusaynHasan ibn Zaydhis father Zayd ibn Hasan his grandfatherAmmar

This isnad suffers from a serious defect. Khalid ibn Yazid al-Umari is an extremely untrustworthy narrator who has been denounced as a liar by Yahya in Main and Abu Hatim ar-Razi. Ibn Hibban says that he transmits forgeries on the authority of trustworthy narrators. Al-Uqayli says that he transmits baseless narrations. (See Lisan al-Mizan vol. 2 pp. 740-743) In this particular case he presents his forgery in the name of a completely unknown narrator, Ishaq ibn Abdillah ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Husayn. This name is nowhere traceable in the biographical dictionaries of hadith transmitters. Hasan ibn Zayd, his father Zayd ibn Hasan, and his grandfather Sayyiduna Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu anhum were historical figures, but it is evident that their association with this hadith is completely fictional, being fabricated as it is by a known forger, Khalid ibn Yazid al-Umari.

1.3 Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu anhu The hadith with Sayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib t as its narrator was contained in the Tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh, a source which is no longer extant. However, Hafiz Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir has stated that this narration, like that of Ammar and Abu Rafi, is unreliable due to the weakness of their isnads and the fact that their narrators are unknown. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 71) The fact that amongst all hadith sources it is only in the relatively late Tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh (who died in the year 410 AH) that this narration appears, is a further indication of its spuriousness.

1.4 Abu Rafi radiyallahu anhu This narration too, is recorded by Ibn Mardawayh. Fortunately it is also recorded by atTabrani in his work al-Mujam al-Kabir (vol. 1 pp. 320-321), so unlike the previous case, we are in a position to conduct a first-hand investigation into its isnad. Before going into that it must first be noted that this narration differs from all of the above

versions in that it does not recount the story of the beggar. It only speaks of Rasulullah r waking up from his sleep and reciting this verse. Thereafter he tells Abu Rafi that there will come a people who will fight Ali t , and that it will be incumbent upon people to fight them. In ad-Durr al-Manthur (vol. 2 p. 294), where it is stated as being recorded by Ibn Mardawayh, at-Tabrani as well as Abu Nuaym, there is an addition which goes that after reciting the verse Rasulullah r said: Praise be to Allah who completed His favour for Ali. This addition must be from the book of either Ibn Mardawayh or Abu Nuaym, since it does not appear in al-Mujam al-Kabir. It is neither in Hilyat al-Awliya of Abu Nuaym, so it must be from another of his works which is not available to us. The isnad in al-Mujam al-Kabir is not free from serious defects. The second narrator in the chain, namely Yahya ibn al-Hasan ibn Furat, is totally unknown (Majma az-Zawaid vol. 9 p. 134), while its fourth narrator, Muhammad ibn Ubaydillah, is regarded as unreliable by the vast majority of critics. For example, Abu Hatim describes him as daif al-hadith, munkar al-hadith jiddan (weak in hadith, narrates extremely unique and uncorroborated material), and Ibn Main says about him laysa bi-shay (as a hadith transmitter he amounts to nothing). (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 p. 37) Ibn Adi concurs with Abu Hatim that he narrates completely uncorroborated material. (al-Kamil vol. 6 p. 114)

Summary of Narrations from Sahabah


From the above it can be seen that not a single one of the various narrations from Sahabah that may be adduced as evidence that the Verse of Wilayah refers to Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu anhu, is authentic. Shii writers often quote material of this kind from Sunni sources, seeking to mislead their uninformed Sunni readership by the amount of sources they are able to produce. A general principle that must be kept in mind with regard to such attempts at deception is that any narration is only as good as its chain of narration. Any material quoted must therefore first be authenticated before it can be used to substantiate any argument. Hereafter we proceed to look at narrations of the beggar-incident whose chains of

narration go back only as far as the Tabiin.

2. Narrations from Tabiin

Besides the previously discussed narrations from Sahabah, the sources provide us with reports from four of the Tabiin in which mention is made of the incident of the beggar. Below we discuss these four reports. Before actually looking at them we need to take cognisance of the following principle: Narrations such as these, which terminate at the Tabiin, but speak of incidents which allegedly happened during the time of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam must be treated with care. The reason for that is that the Tabii who narrates something which he claims happened during the time of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam did not actually witness the incident. The only way he could have knowledge of it is by someone informing him. The crucial question is: Who is his informant? To some people the logical answer to this question is that the Tabiin were informed by the Sahabah, for the simple reason that the Tabiin were the students of the Sahabah. However, this an oversimplification. It is a fact that the Tabiin were informed of incidents from the time of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam by their teachers the Sahabah. But it is equally true that the phenomenon of hadith forgery made its appearance during that same early stage, when the adherents of the various unorthodox sectarian groupings, like the Khawarij and the extremist Shiah were seeking to legitimate their doctrines by bringing into circulation hadith material which they projected back to the time of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam. Traditions of this kind are then later taken up by unsuspecting orthodox narrators who transmit it, often without naming of their sources. In this way spurious material finds its way into orthodox literature. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, in his introduction to Lisan al-Mizan, makes mention of the statement of a member of one of the early heterodox sects that they used to invent hadith in support of their doctrines. He then remarks upon it that
this, by Allah, is the most decisive argument against those who regard the mursal hadith (the kind of hadith in which a Tabii narrates directly from the Prophet

sallallahu alayhi wasallam, without any mention of his immediate source), since the innovation of the Khawarij took place early in the history of Islam when there still many Sahabah alive; and thereafter in the time of the Tabiin after them. These people, when they took a fancy to something, used to make it into a hadith and publicise it. It might then well happen that a Sunni hears it and then, thinking well of [the person from whom he hears it,] he goes on to narrate it. This narration will then be narrated from him by another person. Eventually those will come along who regard hadith with interrupted chains of narration as authoritative. They will then accept such hadith as proof, while the origin of it is what I have mentioned. (Lisan alMizan vol. 1 p. 18)

We will now proceed with an investigation into the authenticity of the four reports narrated from Tabiin. The four Tabiin from whom the incident of the beggar is narrated are: 1. Utbah ibn Abi Hakim 2. Salamah ibn Kuhayl 3. Ismail ibn Abd ar-Rahman as-Suddi 4. Mujahid ibn Jabr 1. Utbah ibn Abi Hakim The first narration is that of Utbah ibn Abi Hakim which is documented in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir from its original source, the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Hatim. (Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 71) Utbah says:
They (those who believe, who establish salah and give zakah, and they bow down) are the Believers and Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Utbah gives a double meaning to the phrase in italics. He understands it to refer to the Believers in general, in harmony with the context. At the same time he also understands it to refer specifically to Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu anhu. The only reason for him reading that specific meaning into the verse must be the fact that he had heard of the incident of the beggar. Otherwise the text by itself does not support that deduction. So now the question is: From whom did he hear it? From a Sahabi, or from someone else? He himself doesnt state the identity of his source. Utbahs source could not have been a Sahabi, since he himself is not a Tabii in the strict

sense of the word. He lived during the time of the younger generation of Tabiin, like Sulayman al-Amash, but did not get to meet any of the Sahabah. (See Taqrib at-Tahdhib no. 4427) All the sources from whom he transmitted hadith were of the Tabiin, and some of them were his own contemporaries. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 19 p. 300) One of his contemporaries was the notorious forger Muhammad ibn as-Saib al-Kalbi whose role in the forgery of the hadith narrated from Ibn Abbas has already been discussed. It is therefore not wholly inconceivable that Utbah ibn Abi Hakim received his information about the incident of the beggar also from al-Kalbi, and if not from him then from some other equally untrustworthy source.

2. Salamah ibn Kuhayl Salamah ibn Kuhayl was a Tabii from Kufah who had met none of the Sahabah except Jundub ibn Abdillah and Abu Juhayfah. (Ali ibn al-Madini, Kitab al-Ilal, cited by Dr. Bashshar Awwad Maruf in a footnote to Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 11 p. 317) The vast majority of his teachers were of the elder and middle generation of the Tabiin. His saying was also recorded in the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Hatim from where it was reproduced and preserved by Ibn Kathir. (vol. 2 p. 71) He mentions the incident of the beggar as the cause of revelation for this verse. Since this is once again a report by a person who did not actually witness the incident, a similar line of reasoning is applicable to it as to the previous case. However, aside from asking questions about who Salamahs source for this information could have been, it is of particular interest to us to note that according to the Shii rijal critics, Salamah ibn Kuhayl was persona non grata. Abu Amr al-Kashshi, the prime rijal critic of the Shiah, narrates from the 5th Imam Muhammad al-Baqir that Salamah ibn Kuhayl, amongst others, was responsible for misleading alot of people, and that he is of those about whom Allah has said in the Quran: There are some people who say: We believe in Allah and the Last Day, but (in reality) they do not believe. (Rijal al-Kashshi, cited in al-Ardabili, Jami ar-Ruwat vol. 1 p. 373) With their Imam himself having condemned Salamah ibn Kuhayl as a hypocrite who is guilty of leading people away from the truth, we fail to understand how the Shiah can venture to make an argument out of his statement.

3. Ismail ibn Abd ar-Rahman as-Suddi

The third report which recalls the incident of the beggar comes from Ismail ibn Abd arRahman as-Suddi, a contemporary of Salamah ibn Kuhayl who also lived in Kufah. His statement is recorded in the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir at-Tabari (vol. 6 p. 186). He says:
Thereafter [i.e. after the preceding ayat] Allah informs them [the Believers] with whom they should have wilayah, saying: Your wali is only Allah, His Messenger and the Believers who establish salah and give zakah, and they bow down. This refers to all Believers, but a beggar passed by Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu anhu while he was in ruku in the masjid, so he gave him his ring.

This shows that as-Suddi is of the opinion that the verse is not specific, and that it applies to all Believers in general. However, he does mention the incident of the beggar, and states it here almost as an afterthought. It is obvious that he is influenced by two things. Firstly he is influenced by the context in which the ayah appears. The context definitely provides no grounds for restricting the meaning of the verse to any particular incident or person, and that is what causes him to say that the scope of the verse is general so as to include all Believers. On the other hand he is also influenced by a report which reached him about the incident of the beggar. Our quest is to investigate with what degree of authenticity that report was handed down to him. We know that at the time when as-Suddi lived many reliable hadith narrators from amongst the elder and middle generations of the Tabiin were alive. But we also know that there were also numerous notorious forgers and liars, who for the sake of propagating their heresies, resorted to forgery and invented history. For the critic it is thus not simply as easy as to accept whatever is narrated, but to investigate. As-Suddi did not personally witness the incident, nor was he ever in contact with anyone who could have witnessed it. His informant therefore had to be another person. He himself does not state the name of his informant, nor of the eye witness from who the informant received the report. The general failure of all of these persons Utbah ibn Abi Hakim, Salamah ibn Kuhayl and as-Suddi to mention the names of their sources points strongly to the fact that the whole incident was nothing more than hearsay, more of a rumour than an authenticated report. It was brought into circulation by an unscrupulous person whose identity has remained a mystery. Thereafter it was circulated by word of mouth, with some commentatormentioning the incident but refraining from naming their sources, and other less scrupulous persons projecting it right back to the Sahabah. Not a single one of the

various chains of narrations fulifil the requirements of authenticity.

4. Mujahid ibn Jabr We earlier discussed the narration transmitted from Mujahid by his son Abd al-Wahhab. That narration was on the authority of Ibn Abbas. In the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir at-Tabari there is another narration from Mujahid in which mention of the story of the beggar is made (vol. 6 p. 186). The statement appears there as Mujahids own, and not as his narration from Ibn Abbas. However, the person who narrates from him, namely Ghalib ibn Ubaydillah, is regarded as extremely unreliable by the rijal critics. His unreliability, like that of Abd al-Wahhab ibn Mujahid, is a matter of consensus amongst the ulama. Abu Hatim describes him as matruk al-hadith, munkar al-hadith(one upon whose extreme unreliability there is consensus, an unreliable narrator of uncorroborated reports); ad-Daraqutni says simply matruk(technically meaning that he is extremely unreliable by consensus); and Ibn Main says laysa bi-thiqah (he is not reliable). (Lisan al-Mizan vol. 5 p. 404) At this some point some readers might get the impression that the rijal critics condemned these narrators as unreliable only because they narrate material which is unpalatable to them. To this we might reply by saying that this kind of response might be expected from someone who has no knowledge of the methodology of the Muhaddithin in criticising narrators. Having here seen quotations from the rijal critics on a few narrators who all happen to narrate the same hadith, the mind of the non-adept could be expected to jump to the generalisation that it is only because these narrators narrate material favourable to Shiism that they have been censured. The tendency to generalise in this way would be even stronger if considered that in this critical examination the person might be seeing the destruction of something which he had once thought to be an incontrovertible argument. Such persons would be well-advised to read up on the methodology of hadith criticism. That is only the first part of our reply. The second part is that this particular person, Ghalib ibn Ubaydillah, does not only narrate this one saying from Mujahid. He is known to have transmitted other material as well. In Ibn Hajars work Lisan al-Mizan there is a hadith which he narrates, the text of which is that Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam gave Muawiyah an arrow and told him: Keep this until you meet me in Jannah. The hadith is squarely denounced as a forgery by this very same Ghalib ibn Ubaydillah. This condemnation of his hadith is definitely not result of prejudice based on the type of

hadith which he transmits. That much even the Shiah will agree to. It was simply on account of the persons unreliability and untrustworthiness, which is, as we have already said, a matter of consensus amongst the Muhaddithin. If anyone feels that Ghalib ibn Ubaydillah has been unfairly dealt with by the rijal critics merely because he narrated something in support of Sayyiduna Alis pre-emptive right to the Khilafah, let him ask himself if he would would feel the same about the fact that that same Ghalib narrates this hadith about Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam telling Muawiyah to keep the arrow until he meets him again in Jannah. An honest response to this question is sure to reveal exactly where the real prejudice lies.

Alternative narrations from the Tabiin


The above four narrations are not the only ones that have come down to us from the Tabiin. They are contradicted by another, much better known narration that has reached us from a person no less in status that Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, who is regarded by the Shiah as their 5th Imam. This narration is documented in at-Tabaris Tafsir (vol. 6 p. 186). It runs as follows:
Hannad [ibn Sari] Abdah [ibn Sulayman] Abd al-Malik [ibn Abi Sulayman] Abu Jafar [i.e. Imam Muhammad al-Baqir]: Abd al-Malik says: I asked Abu Jafar about the verse, Your wali is only Allah, His Messenger and those who believe, who establish salah and give zakah, and they bow down. We asked: Who is meant by those who believe? He said: Those who believe. We said: A report reached us that that this verse was revealed in connection with Ali ibn Abi Talib. He said: Ali is one of those who believe.

This narration shows that the incident of the beggar had become quite popular, despite the fact that none of its narrators is able to produce a chain of narrators that is free from serious defects. It had become so popular, in fact, that Abd al-Malik ibn Abi Sulayman who is recognised by the Shiah as a Tabii who narrates from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (see al-Ardabili, Jami ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 519 no. 4187) thought to refer the matter to the Imam himself. The Imam made it clear to him that the verse refers to all Believers in general. When told about the claim that it refers specifically to Sayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu anhu, the Imam makes is clear that Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu anhu is neither the specific subject of the verse, nor is he excluded from it, since he too, is a believer amongst the Believers. He mentions nothing at all in confirmation of the incident of the beggar.

To the Shii mind, so used to thinking of the illustrious members of the Ahl al-Bayt in the despicable terms of taqiyyah, the Imam might well have been covering up the truth. But to any person who truly loves and respects the Family of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi waalihi wasallam this is an honest and straightforward answer. Only an anxious and prejudiced mind would care to read meaning into it that is not there.

CONCLUSION
From this discussion the following conclusions may be drawn:

Firstly,
the context of the verse is general, and gives no cause for believing it to refer to any specific person.

Secondly,
the incident of the beggar is recorded in reports narrated from four different Sahabah. Not a single one of those four reports is free from serious defects in the chains of narration. They are further contradicted by other narrations which are more reliable.

Thirdly,
narrations from the Tabiin suffer from a common defect, in that the names of the sources who relate the incident are not disclosed. Some of them suffer from the further defect of untrustworthy narrators. They are contradicted by a report in which Imam Muhammad al-Baqir himself attests to the fact that the verse is general and unrestricted in meaning.

With this being the state of the historicity of the incident of the beggar, there is no way in which it could ever be claimed, with confidence and in full honesty, that the 55th verse of Surah alMaidah was revealed in respect of Sayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib

radiyallahu anhu.

Bibliography
The editions of the sources quoted in this article are stated below. 1. al-Mujam al-Kabir Wizarat al-Awqaf, Iraq, 2nd edition, edited by Hamdi Abd al-Majid as-Salafi 2. al-Mujam al-Awsat Dar al-Hadith, Cairo, 1417/1996, edited by Ayman Salih Shaban & Sayyid Ahmad Ismail 3. Lisan al-Mizan Dar Ihya at-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, 1416/1995, edited by Muhammad Abd ar-Rahman alMarashli 4. Majma az-Zawaid Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, no date 5. Tahdhib al-Kamal Muassasat ar-Risalah, Beirut 1413/1992, edited by Dr. Bashshar Awwad Maruf 6. Taqrib at-Tahdhib Dar ar-Rashid, Halab 1412/1992, edited by Muhammad Awwamah, 7. Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Maktabah Dar at-Turath, Cairo, no date 8. Tafsir at-Tabari = Jami al-Bayan Dar al-Marifah, Beirut 1400/1980 9. Asbab an-Nuzul Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1411/1991, edited by Kamal Basyuni Zaghlul, 10. al-Kamil fi Duafa ar-Rijal Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 3rd edition, 1405/1985, edited by Yahya Muhammad Azzawi 11. ad-Durr al-Manthur Maktabah Ayatullah al-Marashi an-Najafi, Qum, 1404 12. al-Jarh wat-Tadil Dairat al-Maarif al-Uthmaniyyah, Hyderabad, Deccan 1371/1952 13. Tadrib ar-Rawi al-Maktabah al-Ilmiyyah, Madinah 2nd edition, 1392/1972, edited by Abd al-Wahhab Abd alLatif, 14. ad-Duafa al-Kabir Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1404/1984 edited by Dr. Abd al-Muti Qalaji 15. Jami ar-Ruwat Dar al-Adwa, Beirut, 1403/1983

The Verse of Tabligh


O Messenger! Convey that which was revealed to you from your Lord. If you will not do so, you would not have conveyed His message. And Allah protects you from the people. Verily Allah does not guide the people who transgress. (al-Maidah:67)

This verse is called Ayat at-Tabligh (the Verse of Conveyance) on account of the word balligh (the imperative form of the verb ballagha i.e. to convey) in it. The ahadith which have come down to us, which state the circumstances of its revelation, may be divided into four categories: (1) ahadith which state that the verse was revealed during a military expedition, when a bedouin Arab crept up on Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam and tried to kill him with his own sword (2) ahadith which speak of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam dispensing with the services of guards after the revelation of the verse (3) a hadith which states that his uncle Abbas used to be amongst those who guarded him until the revelation of the verse (4) ahadith which state that his uncle Abu Talib used to send someone

with him to guard him wherever he went, until the revelation of the verse (Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 pp. 77-79) The first three categories do not contradict one another. They may all be speaking of the same thing, the only difference between them being that each of the three of them deals with a specific aspect of the revelation of the verse. The ahadith of the first category speak of the place and the incident of the bedouin; those of the second category inform us what steps Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam took after the revelation of the verse; while the solitary narration in the third category informs us that his uncle Abbas used to be amongst those who used to guard him. It is only with the fourth category that a problem is encountered. The ahadith of first three categories all concur on the fact that the verse was revealed after the Hijrah. However, the introduction of the name of Abu Talib into the circumstances of revelation places it well before the Hijrah. So here we have a contradiction. Closer inspection of the isnads of the two narrations in question reveals problems with the reliability of some of their narrators. We may thus conclude that this version is unacceptable, firstly on account of the fact that it contradicts more authentic material, and secondly because it has been handed down to us through unreliable chains of transmission. The above is a very brief synopsis of the narrated material surrounding the 67th verse of Surah al-Maidah which is to be found in the well-known works on tafsir. Our intention in presenting this synopsis is to give the reader a general overview of the narrations contained in the major sources of tafsir, and especially narrated tafsir (at-tafsir bil-mathur). This has the advantage of demonstrating to the objective observer the incongruity of narrations Shii propagandists have been known to latch on to in their mission to convince the Ahl as-Sunnah that the Quran does in fact speak of the Imamah of Sayyiduna Ali ibn Talib, and that this claim is borne out by the mufassirin of the Ahl as-Sunnah themselves. In Shii propagandist works we encounter another category of narrated material, other than the four we have mentioned here. In this fifth category of narrated material we find the revelation of the verse being linked to the stopover at Ghadir Khumm on the return journey to Madinah after the Farewell Hajj. The claim they make in this regard is quite simple and straightforward: They claim that this verse was revealed on the day of Ghadir Khumm in connection with Ali ibn Abi Talib. The Shii propagandist is ingenious. Being an expert in the art of misrepresentation, he presents this narration to the unsuspecting Sunni public as if it is the only material which exists on the revelation of the verse. He knows that most if not all of his listeners or readers are laymen who first of all do not know any Arabic; and

even if they do, they do not have access to the books on tafsir. Being thus assured that they will never discover his dishonesty in concealing the existence of alternative material on the issue, he goes ahead to convince his listener or reader that the quotation which he has supplied him with is the unadulterated truth. He emphasises the fact that he has taken this quotation not from a Shii source, but from a Sunni one. The Sunni reader/listener is thus left with the impression that what he is getting is the truth, since it comes, in a manner of speaking, from the horses mouth. The source given for the above claim is the book Asbab an-Nuzul by Abul Hasan alWahidi. (Asbab Nuzul al-Quran, p. 204) Al-Wahidi narrates most of the material in his book with their complete isnads. Therefore, quoting material from al-Wahidi without stating the nature of the isnad on the authority of which he has quoted is basically an act of deception. It is relatively easy to deceive the public with such quotations, since they lack a proper understanding of the nature of quotation by isnad. The lay person looks only to the author of the book, and not to the chain of narrators on whose authority the author narrates. To deceive him is therefore quite simple. To understand exactly how illogical this approach is we need to compare it with a parallel case. Let us assume we have a book on science. This book quotes the theory of an earlier scientist about the invalidity of whose theories there exists consensus amongst the experts in the field. Note that the author of the book merely quotes that theory; he does not lend his own weight to it by defending or supporting it. The question now is: can we take this particular theory and ascribe it to the author of the book, and omit any reference to the fact that he is merely quoting, and not supporting it? We very obviously cannot do so, and if we do so we will be dishonest. Similarly, quoting from al-Wahidi without mentioning that he narrates it on the authority of a chain of narrators, and without proving the authenticity of the chain of narrators is also dishonest. When we encounter a quotation from al-Wahidi the first question we need to ask ourselves is: Is it narrated with an authentic chain of narration? This question can only be answered by referring back to the original book. In the book Asbab Nuzul al-Quran we find that this statement, which ascribed to Abu Said al-Khudri radiyallahu anhu, is narrated via a chain of narration which runs as follows:
al-Wahidi Muhammad ibn Ali as-Saffar Hasan ibn Ahmad alMakhladi Muhammad ibn Hamdun ibn Khalid Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Hulwani Hasan ibn Hammad, Sajjadah Ali ibn Abis al-Amash and Abul-Jahhaf Atiyyah (ibn Sad alAwfi) Abu Said al-Khudri...

Thus, the statement al-Wahidi narrates from Abu Said al-Khudri is extremely

elliptical, since it completely omits any reference to the fact that what al-Wahidi narrates is narrated on the authority of the nine persons who stand between himself and Abu Said. Only when the reliability of these nine persons is proven may we with confidence say that al-Wahidi narrates from Abu Said al-Khudri. Critical scrutiny of the isnad reveals the following flaws: 1. Ali ibn Abis: This narrator lived in Kufah during the latter half of the second century AH. There is consensus amongst the rijal critics that he was an unreliable transmitter. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 20 p. 502-504) His unreliability stems from the fact that the material transmitted by him was for the greater part uncorroborated or contradictory to more reliable versions. In the case of this particular narration he has transmitted a hadith of which no trace can be found anywhere else. Since his own reliability is already seriously questionable, we cannot by any objective standards place confidence in the lone narration of one such as he. Ibn Hibban sums up the reason for dismissing him as a hadith transmitter in the following words: Mistakes of his in transmitting hadith were so serious that he deserved to be abandoned (as a narrator). Abu Zurah arRazi states: He is munkar al-hadith (meaning that he uncorroborated material, or material which contradicts more reliable versions); he transmits uncorroborated ahadith on the authority of reliable narrators. (Kitab al-Majruhin vol. 2 p. 176) 2. Atiyyah al-Awfi: Atiyyah al-Awfi appears in the isnad as the person who narrates from Abu Said al-Khudri radiyallahu anhu. He lived and was active as a hadith transmitter in Kufah, where he died in 111AH or 127 AH. He transmitted hadith from figures amongst the Sahabah such as Ibn Umar, Ibn Abbas, Zayd ibn Arqam and Abu Said al-Khudri radiyallahu anhum. The muhaddithin have called his reliability as a narrator into question, especially when he narrates from Abu Said. This is on account of the habit termed tadlis ash-shuyukh by the muhaddithin. His practise of this habit is explained by Ibn Hibban in his Kitab al-Majruhin in the following words: He heard some ahadith from Abu Said al-Khudri. When Abu Said died he sat with (the Shii mufassir) al-Kalbi and listened to his stories. Thus when al-Kalbi used to say Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam said... he used to memorise it. He now gave al-Kalbi the kunyah Abu Said and started narrating from him. When it was asked Who narrated this to you? he used to say, Abu Said. The people would think that he meant Abu Said al-Khudri, when in reality it was al-Kalbi. It is therefore not allowed to use him as an authority or to write his ahadith, except if it is in the sense of amazement. (Kitab

al-Majruhin vol. 2 p. 176) This is then the state of the narration which Shii propagandists so brazenly thrust in the faces of their Sunni readers or listeners. There is another narration which holds connection with this one. It was originally documented in the tafsir of Abu Bakr Ibn Mardawayh (died 410 AH), but his tafsir is no longer extant. It has been preserved, albeit without isnad, by as-Suyuti in his book ad-Durr al-Manthur. (vol. 2 p. 298) The text of this narration runs as follows:
Ibn Mardawayh recorded from Ibn Masud that he said: In the time of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam we used to read: O messenger, convey what has been revealed to you from your Lord that Ali is the Master of the Believers; If you do not do so, you would not have conveyed His message. And Allah protects you from the people...

This narration, as can be clearly seen, has come down to us stripped of its chain of narration. The chain of narration is usually regarded as the chief indicator of authenticity. However, it is not the only indicator. In the absence of the isnad, which would have pinpointed the exact person responsible for this blatant forgery, we still have the significant fact that this narration assails the sanctity of the Quran. This narration contains an addition to the wording of the verse which is not to be found amongst any of the qiraat (variant readings) of the Quran, neither the mutawatir readings nor the shadhdh ones. In fact, it can be found nowhere except in a single, lone narration preserved without isnad in a work of the fifth century. The work of Ibn Mardawayh is in no way free from narrations by the extremists of the Shiah. We have earlier seen, in the case of Atiyyah al-Awfi, how Shii narrations crept into Sunni compilations as early as in the days of the Tabiin. Classical Shii works like the tafsirs of Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi and Furat ibn Ibrahim al-Kufi, the Kitab al-Qiraat of Ahmad ibn Muhammad as-Sayyari, al-Ihtijaj by Ahmad ibn Ali at-Tabarsi, the book al-Manaqib by Ibn Shahrashub and the book Kashf al-Yaqin by Ibn Tawus all contain narrations which state that the name of Ali radiyallahu anhu was mentioned in this verse, but they (meaning the Sahabah radiyallahu anhum) removed it from there. (Mulla Husayn Nuri Tabarsi, Fasl alKhitab fi Ithbat Tahrif Kitab Rabb al-Arbab, cited by Ihsan Ilahi Zahir, ash-Shiah walQuran pp. 215-217) It is therefore not at all inconceivable that this narration found its way into the tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh through an isnad going back to its Shii originator.

SHIISM AND SIRAH


But let us now look at the issue from a different angle. Let us for a moment assume that the name of Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu anhu was in fact mentioned in this verse, and the matter which Allah ordered Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam to convey to the Ummah was Sayyiduna Alis imamah, an issue so important that failure to convey it would be tantamount to complete failure. This scenario fits snugly into the Shii picture of the Sirah of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam. There is a stark difference between the Shiah and the Ahl as-Sunnah in the way either of them conceives of the Sirah, or life history, of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam. It is the contrast between failure and sucess. To the Ahl as-Sunnah, the mission of Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam was a successful one, the most successful mission of any messenger of Allah. And nowhere is his success reflected more clearly than in his followers. He succeeded in establishing Islam upon earth, and Iman in the hearts of his followers. His followers were of such a caliber that they earned praise from Allah Himself, in the Quran, the Tawrat as well as the Injil. Therefore, when Allah says to His Messenger, Convey, and I will protect you against the people, it is impossible that those people could be the same people who stand so highly praised in the Holy Scriptures. The people against whom Allah promised to protect him could therefore have been none but the unbelievers. To the Shiah, on the other hand, the Sirah of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam is incessantly clouded by fear, doubt and suspicion. Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam is constantly having to cajole and blandish his followers in fear that they might openly turn against him. With the exception of a minute group of persons consisting of his daughter, her husband, their two infant sons and three or four others, he cannot trust anyone. His wives, their fathers, the husbands of his other daughters, his closest friends, his scribes, his military commanders all of them are tainted with hypocrisy, and eagerly await the moment of his death to usurp power. In short, two decades of tireless effort has brought him nothing but a handful of sincere followers; the rest are all hypocrites. He is under continuous pressure from this sea of hypocrisy which surrounds him, and he is forced to take recourse to taqiyyah (meaning to act or speak falsely for the sake of convenience). In the case of this verse he is hesitant to announce that Allah has decreed Ali to be his successor; so hesitant that he has to be sounded a severe warning about it and given the assurance that he will be protected from harm. A contemporary Shii scholar, Muhammad Rida al-Mamaqani, writes: He, may my soul be his ransom, [meaning Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam] practiced the greatest taqiyyah. This is clear to anyone who studies his life. Sufficient proof thereof is the Verse of Tabligh and the Verse of Wilayah. On the whole, regarding the status of

taqiyyah there is no difference whatsoever between the Rasul sallallahu alayhi wasallam, the Infallible Imam and the common people. (footnotes to Abdullah al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah fi Ilm ad-Dirayah vol. 1 p. 78 footnote no. 5) To the Shiah, therefore, the people against whom Allah would protect him were none other than his own companions. The people with whom he lived and who stood by his side, who shared his happiness and grief, who assisted him in times of hardship, who were ever ready to sacrifice their lives and their posessions for him and for his cause these same people were in reality his enemies whom he was afraid to offend. In the Shii view of Sirah, and in their opinion about the circumstances under which the verse was revealed, these were the people against whom Allah had to protect His Messenger. But ultimately, even though his person was protected against them, his mission was thwarted by those very same enemies, and a struggle of twenty three years ended in disgraceful failure (naudhu billah) when this entire commwhich he had given twenty three years of his life to build, reverts back into kufr, with the exception of a mere handful. It is for this reason that we will conclude here by saying that acceptance of this kind of narrations is tantamount to subscribing to a view of Sirah wherein Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam is reduced to one of the most unsuccessful leaders who ever lived. That view of Sirah, as much as it might be camouflaged and paraphrased, lies at the very heart of Shiism.

_______________________ BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir


Maktabah Dar at-Turath, Cairo, nodate

2. al-Wahidi, Asbab Nuzul al-Quran


ed. Kamal Basyuni Zaghlul, Dar al-Kutub alIlmiyyah, Beirut, 1411/1991

3. al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal


ed. Dr. B.A. Maruf, Mussasat ar-Risalah, Beirut, 1413/1992

4. Ibn Hibban, Kitab al-Majruhin

ed. Mahmud Ibrahim Zayid, Dar al-Way, Halab (Aleppo), 2nd edition, 1402

5. as-Suyuti, ad-Durr al-Manthur


repr. Maktabah Ayatullah al-Marashi, Qum, 1404 AH

6. Ihsan Ilahi Zahir, ash-Shiah wal-Quran


Idarah Tarjuman as-Sunnah, Lahore, no date

7. al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah fi Ilm ad-Dirayah


ed. Muhammad Rida al-Mamaqani, Muassasat Al al-Bayt, Beirut 1411/1991

The Tat'heer ( purification ) verse & Hadeeth of Kisa'a (veil)


A Scientific Dialogue
By Muhammad Al-khider

Allah Almighty says in the Holy Quran : And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former times of ignorance: and establish regular prayer, and give regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the family, and to make you pure and spotless. Quran 33 : 33 It was narrated by Aisha ( May Allah be pleased with her) that the Messenger of Allah sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam once went out in the morning suspending a cloth over his hair; When he saw Al-Hasan ibn Ali appearing, he hid it ,then came Hussein and entered with him.When Ali and his spouse Fatima came, he hid it and said: And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the family, and to make you pure and spotless. Quran 33 : 33 The Shiite adherents claim that all members of the household of the Prophet and their posterity are infallible. And thus, it is a must to obey them.; For they deserve to be Imams. They do support their claim categorically with the above mentioned Quranic verse and the Prophetic Tradition. How true is their claim? Commentary: Indeed the purification verse was revealed in favor of the Prophets wives, as God Almighty stated in the Holy Quran:

O consorts of the Prophet! You are not like any of the (other) women. If you do fear (Allah), be not too complaisant of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former times of ignorance: and establish regular prayer, and give regular charity,and obey Allah and His Messenger. Ang Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the family and to make you pure and spotless. And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes of the signs of Allah and His wisdom: For allah understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them) Quran 33:32-34 So, whoever ponders these verses with a clear and objective mind, without prejudice will come to a conclusion that they were revealed exclusively in favor of the Prophets Consorts. Moreover, if one fathoms the verse: Stay quietly in your house will find out that, it is only one verse and the Messengers wives are the only ones addressed therein. This might lead us to quesion ourselves: If the verse addressed only the wives of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam, why didnt it contain a feminine pronoun of (Meem) instead of using an article implying plural of men? It should be clear that the Messenger of Allah sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam was the head of his household. So, in order to include him, it was incumbent to use the article Meem that denotes talking about a group of men. For he was a man and a leader of his household. For more explanation of this, we should refer to the verse wherein Allah talks about Prophet Ibraahim (Pbuh). They said: Do you wonder of Allahs decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you, oh ye people of the house ! For He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of glory. Quran 11 : 73 Since Abraham was also included in his family, the Holy Quran addressed his wife using musculine plural of men with the article Meem as it is customary in the Arabic grammar. For the plural of men is applied even though there is only one man in the group of females according to the classical Arabic. Moreover, in Arabic, a wife is addressed as Ahl, which also means People as revealed in the verse wherein Allah almighty was talking about Prophet Moses salahu alihi wasallam. Allah Almighty says : Now when Moses had fulfilled the term, and was travelling with his family Quran 28 : 29 So, what do you find strange if this verse was addressed solely to the wives of the Prophet (Pbuh), though the article of musculine plural was applied ?! 2. What proves that this verse was revealed solely for the wives of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam ,is the Prophetic Tradition itself. In this regard, Prophet Muhammad sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam prayed for his close relatives, including his in-laws and said: ( O Allah! Those are

also members of my family, O Allah purify them. ) Suppose the verse was addressed to them, confirming that Allah had purified them, why could the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam need to invoke Allah Almighty to include this kith and kin in the purification promise ?!! 3. The household of the Messenger of Allah salahu alihi wa aalihi wasallam includes his wives, Imam Ali, Lady Fatima, the two Imams Al-Hasan and Al-Hussein, and Zaid ibn Al-Arqam who was asked about the household of the Prophet and said in the Hadith: ( His spouses are a fibre of his household ). He went further to explain that his household includes also the people who were not allowed to receive any charity namely: the relatives of Ali, the kindred of Jaafar, the family of Aqeel, and the kinsfolk of Al-Abbas. Therefore, the concept of the Prophets household encompasses also Al-Abbas- the son Abdul Muttalib, the kith and kin of Aqeel bin abi Talib, and the family of Jaafar bin Abi Talib, as stated in the Tradition (Hadith) of Zaid bin Al-Arqaam. It also includes the family of Al-Harith bin Abdul Muttalib, due to what the Messenger salahu alihi wa aalihi wasallam told Rabbea bin Al-Harith and Al-Abbas bin Abdil Muttalib: ( Verily , the family of Muhammad does not deserve any charity , for it is peoples filth ) Sahih Muslim Even though, we accept the infallibility of the Shiite Imams, we will come to a conclusion that it is not logical or Substantial for a non-prophet to be infallible whatsoever he may be. 4. Referring to the above mentioned verse, and deducting therefrom that Allahs purification from abomination was meant also for the in-laws and the entire kith and kin of the Messenger of Allah sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam ,prompts a person to wonder and get surprised. The reason for that is self-evident and palpable for everybody. The aforementioned Hadeeth mentions Fatima ( the daughter of the prophet May Allah be pleased with her ) as part and percel of the people who were meant for purification among the family members of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam. The Imamite Shiah claim that Allah Almighty granted the Shiite Imams infalliblity because the task they were to be assigned to undertake required of them to be so. The task they were to undertake was to lead people and to apply the Divine Laws of Allah Almighty in Judging among mankind. Now the question casts itself, suppose what they claim is correct, is Lady Fatima ( May Allah be pleased with her ) a prophet or an Imam to be infallible?! Why she should be infallible if she is not a prophet or an Imam ( like how shia believe ) ?!! Allah Almighty bestowed the attribute of infallibility on the Prophets and Messengers because they had a task ahead of them that was to convey the message revealed to them to their respective peoples and to safeguard the supernatural message they were entrusted with by Allah Almighty. 5. Since the purification verse was revealed in regard to the wives of the Allahs Messenger and Allah Almighty affirmed to make them pure and spotless, the Messenger of Allah sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam gathered his closest kith and kin and invoked Allah Almighty to purify them as promised his wives (Prophets).

He thus said in his supplication: ( O Allah ! those are my kith and kin, remove all abomination from them and make them pure and spotless ). So after Umm Salama saw that the Messenger of Allah sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam had included Ali, Fatima, Al-Hasan and Al-Hussein in the members of his household, she requested him earnestly to include her among the people he supplicated for. The Messenger of Allah informed her undoubtedly that there was no need for himto include her among his kith and kin since she was one of his wives, and the verse was revin their regard. This is a sound evidence that states categorically the fact that the verse was not revealed in regard of the Prophets kith and kin but rather it was addressing his wives.Had it been addressing also his kith and kin there would be no need for him to gather his daughter, son -in-law and his grandsons to invoke Allah to include them among his spouses who were promised to be purified. 6. In the verse: And Allah wishes only to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the family, and to make you pure and spotless. Allahs statement was not to assure them that they had already been purified, but rather to stipulate a condition that if they obeyed Him, He would remove all abomination from them and thus purify them. He only wished to purify them if they met this Condition. If you analyze the context, you will find that Allah Almighty was giving the prophets wives some divine directions to do all what He commanded them and to abstain from what He forbade. He thus informed them that if they Conformed to his commands and abstained from what he forbade, He would reward them by removing all abomination from them and make them pure and stainless. It should be noted that God Almighty has used this pattern of speech to address our predecessors. Consider the following verse: Allah does not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete his favor upon you , that ye may be grateful. Quran 5 : 6 In another verse, He thus says: Allah does wish to make clear to you and to show you the ordinances of those before you. Quran 4 : 26 He also says: Allah does wish to lighten your (difficulties): For man was created weak (in flesh ). Quran 4 : 28 The wish of Allah expressed in the above mentioned verses comes as a condition of being loyal to His commands, to love Him and make Him pleased with you. Otherwise, without fulfilling this condition, His wish cannot come into reality, i.e the purification cannot occur. 7. The main aim of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam in his aforementioned Hadeeth was to pray for his kith and kin to get all their abomination removed from them by Allah, and to be purified as well. This implies that he prayed for them to be among the pious believers who were purified by Allah Almighty. Hence, avoiding abomination is a must for all the believers. For Allah Almighty wishes to purify all the believers who subscribe only to Him in their acts of devotion and not only the family of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam. Although the Prophets kith and kin are more entitled to get the purification of Allah Almighty, the verse does not restrict Allahs purification to them only, to be regarded as impeccable. Allah Almighty says:

Allah does not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean and to complete His favour to you, that ye may be grateful. Quran 5 : 6 In another verse, God Almighty says: For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly in repentance and loves also those who keep themselves pure and clean. Quran 2 : 222 So, as Allah Almighty told us of His wish to purify members of the prophets family, He so informed us of His wish to purify the believers as well. Therefore, if we suppose that the wish of Allah to purify the believers was meant to make them impeccable, then all sincere pious believers are infallible. 8. The purification mentioned in the aforementioned verse was not meant to make the kith and kin of the Messenger of Allah infallible, but rather to remove all abomination and mischief from them. This style is widely used in the Holy Quran. We read in the Holy Quran: Of their goods take alms, so that ye might purify them and sanctify them Quran 9 : 103 You will never find anybody say that the purification mentioned in the afore-mentioned verses was meant to make the Prophets family members infallible. We also read in the Holy Quran: And thy garments keep thee from stain Quran 74 : 4 This is mentioned in many verses of the holy Quran. The stain here implies filth and dirt. By this Allah Almighty alludes to polytheism (Shirk). To substantiate this explanation and interpretation, Allah Almighty says in the Holy Quran: . But shun the abomination of idols Quran 22:30 Also the word stain may mean , the forbidden foods and drinks as Allah has plainly stated: Say: I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meal) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine, for it is an abomination or what is impious, (meat) Quran 6 : 145 Another example is the following verse; O ye who believe! Most certainly, intoxicants and gambling, (dedication) of stones and (divination by ) arrows, are an abomination of Satans handiwork, eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Quran 5 : 90 There is no verse however, in the Holy Quran that refers to stain as to mean sins. For if it means sins, then the verse of purification came to confirm that those of the prophetic family were infallible from committing sins. 9. The verse does not whatsoever mean that purification has already taken place, but it rather asserts

explicitly the will of Allah Almighty to purify the Staunch and sincere wives of the prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam. From the previous argument, we also deduct that the Messenger of Allah sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam was eager to pray for his immediate and other relatives to be included in the verse of purification, in order to achieve the same as his spouses were promised. Worthy of mention, is that whenever the Messenger Of Allah went to perform the daily obligatory prayer, he used to pass by the house of his cousin and son-in-law, Ali and his spouse Fatima, reminding them of the obligation of prayer by saying: ( Stick to the mandatory prayers, O members of the family! ) After this exhortation, he used to recite to them the following verse: Allah so wills to remove all abomination from you O members of the family, and to make you pure and stainless. As stated before in the same verse. By this, he was reminding them, especially Ali, of performing Obligatory prayers in congregation in the mosque. For if one observes all obligatory acts of worship and obey Allah fully, then his reward will be to purify him from all abomination and stains. 10. If we presume that the purification verse was revealed only to address the relatives of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam and not his spouses, so the purification stated in the verse does not suit them, due to following Quranic text in which Allah Almighty says: But He so will to purify you and complete His favors on you. He so addresses His servants in so many other Quranic verses. So, if the aim of Allah Almighty in purifying the spouses of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam was to make them infallible, it would necessitate us to say that all the believers are infallible, following the Quranic verse which states that Allah Almighty so Wills to purify them. I am pretty sure that neither the Sunnis nor the Shias can allege that analogy. So how can the purification theory be executed in respect of some sects of people and leave others out of bound? Cant you see that in this preposition, there is some whimsical and temperamental inclination? There is no any scientific methodology in it. It is surprising that the Shiite Scholars cling to the purification verse and allege that is was revealed with regard to the relatives of the Prophet sala alahu alihi wa aalihi wasallam, leaving out anything that deals with the purification. By this, they claim that only the relatives of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam are infallible. They thus intend to forget other verses that Allah Almighty revealed to purify the companions the Holy Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam from all abomination. We read for example. But He so wishes to purify you and complete His favor on you. They besides, slander the rightly guided Companions of the Holy Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi was and allege that they will be caused to turn upside down as a punishment for them. They claim this, inspite of the fact that Allah Almighty confirmed His Will to purify the sincere Companions of the Holy Prophet. You find many parities in the assumptions of the Shiite Scholars, that cause you to shake your head incessantly and come to a conclusion that, it is not but bigotry towards their Sect and utter hatred of the rightly guided Companions of the Holy Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam. 11. To remove abomination from the kith and kin of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam

does not entitle them to be Imams. Now we are on the outset of looking for an evidence either from the Holy Quran or from the Hadith that confirms the religious leadership of the Prophets relatives. If it is said that among the pre-requisites of the Imamite is to be infallible, then the following question casts itself; What do you say regarding Fatima bin Muhammad , who was among his daughters and among the relatives who included in the purification verse? Can we enforce the same principle on her and regard her as one of the Imam? If they say no, then we should cast the following question; which is matter of factly a quotation from a lengthy Quranic verse Do you only believe in some portions of the book ( i.e. Quran) and disbelieve in the others? You should either implement what you claim totally or admit its futility. But tampering with the Quranic verses and trying to fix them in some places to suit your desires without objectivity, is in fact, playing about with the Holy Book of Allah! May Allah forbid! However, I dont think that whoever follows the path of claiming the infallibility of the kith and kin of the Messenger of Allah sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam, is committing less than bigotry and sticks to the wrong notions and assumptions, and wrongly or intentionally misunderstands the Holy Book of Allah. May Allah Almighty help us and save us from such dissimulators and hypocrites.

The Roots of Sunni-Shii Differences in Fiqh


by Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi
It is often alleged by the protagonists of Sunni-Shii unity that differences between the two schools are not more grave or serious than the differences that exist within the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence. Sunni-Shii differences should therefore be treated with the same tolerance and acceptance as Hanafi-Shafii differences, and it is in the spirit of this proposed "mutual tolerance" that the advocates of unity speak of the Shii Jafari school of jurisprudence as nothing more than a "fifth madhhab". It is therefore only normal for the average Sunni lay person who has come into contact with advocates of Sunni-Shii unity to wonder about, or even be taken in, by such a claim. How serious are the differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah really? Could they ever be reconciled? If not, could there at least be an amicable agreement to disagree, just like the Hanafis disagree with the Shafiis, or the Malikis with the Hanbalis? It is these questions that this article sets out to answer. Full reconciliation between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Ithna Ashari Jafari Shiah is not merely elusive, it is simply an impossibility. Anyone who knows the reality of the issues that separate the Shi`ah from the Ahl as-Sunnah is bound to agree. Nothing sums up the truth of the situation better than the words of Hamid Algaran ardent admirer of Khomeini and the revolution, who describes Sunnism and Shiism as "two parallel lines that cannot meet".1 The endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the Ahl as-

Sunnah and the Shiah is therefore a wasted effort. The next best option is thus mutual tolerance and acceptance. In order to test the viability of tolerance and acceptance between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah we will have to look more closely at the issues that separate the one from the other. These issues can be categorised into two groups: 1. fundamental differences, which include articles of faith, and all such issues that could be termed "differences in principle", that by their nature give rise to differences in secondary matters; 2. secondary differences, i.e. difference in matters of jurisprudence, like the way salah is performed, or that marriage and divorce take place, etc.. Each of the fundamental issues of difference would require a separate study to see how they affect compatibility between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah. In this article it is our intention to look more closely at the type of difference that is usually dismissed as "secondary", and thus "unimportant". Are differences in fiqh between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah really so insignificant that we can jusitifiably turn a blind eye when we encounter them? There can be no doubt that this question is anathema to the propagators of Shiism amongst the Ahl as-Sunnah, as well as to those who have fallen prey to their propaganda. Yet, if it is truth we seek, we cannot allow the preferences of such obviously biased persons to deter us. The "unity" such people strive to achieve, and which they accuse others of trying to destroy, is a unity forged in ignorance. How much do we really know about the Shiah? We have taken them on face value, and on grounds of what we have thus learnt about them we proceed to create unity. The naivety of such a position in a matter of far reaching religious implications is far too obvious. A unity founded upon ignorance is a very precarious unity indeed. Like a mirage, it seems very real when seen from afar, but as soon as you approach it, it slips out of existence. There are two levels at which one can look at the differences in jurisprudence between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah. The first is the level of external appearance. When the differences in fiqh are inspected at this level they do not seem any more alien than the differences that exist between the various schools of Sunni jurisprudence. In fact, in many, or even most cases one will find the Shii position to be conformity with at least

one of the four Sunni madhahib. This is illustrated in the following three examples:
1. In the salah, the jalsat al-istirahah is held to be sunnah by the Shiah. In this they concur with the view of the Shafii madhhab.2 2. In marriage the majority of Shii jurists hold the view that khalwah, i.e. valid seclusion, has no effect on the mahr (dowry) nor upon any other aspect of the marital contract. In this they are once again agreement with the Shafiis, but differ from the other three schools.3 3. If the husband is unable to pay the mahr the wife is not entitled to divorce according to the Shii and the Hanafi schools. The Malikis, the Shafiis and the Hanbalis all have different views.4

It is on this level that most people view the differences that exist between the Ahl asSunnah and the Shiah. Even certain `ulama of the Ahl as-Sunnah, looking at the matter on this level, have been known to express the view that "differences between the Ahl asSunnah and the Shiah are no more serious than the differences that exist between the various schools of Sunni jurisprudence". However, when we confine ourselves to viewing the problem of Sunni-Shii differences on this level we are in effect closing our eyes to the most important aspect of those differences: THE ROOT. The true nature of Sunni-Shii differences can never be appreciated or understood in full without comprehending the reasons for their existence. It is only when the problem has been viewed and grasped on the level of the reasons for difference, and not merely the external appearance of difference, that one is justified to take further steps. When the Shiah differ from the Ahl as-Sunnah, it is not the same as when one Sunni school differs from the other. This is because the various Sunni schools all trace their roots back to the same legacy. They share a common heritage in the Sunnah of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam. When differences do occur, they occur not because one madhhab bases itself on a legacy other than the legacy of the other. Both believe in and hold on to the same legacy. Their differences are caused by secondary factors, like whether certain categories of hadith possess binding authority or not, or the divergence in the methods they regard as valid to interpret the legacy and extrapolate from it. The following two examples illustrate how such differences occur:
1. The mursal hadith (a hadith with an interruption in its chain of narrators between

the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam and the Tabii), for example, is deemed to possess binding authority by the Hanafis, while the Shafiis do not accept it except if it is supported by any one of a number of external factors. If we imagine a mursal hadith that is not supported by any of the factors the Shafiis stipulate, it is only logical to expect that the Shafii ruling on the issue the hadith pertains to will differ from the Hanafi ruling. 2. Spoken words are sometimes accompanied by implied meanings. For example, when it is said, "Stay awake," this also means "Don't sleep". This unspoken opposite meaning is termed mafhum al-mukhalafah. The Shafiis accept it as a valid means of extracting meaning from a text, while the Hanafis do not. If the former extract such meaning from a text and base a ruling upon the meaning inferred by this method, and the latter base their ruling upon some other grounds, there is bound to be a measure of difference in the outcome of their respective views.

Sunni-Shii differences, on the other hand, are fundamentally distinct from inter-Sunni differences. While it may rightly be claimed that the Shiah, too, have their particular principles of extrapolation, it would be incorrect to describe those principles as the root cause of difference between them and the Ahl as-Sunnah, the reason for that being that while the Sunni schools each have methods of extrapolation particular to themselves, they all apply their respective methods to the same legacy. The Shiah, on the other hand, have not only their own set of principles, but also a legacy distinct from the legacy of the Ahl as-Sunnah. When there are differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah, they arise not on account of differences in interpretation or methods of extrapolation, but because the source from which the Shiah draw their law is a source other than the source of the Ahl as-Sunnah. What is this "legacy", the reader may well ask. It is embodied in the Sunnah of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam. As far as the Quran is concerned, although history is witness to alot of Shiite calumny against the inviolability of the Qurain, most contemporary Shii scholars, and even many of their classical ulama who staunchly believe in its interpolation, will admit the Quran's status as the prime source of legislation. (A Shii scholar of the present century, Muhammad Ali Tabatabai, reconciles belief in the interpolation of the Quran with acceptance of the Quran as a

source of legislation by saying that "interpolation occured specifically in those verses relating to Imamah."5 Verses with a legal purport are thus left uncorrupted.) Since the Quran is thus "agreed upon" between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah, there remains only the other part of the legacy we inherited from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wasallam: the Sunnah. Essentially, the difference lies in the concepts each have of what constitutes the Sunnah. According to the Ahl as-Sunnah the Sunnah is everything narrated from the Prophet sallallahu `alayhi wasallam, as long as the transmitters are trustworthy. The Shiah, on the other hand, will only accept as the Sunnah that which is transmitted by Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu anhu and the rest of the twelve Imams, and that which is narrated from these Imams by their Shiah followers. Forget what the rest of the Sahabah narrate, not even the narrations of other members of the household of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam, his daughters besides Fatimah radiyallahu anha, his wives, his cousins or uncles, are considered part of the Sunnah by the Shiah. That is the first observation. The second is the way the Shiah regard the legacy upon which the foundations of Sunni fiqh rests. Since the days of the Sahabah radiyallahu anhum the Sunnah of the Prophet was handed down from generation to generation. The Sahabah narrated it to the Tabiin, they to the generation after them, and so on, until it came to be compiled in what we know today as the hadith literature. To the Shiah, when this legacy is found to be in contradiction to what is supposedly narrated from their Imams, the reason behind it is that the Sahabah radiyallahu anhum were guilty of wilfully distorting and corrupting the Din of Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam. Thus, where inter-Sunni differences amount to nothing more than technicalities, Sunni-Shii differences are differences in historical perspective. To use an example: In salah, the Malikis let their hands hang by their sides, while the Hanafis, Shafiis and Hanbalis fold their hands. The Shiah too, let their hands hang by their sides. In this single issue of fiqh we thus have an inter-Sunni difference as well as a Sunni-Shii difference. Between the Malikis and the other three madhahib the difference is a mere technicality. The Malikis accept the validity of folding the hands in salah (after all, Imam Malik himself in the Muwatta narrates a hadith that supports the folding of the hands), but prefer letting the hands hang for the reason that in Imam Malik's day this was the practice of the community in Madinah. The other madhahib take into consideration that the Companions of the Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam who narrate his Sunnah were not exclusively settled in Madinah. Many of them resided in the Makkah, Iraq, Syria and Egypt. Ahadith to the effect that it is sunnah to fold the hands have been authentically narrated from a number of Sahabah (amongst whom Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu anhu), and therefore this, and not the practice of the people of one particular city, takes precedence. Between the Sunni schools this difference is a technical one, one

that amounts to giving preference to one view over another. But between the Shiah and the Ahl as-Sunnah the issue assumes much more serious proportions. From a question of mere technical preference it turns into an acrimonious indictment of the Sahabah radiyallahu anhum. Traditions in the book Tahdhib al-Ahkam, one of the four major collections of Shii hadith, describe the folding of the hands in salah as "an act of kufr" and "something that is only done by the fire-worshippers". Here one would have to ask: How could an alien practice like this creep into Islam? The answer is given by yatullah Khomeini himself, in his treatise at-Taadul wat-Tarjih, wherein he quotes the following tradition from the book Ilal ash-Sharai by Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi:
Abu Ishaq al-Arjani says: Abu Abdillah (Imam Jafar as-Sadiq) asked: Do you know why you are commanded to act contrary to the `mmah (the Ahl as-Sunnah)? I replied: I do not know. He said: Verily, the Ummah contradicted Ali in each and every aspect of his religion, intending thereby to destroy his cause. They used to ask him about things they did not know, and when he gave a ruling they would invent an opposite verdict from their own side to mislead the people.6

In the Shii perspective of Islamic legislative history the fact that the Sahabah deliberately corrupted and distorted the teachings of the Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam is such a fundamental truth, that is came to be looked upon as a criterion of truth in itself. This position is reflected in the way they deal with the phenomenon of Shi`i narrations that contradict one another. Abu Jafar al-Kulayni, in the introduction to al-Kafi, the most important of their four canonical hadith collections, expresses it in the following terms:
Know... that no one can distinguish narrations of the Possessors of Knowledge (the Imams) by his opinion; except according to the words of the Possessor of Knowledge: 'Compare them to the Quran. Accept that which is in accordance with it, and reject that which contradicts it,' and his words: 'Abandon that which is in accordance with the people (the Ahl asSunnah), for truly, guidance lies in being different to them'.7

This particular perspective has persisted in the Shii psyche over the centuries since Kulayni and his teacher Qummi, until it became, in the opinion of Khomeini and all other Shii jurists, one of the two principal methods of juridical preference in cases of conflicting narrations. In light of the alarming frequency with which contradictions occur in the ahadith of the Shiah (one of their four major hadith sources, al-Istibsar, is devoted to the phenomenon of contradiction) the importance of a principle of this nature is evident. We reproduce here from Khomeini's works various Shii narrations in which he and other Shii mujtahids find justification for their view:

1. Hasan ibn Abil Jahm asked: If something is narrated from Abu Abdillah (Imam Jafar), and something contrary to it is also narrated from him, which should we accept? The Imam answered: Accept that which is in contradiction to the people, and avoid that which is accordance with them.8 2. Abu Abdillah said: Our Shiah are those who submit to our command, who accept our words, and who act contrary to our enemies. Whoever is not like that is not of us.9 3. Ali ibn Asbat narrates that he asked Imam Rida: (What should I do in case) an incident occurs for which I am need of a juridical opinion, but nowhere in the city do I find anyone of your partisans (the Shiah) whom I can ask? He replied: Go to the (Sunni) faqih of the city and refer your case to him. Then take the opposite of whatever answer he gives you, for verily, therein lies the truth.10

It is on account of these and other similar narrations which the Shiah claim to emanate from their infallible Imams that the mujtahids of the Jafari madhhab were led to formulate the principle Khomeini expresses in these terms:
In cases of conflicting reports, contradiction of the Ahl as-Sunnah is a factor of preference ... In fact, it is the most common and widespread factor of preference in all chapters of fiqh and upon the tongues of the fuqaha.11 There is no ambiguity with regard to the issue of contradicting the Ahl asSunnah being a factor of preference in the case of conflicting narrations.11 The factors of tarjih (preference) are limited to two: conforming to the Quran and the Sunnah, and contradicting the Ahl as-Sunnah.12

All of these quotations show a definite obsession with being different from the Ahl asSunnah. We therefore ask: If so much importance is attached to being different, to the point of it being regarded as the criterion of truth, why should there be such a noise and clamour for unity? Why should the Shiah seek unity with people whose version of Islam they regard as the corruption of the Din of Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam wrought by the hands of his Companions? And even if the Shiah do manage to create a semblance of such unity, how much goodwill and sincerity can be expected of them if one considers their particular perspective of the legacy which forms the basis of our faith and practice?

We have chosen Khomeini's views as representative of Shii opinion for a very special reason, and that is the fact that in the contemporary world it is he and his successors who are the most vociferous proponents of Sunni-Shii unity, and who dismiss Sunni-Shii differences as negligible. In more than one of his public addresses he takes to task those who attempt to create mischief amongst the Muslims by "misleading" them into believing that there are substantial differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah. However, closer scrutiny of his jurisprudential works reveal that such condemnations are nothing but political rhetoric. When we remove the image he projects as Leader of the Revolution, we are left with merely another Shii scholar imprisoned by the fundamentals of his faith. In his eyes, and likewise in the eyes of generations of Shii scholars before him, the legacy of the Sunnah upon which their Sunni "brothers" base their practice of Islam is the product of the envious mischief and the disbelief of the Sahabah, who in the hope of destroying the cause of the Ahl al-Bayt distorted every teaching of the Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam they could lay their hands upon. If this is how they regard the very basis upon which the foundations of our Din rests, what remains to be said for unity?
______________________________________ REFERENCES 1. Shiism p. ed. by Seyyed Hossein Nasr et al. 2. Yahya ibn Said al-Hilli: al-Jami lish-Sharai p.75 (Muassasat Sayyid ash-Shuhada, Qum 1405) 3. Muhammad Jawad Maghniyyah: The Five Schools of Islamic Law p. 319 (Ansariyan Publications, Qum 1995) 4. ibid. p. 317 5. Tafsir al-Qummi, editor's foreword 6. at-Taadul wat-Tarjih by yatullah Khomeini, p. 82, cited in Dr. Zayd al-Is: alKhomeini wal-Wajh al-khar p. 131 7. al-Kafi vol. 1 pp. 55-56 (Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1992) 8. at-Taadul wat-Tarjih p.80 9. Tahrir al-Wasilah p. 83, from al-Fusul al-Muhimmah by al-Hurr al-mili p. 225 10. at-Taadul wat-Tarjih p.82, from Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida by Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi,

vol. 1 p. 275 11. at-Taadul wat-Tarjih p. 83 12. at-Taadul wat-Tarjih p. 84

[This article was published in the 24th issue of Nida'ul Islam magazine (http://www.islam.org.au), July - August 1998]

Chairman of the Ahlus Sunnah Association in Iran, Dr. Abdul Rahman Albaloushy Uncovers

The Dismal Reality of Ahlus Sunnah in Iran


Translate this page from: English to Spanish Translate

Brief introduction of the Sheikh


Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Baluchy completed his secondary education in Iran, after which he was admitted to the Islamic University of al-Madinah al-Munawarah in 1979 where he studied Arabic before joining the Usuluddin (Principles of Faith) and Da'wah college. He reached his second year of studies before the policy to expel Iranian students was implemented. He went to Syria to complete his Shari'ah studies at Damascus universi, where he graduated in 1984. He also studied under the scholars of Damascus, such as Sheikh Abdul Qadir al-Arna`out and others. Upon graduation, he enrolled for his Masters degree at al-Awza'y college in Beirut where he graduated in 1989. His thesis was on the Baluchi people and Baluchistan. He enrolled for his Ph.D. at the same college and graduated in 1995. His Ph.D. thesis was on "The Transformation of Islamic Thought in Iran from Sunni to Shi'ah during the Safawi Rule". This same topic was not accepted for his Masters Degree owing to certain political reasons. He currently directs the Ahlus Sunnah Association in Iran, London Office.

Is there a single capital city in the world without a Sunni mosque, with the exception to Tehran -the capital of the Shi'ah-, which has forty Christian churches and a cemetery for the Baha'is

There is no Sunni director in any of the government authorities, ministries, embassies, or local and provincial governments, hospitals or principalities; not even in the lowest government posts anywhere in Iran.

Whilst we are living in the twentieth century, we find a third of the population of a nation deprived of their most basic rights. Is there any other country on the face of the earth which prevents its people from choosing names like Umar, A'ishah, Hafsah, Abu Bakr, Zubair...

The double-faced regime was able, through raising the banner of Islamic unity, to fool many Muslims outside Iran as they ask them to attend their conferences, and transform their way of thinking within a short period of time.

Would you kindly give us a glimpse of the history of Ahlus Sunnah in Iran, the main areas where they are concentrated and their numbers?
It is an established fact that Iran was a Sunni nation until the Tenth Century of the Hijri calendar. During this period, Iran produced thousands of scholars in every discipline; the most salient of these facts is that the six most authentic Hadith books (ie. Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, etc.) were written by scholars from Iran, or scholars who received their education in Iran. However, when the Safawid Shi'ites took control, they established their government on the skulls of the Sunni scholars and jurists. This was one of the reasons for the evacuation of the largest cities that were at the foremost centers of religious sciences, such as Tibriz, Isfahan, Ray, and Tus. There were many Sunni Muslims who were killed, forced into Shi'ism, or compelled to flee to the mountains, leaving Iran as a center for conspiracies against Islam and the Muslims. Fredinand, the ambassador to the Austrian King, remarked: "Had it not been for the Safawids in Iran, we would have been reading the Qur'an this day like the Algerians," meaning that his nation would have been conquered by the Ottoman Muslims. However, the Safawids conspired with the crusaders and the imperialists to halt the Islamic expansion into France and Vienna. The Sunni Muslims in Iran number about 15 to 20 million, living mainly in the mountainous and border regions. They are mainly Kurds, Turks, Baluchis, and Arabs. There is also a good number living in the cities.

How was the condition of Ahlus Sunnah before the revolution, did they participate in it, and how and what was their reward from this participation?
Ahlus Sunnah hail from non-Persian people. They were regarded as second class citizens under the Shah regime, since they mostly resided in rural areas, as well as the fact that their creed differed from that of the Shi'ah. As the Arabs, Kurds, Baluchis and others of Ahlus Sunnah did not have any role in the idolatrous Persian nationalism, they did not have equal rights socially nor economically with Persians, "The Chosen People"! The Shah regime was

secular, non-religious, so it dealt with religions and sects in a similar way. Some of the Ahlus Sunnah scholars have opposed the Shah and his secular regime, and some of these scholars initially sympathised with the Khomeini revolution such as Sheikh Ahmad Mufti Zadah as well as a few others, may Allah forgive them. Sheikh Ahmad Mufti Zadah opposed Khomeini shortly after the revolution. He was arrested and imprisoned for 10 years, even though his sentence was only for five years. He was only released when the authorities felt that he was on the brink of death. I was a witness to the words of Ahmad Mufti Zadah to Khomeini in the latter's house where he said: "Khomeini, you promised me an Islamic republic, however you established a Safawi-Shi'ite republic. Although I believe that I am not permitted to raise arms against you [such was his belief, unfortunately], however, I will fight you politically." This occurred during the same meeting where my brother Mawlawi Abdul Aziz, may Allah have mercy on him, the representative for Baluchistan in the Authoritative Council, opposed clause 13 of the Iranian constitution, and then resigned from the Council. He later formed, along with Sheikh Zadah, the centralised Consultative Council of Ahlus Sunnah, and held two annual meetings, one in Tehran and one in Baluchistan. Mawlawi Abdul Aziz was also able to obtain a promised allocation of 10,000 square meters of land in Tehran to build a mosque and a centre for Ahlus Sunnah. This promise was given due to internal and external pressures, when the regime was still weak and developing. This promise, however, was blatantly dishonoured as soon as the regime became stronger. The land allocated for constructing the mosque was confiscated, as well as the offices and bank accounts of the Consultative Council, whose scholars, members and supporters -both men and women- were detained. The regime continued in its efforts to destroy the infrastructure of Ahlus Sunnah, spreading between their ranks deviations, innovations and acts of Shirk. They unashamedly told the imprisoned students of Sheikh Zadah: "We hoped that you would have taken up arms against us, so we could have had an excuse to uproot you, as we did with the other parties." The regime then persecuted any person who dared to call for their rights, and punished them with imprisonment or execut, or degrading their character, as was the case with the martyr Bahman Shakoury. Many Sheikhs were imprisoned, exiled, tortured and humiliated, such as the Baluchistan parliamentarian member Mawlawi Nathar Mohammad who was subjected to sever torture and made false confessions under duress, until he escaped and was able to flee to Pakistan. He was not able to get a visa to enter any of the Gulf countries, not even as a labourer. Sheikh Mawlawi Muhyiddin and Sheikh Dost Mohammed Sirawani were also imprisoned, then exiled to the city of Najaf Abad, as well as many other Sheikhs. There is also Sheikh Ibrahim Dammini who continues to be imprisoned and put to torture for more than five years. Ahlus Sunnah were rewarded under the current sectarian government with a life of dishonor and subjugation, and their situation is far worse -as I have

experienced myself- than that of the Muslims in occupied Palestine. Is there a single capital city in the world without a Sunni mosque, with the exception to Tehran -the capital of the Shi'ah-, which has forty Christian churches and a cemetery for the Baha'is. In all, even the infidel minorities have their temples and places of worship and their freedom of worship, yet Ahlus Sunnah are not allowed to build any mosque or cemetery. Khameni stated after the revolution: "all the Persians in the world can look at Iran as their nation", they are, therefore, first class citizens of Iran, even if they were Magians from India. As for us, we must be exiled from our land because neither us nor our parents accepted Shi'ism or Magianism! The regime planted the seeds of conflict amongst the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah, and strove to deride the character of the notable scholars, replacing them with government servants. It then instigated internal conflicts between the scholars, the leaders of the community, and the intellectuals to create an environment filled with distrust and insecurity. They also used some of the ignorant people who adhere to supposedly Sunni Tariqats (orders), to attack the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah, especially Sheikh Ahmad Mufti Zadah, labeling him as a Wahhabi, although the Sheikh did not adhere to the Salafi creed. The regime then aimed at Ahlus Sunnah schools, and tried to influence their curriculums to incorporate Shi'ateachings, labeling anyone who refuses to do so as a Wahhabi, a "crime" punishable by death in Iran! Add to this that many school principles were initially anti-Salafi, which resulted with many pupils being suspended, expelled, and beaten for merely raising their hands in their prayer, or for defending Sheikhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, or Abul 'Ala al-Maududi. However, the double-faced regime was able, through raising the banner of Islamic unity, to fool many Muslims outside Iran as they ask them to attend their conferences, and transform their way of thinking within a short period of time. They became false witnesses within their own people, beguiling them with what they have been taught about the greatness of Islamic unity, without knowing anything about the plight of Ahlus Sunnah inside Iran. They repeat in all simplicity: "we are brothers, there is no difference between us." Despite the imprisonment of the scholars and the demolished Islamic schools, they go to the grave of Khomeini, which has become a worshipped idol, offering their worship, and placing flowers at this grave. Their stance has misled many young minds and opened the way for them to accept or tolerate Shi'ism. A person is further baffled when he realises the superficiality of these people, their oblivion to the reality and their inability to comprehend the situation. They keep on defending the Rawafidh Shi'ah who are weaving conspiracy after conspiracy against Ahlus Sunnah.

Can you elaborate on the current condition of Ahlus Sunnah in Iran?


Currently, after two decades of the Shiite revolution and the fortification of their rule, they have not secured the rights of the Sunni minority, nor their covenants

with them. They began by imprisoning the scholars and the Muslim activists, exiling some, and executing others. They also started to expel Sunni Muslims from government, commerce, and manufacturing posts, and to destroy their infrastructure. I still recall what the Iranian secret service said vengefully to some of the imprisoned Muslim activists: "You are like the large room with large spotlights (the more eminent scholars) and smaller lights (the general scholars), and candles (the general activists); we will first extinguish the large spotlights." This stage has been accomplished as they have killed most of the prominent scholars. "Then we will extinguish the smaller lights"; in this respect many activists have been killed and many others exiled. "Then we will turn the fan to put out the candles." This is an indication of the final stage of forcing people into Shi'ism against their will. As you can see, the tragedy of Ahlus Sunnah in Iran is unlike any tragedy in the world, considering the nature of the race problem, the falsification of news by the Iranian official press, Government cronies, and the positions of many Muslim movements and activists on the outside who are siding with Iran. Although Muslim minorities everywhere are facing calamities and catastrophes on a large scale, the situation in Iran is further exacerbated under the government of Taqiyya (deceit), lies and hypocrisy, in the name "'unifying' the different sects". Yet it simultaneously slaughters the Sunni scholars and casts their dissected and mutilated corpses into the streets and the garbage dumps. Whereas the plight of Muslims is broadcasted internationally, no TV station or newspaper dares to highlight the case of Sunnis in Iran. Ahlus Sunnah are deprived of their basic civil, social, and human rights, not to mention the right of political participation and equality with the Shi'ah. The erection of a Sunni school or mosque in Iran is regarded as an unpardonable crime. Many Sunni Muslims, who supported such projects (even if it were in the past), were imprisoned, killed, or had their beard shaved for merely contributing to the building of a mosque or to any simple activity relating to Ahlus Sunnah. There are also hundreds of periodical prisoners and many killed purely on suspicion. The following are only some of the names of the prominent scholars who have been kidnapped, poisoned, or killed:

1. Bahman Shakoury was amongst the prominent scholars of his area,


Tonalis, and was active in Da'wah within intellectuals. He was arrested and convicted with Wahhabism and executed in 1986. 2. Sheikh Mawlawi Abdul Aziz was one of the elite leaders of Ahlus Sunnah who played a prominent role in opposing the Constitution in matters relating to Ahlus Sunnah rights. He was the director of the religious school of Zahdan and the chief of Baluchi armed tribes. He was poisoned in 1987. 3. Sheikh Abdul Wahhab Khafi played a notable role in exposing the calamities of Ahlus Sunnah outside Iran, especially in Pakistan. He was killed in 1990 under torture after being accused with Wahhabism. 4. Sheikh Nasser Sabhani was one of the leaders of Sunnah in Kurdistan who conducted many educational courses. He was arrested after refuting the false accusations of kufr directed at Umar (r.a.a) by Khomeini in his famous book 'al-Hukumah al-Islamiah' (The Islamic Government). He was killed in 1992 in prison and his relatives were denied from witnessing

his funeral and the prayer. 5. Dr. Ali Muzhaffaryan was amongst the eminent intellectual Shi'ites who was a cardiac surgeon and the head of Shiraaz Committee of Physicians. He embraced the school of Ahlus Sunnah wa al-Jamma'ah and then converted his house to a mosque because the government of Shiraaz did not permit the establishment of mosques. He was arrested and convicted with Wahhabism and American treachery and tortured severely when many Shi'ite youth followed him into Sunnism. He was later released only to be assassinated in 1992. Moreover, the following are some of Ahlus Sunnah's mosques and Islamic schools that were destroyed:

6. Al-Sunnah mosque in Ahwaz. The first Sunni mosque to be confiscated 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
before twar with Iraq. It was transformed to a security police centre. South of Tehran. The second Sunni mosque to be confiscated was in 1982. Tareeth Ham mosque. This mosque is in the state of Kharasan. It was transformed to a centre for the revolutionary guard. School and mosque of Lakour. It is situated near the city of Jabahar in Baluchistan state. The government demolished the mosque and the school in 1987 under the accusation that it was a center for Wahhabis. Al-Sunnah mosque in Shiraz. Confiscated after the murder of Dr. Muzaffar Ban who founded it, and transformed to a centre for selling video and audio tapes produced by the revolutionary guard. Sheikh Faydh mosque. This is an ancient Sunnah mosque in Mashhad, one of the main Shi'ah centres of the world. The government could not tolerate the continued existence of this mosque in the city, so it demolished it in 1993, under the supervision of the revolutionary guard, who also demolished adjoining centres which were used as guest houses and Qur'an memorisation centres. The demolition orders came from Khameni personally, the present spiritual leader of Iran. What is amazing is the fact that the demolition of this mosque occurred immediately after the government- sponsored demonstrations against the demolition of the Babary Mosque in India by the Hindus. Ahlus Sunnah School, Talish. The government confiscated the Ahlus Sunnah school at Talish -North-West of Iran. Sheikh Quraishy, the principal of the school was also arrested and alleged confessions were obtained from him under torture. Aaban mosque Mashhad city. They confiscated the land, demolished the walls, and expelled the trustee. Repair of roads. They also repair the roads from time to time, eg. in the city of Zahdan, in order to demolish Sunnah houses, mosques and schools in the name of alleged reconstruction.

12.

13. 14.

What in reality is the representation of Ahlus Sunnah in the various government posts in Iran such as parliament, ministries, etc?
This is an important question. Ahlus Sunnah, who compose approximately one third of the Iranian population, have in all honesty no representation at all. In

fact, the situation has reached a stage of oppression and deprivation where Ahlus Sunnah no longer contest these posts and are satisfied with looking to satiate their food needs withoubeing prosecuted. There is no Sunni director in any of the government authorities, ministries, embassies, or local and provincial governments, hospitals or principalities; not even in the lowest government posts anywhere in Iran. There are some Sunni parliamentarians just like in most Middle Eastern countries, however, these are token positions so that the common people can be fooled. Before a person's political nomination is accepted in Iran, he must be approved, by law, by the security agencies which naturally reject any Sunni activist, even if this person was to somehow attempt to appease them. These agencies employ the lowest form of people, and the most vile. This means that even if someone was elected by the people, the council has the right to ostracise him from Government. So of what use is such a parliament, especially with respect to the Sunni parliamentarian who does not have a party to protect him? Even if he obtained such a post, what could he possibly offer his people? The whole council therefore has no practical value. This is supported by Khomeini's address to Mawlawi Abdul Aziz after the Iranian revolution: "We do not have a shura process, the principle with us is that the Imam rules, and imitators follow suit. We took the idea of a council from your creed, for this reason, you will not find any value placed on a council." This is a great shame. Whilst we are living in the twentieth century, we find a third of the population of a nation deprived of their most basic rights. Is there any other country on the face of the earth which prevents its people from choosing names like Umar, A'ishah, Hafsah, Abu Bakr, Zubair, or most of the names of the companions amongst the ten foretold of Paradise?

Do Ahlus Sunnah have an organised movement? What is the extent of its popularity? And how are Ahlus Sunnah facing the present situation?
Ahlus Sunnah had organised movements at the outset of the revolution, when parties were still present. However, when the government became stronger, they prohibited all the Salafi groups. The danger of the Sunni groups was obvious, amongst these was the central shura council for Ahlus Sunnah, the Kurdistan movement for equal rights, the Union of Muslims in Baluchistan, the Majdia. movement in Zahran, and others. The funds of these groups were confiscated and presently, there are no openly organised Sunni groups. In fact, the Sunnis in Iran are deprived of rights which are freely given even to the disbelievers, such as charities to care for the orphans and the widows and others. As for dealing with the present situation, we are currently only able to offer patience and to take one blow after another. They are like the orphans - they do not have a government to defend them or to dare to mention their plight except on special occasions. They do not have a Sunni group outside of Iran to sponsor them apart from what we initiated a few years ago here (in London).

Do you expect any change in the policies of the present government towards Ahlus Sunnah after the election of Khatemy?

There is a minor change in the policy of the government towards us. Khatemy is not blood thirsty and does not like the shedding of blood nor the stealing of our money as did Khameni and Rafsanjany. Khatemy has changed many of the blood thirsty officials in the Sunni areas with other Shi'ah who are not as blood thirsty. However, he was not brave enough to appoint one Sunni official. Had Khatemy taken this opportunity, the tyranny and oppression would be reduced dramatically, however, I do not think that he intends or is able to bring equality between Sunni and the others. I have sent an open letter to him in this respect.

What is the policy of Ahlus Sunnah for their future dealings with this situation? Does the declaration of the Afghan Islamic Emirate have any effect on the internal situation?
Our policy with this bitter reality is to be patient and abstain from armed conflict. We do not wish to repeat the experiment in Hama, Halab, Tripoli and others which were very bitter experiments. Particularly as we know that there is no government, or even an organisation which dares to or intends to support or sponsor us. Yes, the existence of a Sunni Muslim government in Afghanistan will have a definite effect on us. This is why we are witnessing every effort from Iran to halt the establishment of an Islamic government in Afghanistan. The minister for Iranian foreign affairs declared a number of years before: "We will never permit the establishment of a Wahhabi government in Afghanistan". In the view of these devils, any Sunni government is a Wahhabi government. In summary, the existence of any Sunni government is in our interest. It is notable to bear in mind that the Shi'ah/Safawi State which existed during the Ottoman rule fell at the hands of the Afghan Sunnis.

Is there a message to other Sunni Muslims throughout the world from their brothers in Iran?
We see ourselves as creedal and intellectual extensions of our brothers. What we are facing today is a direct result of our affiliation to the Ahlus Sunnah creed and for no other reason. It is the responsibility of the Muslims in every organisation as groups and as individuals to be concerned over their religion and their faith. We know the reason for the backdown of the authorities and the governments, however, what excuse could there be for the charities, wealthy Muslims, Islamic organisations, and groups? They do not have an excuse before Allah. I have hope that our Muslim brothers will not just look at us through the policies of their groups and parties, but to look at us through Islam as the martyr Sheikh Abdullah Azzam looked at the Afghani cause. I also have a parting word for those who share our creed who visit Iran regularly. We hardly fin any of them any concern towards their religion and the people of their creed. I advise these people to be conscious of Allah and have some concern for their creed and those who subscribe to the same creed. Their visits

are proof against us and cause us harm and lead to the murder of many of our members. They are like puppets in the hands of the political regime, they say to us: "Here are your Imams, your scholars and Sheikhs, they are praying behind us, visiting the grave of the Imam, and do not ask for a separate mosque for themselves in Tehran, they say we pray all together in one mosque, so why do you differ with your scholars? You must be Wahhabi!" Finally we thank Nida'ul Islam magazine for their attention and concern with our plight, we pray for their success.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen