Sahaba 2

The two hundred and fifty-first letter in the first volume of the book Maktûbât-i-Imâm-i-Rabbânî, which is a compilation of five hundred and thirty-six of the explanatory and advisory letters written to scholars, governors, commanders and rulers living in various cities, by Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî, Mujaddid-i-elf-i-thânî, Ahmad Fârûqî ‘quddisa sirruh’, the greatest Islamic scholar, was written to Muhammad Ashraf, and elucidates a variety of matters such as the virtues of the Khulafâ-ir-râshidîn, (i.e. the earliest four Khalîfas, namely, Abû Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthmân, and Alî,) ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’; the superiorities of the Shaikhayn, [i.e. Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar,] ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’; the special values possessed by Hadrat Amîr, [i.e. Hadrat Alî,] ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’; the honours and distinctions conferred on the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’; and the inner nature of the wars among them.

The initial part of the letter contains profound and subtle information concerning Prophets ‘alaihim-us-salawât’ and Awliyâ’ ‘quddisa sirruhum’. We therefore translate the latter part:

Learning the fact that Hadrat Amîr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ name is written above the gate into Paradise, I began to wonder what could be the eminence and special honours allotted for Hadrat Shaikhayn, [i.e. Abû Bakr and ’Umar,] ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ before the gate of Paradise. I endeavoured hard to learn the matter. Eventually I attained the information that this Ummat’s, [i.e. Muslims’,] entering Paradise will be realized through the authority and permission of these two great persons. As it were, Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ will stand by the gate of Paradise, giving permission for entrance, while ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ will usher the fortunate in by holding them by the hand. I sense as if the entire Paradise is suffused with the nûr (lights, haloes) of Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. According to this faqîr[32], Hadrat Shaikhayn have additional honours and superiorities among all the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’. No one else has a share from them. Siddîq, (i.e. Abû Bakr,) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ and our master, the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi was sallam’, own so to speak, the same one house. The difference between them is like that which is between the two storeys of a house. Fârûq, (i.e. ’Umar,) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ also is in the same honourable house as an assistant to Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. The other blessed Sahâbîs are, as it were, neighbors and fellow-citizens of the Sarwar-i-’âlam ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, their closeness to the blessed Prophet being in proportion to their success in observing his Sunnat-i-saniyya, [i.e. the Islamic religion]. When this is the case with them, one should imagine the positions of the Awliyâ among the later-comers! Accordingly, what could ever have fallen to their share in the business of realizing the greatness of the Shaikhayn? So great and so numerous are the merits and virtues they possess that they share the same position with Prophets ‘alaihim-us-salâm’. With the exception of the rank of prophethood, they enjoy having all their superiorities. As a matter of fact, our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “Were there Prophets to succeed me, ’Umar would be a Prophet.”

Imâm-i-Ghazâlî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ relates: When the Khalîfa ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was martyred, Abdullah ibn ’Umar said to the Ashâb-i-kirâm: “Nine-tenths of knowledge has joined ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ to death!” When some of the audience showed hesitancy because they did not understand his statement, he explained, “By ‘knowledge’ I mean ‘to know Allâhu ta’âlâ’, and not the knowledge concerning wudû’ (ablution) and ghusl (ritual washing)[33].” How could anyone ever comprehend the greatness of Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ notwithstanding this fact about ’Umar, whose total number of goodnesses, as is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, could add up to only one of the so many goodnesses possessed by the former? The difference between ’Umar and the Siddîq (Abû Bakr) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ is greater than the diffence between the Siddîq and Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. This fact sets a benchmark whereby to imagine how far lower others must be than the Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. Nor after death were the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ away from our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. And our Prophet informs that he will rise with them and come to the place of assembly (in the Hereafter) with them. Then, superiority means closeness to him, wherein these two great persons are by far ahead of others. Only a lowly faqîr as I am, how could I ever understand anything of their greatness, and what could I ever tell about their superiorities? Could dust or smoke define the sun? Could a drop of water describe great seas?

Some Awliyâ ‘qaddas-Allâhu ta’âlâ asrâra-hum-ul-’azîz’, who were sent back on the duty of advising and guiding others, (although they had attained the highest spiritual grades possible for mankind,) and some of the Tâbi’în and the Taba’i-tâbi’în, who had attained the grade of ijtihâd in knowledge, developed a certain amount of awareness of the perfections peculiar to the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ and managed a humble degree of penetration in the inner nature of their greatness, -which the former group owed to the nûr (lights, haloes) of their kashf and the latter to their competence to perceive the ulterior meanings hidden in the depths of hadîth-i-sherîfs-, and they stated their unanimous findings concerning their superiorities. Other kashfs and findings contradictory to their unanimous statements they rejected and despised, saying that they were wrong. As a matter of fact, it was well-known among the Ashâb-i-kirâm that these two, (i.e. the Shaikhayn,) were the most superior. For instance, Abdullah ibn ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is quoted in the book Bukhârî-i-sherîf as having stated, “During the lifetime of the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ we did not know a person to be equated with Abû Bakr. Our second favourite after him was ’Umar, and next below him (in superiority) we knew ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’. Below them we held no one else superior to others.” According to another narration on the authority of Abû Dâwûd, Abdullah ibni ’Umar is quoted as having said, “In the time of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, we would say that Abû Bakr was the highest (of the Sahâba), and we held ’Umar next below him, and ’Uthmân next below the latter, “radiy-allâhu ’anhum’, in superiority.”

The statement, “The rank of a Walî is higher than that of a Prophet,” is a fruit of surmise and imagination and belongs to people in spiritual ecstacy. In other words, it is made by those Awliyâ who have not been sent back (with the mission of guiding other people), and who therefore are quite unaware of the rank of prophethood. As I, the faqîr, have stressed in a number of my letters, prophethood is above wilâyat (the rank of a Walî). In fact, a Prophet’s prophethood is higher than his own wilâyat. This is the truth. He who contradicts this must be unaware of the high grade of the rank of prophethood. Among the paths of wilâyat, one path, namely the Silsila-t-uz-zahab, is the path of the Siddîq-i-akbar (Abû Bakr) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. Those who follow this path, therefore, are wakeful. For this reason, it is the most superior path. How could the Awliyâ of other paths grasp their perfections? And how could they ever understand the inner nature of their path? I do not mean that all the followers of this path reap equal fruits. It is a blessing and a great fortune if one in a million attains the unique perfections indicated. As a matter of fact, Hadrat Mahdî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a great scholar whose advent towards Doomsday was foretold by our Prophet ‘sall-allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, will occupy the highest grade of wilâyat, which, in its turn, means that he will have been educated via this path, reached perfection in this path, and put the finishing touches on this path. For, all the other orders and paths of wilâyat are inferior to this path, and the grades of wilâyat they reach, therefore, incorporate few features reflecting the perfections peculiar to the rank of prophethood. Wilâyat attained by following this path, by contrast, accomodates a great deal of those perfections, since it is a path under the guidance of the Siddîq-i-akbar (Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’).

Because Hadrat Amîr (Alî) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ undertook and carried on the wilâyat belonging to our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, the education of the Awliyâ called ‘qutb’, ‘abdâl’, ‘awtâd’, etc., who have not returned from the grades they attained, -and therefore do not mix with people-, and who profusely enjoy the perfections inherent in wilâyat, is contingent on his help and guidance. The Awliyâ called ‘qutb-ul-aqtâb’, or ‘qutb-i-medâr’, are under his command and guidance. In other words, they do their duties under his help and instructions. Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ, (his blessed wife and the Prophet’s blessed daughter,) Hasan and Husayn, (his blessed sons), ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’, share this rank with Hadrat Amîr.

All the Ashâb ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ are great. We have to deem them as great and say that they are great, each and every one. Enes bin Mâlik ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ relates: Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “Allâhu ta’âlâ chose me from among the entire humanity. And He chose the best people and made them Ashâb (Companions) to me. And from among them He chose the highest ones and made them my relatives and assistants. If a person respects them because he loves me, Allâhu ta’âlâ will protect him against all sorts of danger. Those who hurt me by insulting them, however, will get their come-uppance from Him.” Abdullah ibn Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ relates: Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “May those who slander and curse my Ashâb be accursed in the view of Allâhu ta’âlâ, in the view of all the angels and human beings!” Another hadîth-i-sherîf reported on the authority of Âisha-i-siddîqa ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ states: “The worst people among my Umma are those who dare to speak ill of my Ashâb.”

It must be known that the wars among the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’ were based on benevolent motives and thoughts and not on worldly interests and advantages. For, the differences among them were differences of ijtihâd and interpretation. They were not differences originating from sensuous desires and ambitions. The scholars of (the right way termed) Ahl as-sunnat agree on this. Only, those who fought against Hadrat Amîr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ were wrong (in their ijtihâd). Hadrat Amîr (Alî) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was right. However, since their mistake was a matter of ijtihâd, they cannot be blamed or criticized. As the book Sharh-i-mawâqif reports from Âmidî, the events (wars) of Jamal (Camel) and Siffîn arose from (differences of) ijtihâd. According to a quotation from Abû Shakûr Muhammad Sulamî in the book Tamhid, the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at agree on that Hadrat Mu’âwiya and his allies ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ were wrong. Yet their mistake was a result of ijtihâd. Ibn Hajar Makkî states as follows in his book Sawâiq-i-Muhriqa: The war between Hadrat Mu’âwiya and Hadrat Amîr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ was based on ijtihâd. Scholars of Ahl as-sunnat state so. Who are meant by the expression ‘our ashâb’ in the statement, “The so-called wars (among the Ashâb) were not based on ijtihâd according to the majority of our ashâb,” in the book Sharh-i-mawâqif? Scholars of Ahl as-sunnat do not say so. They say to the contrary. All the books written by the greatest Islamic authorities state that mistaken conclusions of ijtihâd were involved in the events. Imâm Ghazâlî, Qâdî Abû Bakr and other Islamic scholars share the same knowledge concerning this fact. Therefore, it is not permissible to tax those who fought against Hadrat Amîr (Alî) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ with crimes such as blasphemy or heresy.

Imâm Mâlik ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is quoted as having made the following statements: “If a person curses or maligns one of the Ashâb of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, e.g. Abû Bakr or ’Umar or ’Uthmân or Mu’âwiya or Amr ibn al-Âs ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’, on the allegation that they ‘deviated from the right course’ or ‘became disbelievers’, he must be killed. If he imputes other faults or deficiencies to them, he must be beaten severely.”[1] Contrary to the allegations of some fanatical Shiites who call themselves ‘Alevî’, those who fought against Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ are not disbelievers. Nor are they by any means sinful. In fact, Âisha Siddîqa ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’, Talha and Zubayr, and many other Sahâbîs were among them ‘ridwânullâhi ’alaihim ajma’în’. Talha and Zubayr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ and thirteen thousand other people were killed in the war called Jamal (Camel). Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ did not take part in those events. A Muslim simply could not utter words of accusation, such as ‘heretics’ and ‘wrongdoers’, about them. One must have a foul heart and a dirty soul to say so.

Some scholars of fiqh used the (Arabic) word ‘jawr’, which means ‘cruelty’, about Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ behaviour; yet, what they really meant was that it had been ‘unjust of him to declare himself Khalîfa during the caliphate of Hadrat Amîr.’ ‘Cruelty’ in that sense should not be construed as ‘heresy’ or ‘wrongdoing’. Therefore, their staments (concerning this matter) are in agreement with those of the greater authorities of Ahl as-sunnat. However, true religious scholars should not make statements of this sort, which are always susceptible to misunderstandings. How can one ever utter the word ‘cruel’ about Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’? Ibn Hajar Makkî states in his Sawâiq-ul-muhriqa that he was a Khalîfa just and blameless in observing the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ and protecting the rights of Muslims. It would have been something justifiable if they had uttered terms on that level about Yazîd. But it is extremely nasty and very ignoble to utter them about Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. All the scholars of hadîth state that our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ invoked blessings on Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. For instance, he (the Prophet) pronounced the following invocation: “Yâ Rabbî, teach him the book, -i.e. writing and knowledge-, and judgment, and protect him against torment!” On another occasion, he invoked: “Yâ Rabbî! Guide him to the right way, and make him a guide to the right way!” It is doubtless that an invocation offered by the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ must have been accepted (by Allâhu ta’âlâ’). Some [ignorant and aberrant] people who are supposed to be men of religion assert that he (the Prophet) pronounced a malediction on him (Hadrat Mu’âwiya). Doesn’t their assertion prove that they are quite unaware of religious books? Their assertion that “Hadrat Imâm Sha’bî criticized Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ ” is not true, either. If it were true, Imâm-i-a’zam Abû Hanîfa, who was one of Imâm Sha’bî’s disciples, should have quoted his master’s criticisms. Imâm Mâlik ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was one of the Taba-i-tâbi’în, according to a report, and lived during the time of Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. It is an absolute fact that he was the highest of the scholars of the blessed city of Medina. What on earth could have made that great scholar state that those who swore at Mu’âwiya and Amr ibn Âs ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ should be killed? Since he ordered to kill those who swore at him (Hadrat Mu’âwiya), swearing at him must have been, in his knowledge, one of the grave sins, as grave as swearing at Hadrat Abû Bakr or Hadrat ’Umar or Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’.

Then, it is never permissible to swear at Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. We should think well; Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was not alone in those events. Almost half of the Ashâb-i-kirâm were with him. To call those who fought against Hadrat Amîr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ ‘disbelievers’ or ‘heretics’ means to destroy half of the Islamic religion. For, it is them who spread the Islamic religion over the world and who taught it to us. A person will not criticize them unless he is a heretic whose purpose is to demolish Islam. Those wars and commotions started over the martyrdom of Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. They were initially based on demands for retaliation against the murderers. Talha and Zubayr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ went out of the blessed city of Medina because the retaliation was suspended. Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ was of the same opinion. What they wanted was that the retaliation must be carried out as soon as possible. It never occurred to them that they should fight. The war of Jamal began with an onslaught by the men of a Jewish convert named Abdullah bin Saba’, the behind-the-scenes conspirators of the martyrdom of Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. Thirteen thousand people and Talha and Zubayr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ were killed in those wars. Later, Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, who was in Damascus, joined in the matter and sided with them. Thereupon the war of Siffîn was made. According to Imâm Ghazâlî, those wars were not made for the purpose of assuming caliphate. They were consequent upon the demands that the murderers must be retaliated against and that the retaliation must take precedence over other matters at the outset of Hadrat Amîr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ career as Khalîfa. As Hadrat Allâma ibn Hajar-i-Makkî confirms, this fact is unanimously stated by the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat. According to Abû Shekûr Muhammad Sulamî, one of the greatest scholars in the Madhhab of Hanafî, the war that Hadrat Mu’âwiya fought against Hadrat Amîr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ was based on caliphate. For the Prophet ‘alaihis-salâtu wassalâm’ had said to him, “When you preside over people, behave mildly towards them!” He had been yearning for caliphate since the day he had heard this. However, he was wrong in his ijtihâd. Hadrat Amîr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ ijtihâd, on the other hand, was right. For, his (Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s) time of caliphate was to begin after the caliphate of Hadrat Amîr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’. That means to say that the initial cause of the so-called turmoil was the delay in the retaliation. And when the retaliation was put off, the idea of becoming Khalîfa came into being. In any case, it was a matter of ijtihâd. The wrong party deserved one blessing, and the party with the correct ijtihâd earned two blessings. The best policy that devolves on us in this matter is not to concern ourselves with the fights among the Ashâb ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ of our master, the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. We should not discuss them. Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “Do not concern yourselves with the matters among my Ashâb ‘ridwânullâhi ’alaihim ajma’în!” At some other time, he stated: “Hold your tongue when they are talked about!” He stated in another hadîth-i-sherîf: “Fear Allâhu ta’âlâ in the matter of my Ashâb! Do not criticize my Ashâb!”

Yes, Yazîd, the ignominious, was an obdurate sinner. He has not been cursed because the (scholars of) Ahl as-sunnat have not approved of cursing a person, even if he is a disbeliever. They, (scholars of Ahl as-sunnat), say that a person can be cursed only if he (or she) is known to have died as a disbeliever. Abû Lahab and the like are among such people. This does not mean, however, that Yazîd must not be cursed. May those who offend Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Messenger ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ be accursed in the view of Allah in both this world and the next!

Recently, a number of people have made it an avocation for themselves to discuss the matters of caliphate. Whatsoever the topic of conversation in their presence, they somehow convert it into one about the wars among the Sahâba. Because their religious culture consists only in what they have read in the name of history written by ignorant people and what they have heard from people of bid’at, whose lies they take for granted, they malign most of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’. I have therefore considered it necessary to write the facts I know and send them to my friends. Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “At times of chaos, when lies are written (in the name of truth), acts of worship are contaminated with customs, and my Ashâb ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’ are censured, those who know the truth should explain it to others! May those who do not tell the truth, although they know it and are able to tell it, be accursed in the view of Allâhu ta’âlâ, in the view of angels and in the view of entire humanity! Allâhu ta’âlâ will not accept any of their acts of worship, whether they are fard or else.”

Any degree of thanks and praise would fall short of paying the debt of gratitude we owe to Allâhu ta’âlâ, for the present time’s pâdishâh (ruler, emperor) [of India] is a Sunnî Muslim in the Madhhab of Hanafî. If this were not the case, things would be very difficult for Muslims. Every Muslim has to pay thanks for this great blessing.

Every Muslim has to learn the Sunnî credo, correct their belief accordingly, and watch their steps lest they should slip and deviate from the right path by believing people of obscure origin and false books. To attempt to learn one’s religion and belief from books and magazines written cheatfully with fondling and coaxing words by enemies of religion, instead of reading books written by scholars of Ahl as-sunnat ‘rahima humullâhu ta’âlâ’, means to throw oneself into Hell. Reading books containing the words of scholars of Ahl as-sunnat, and adapting ourselves to them is the only way to salvation. This is the end of the translation of the hundred and twenty-first letter.

The reason for disturbing you the blessed and venerable scholars and judges and authorities and officials of the city of Sâmâna with this letter of mine is the khatîb[35] of your city, who, I have heard, did not mention the names of the Khulafâ-i-Râshidîn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum’, i.e. the four Khalîfas of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wasallam’, during the performance of the khutba after the ’Iyd prayer of Qurbân. Even worse to tell, when a group of the jamâ’at reminded him of his omission, after the prayer, he obstinately retorted, “What does it matter if I don’t?” instead of expressing his sorrow for the mistake or oversight. And the worst of it is that the notables among the audience contented themselves with the part of indifferent bystanders instead of teaching that nasty khatîb his manners. A line from a poem reads as follows:

Yes, it is not one of the indispensable components of khutba to mention the names of the Khulafâ-i-Râshidîn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’; yet it is a sign, a characteristic, a trademark of Ahl as-sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at. One must only be evil-hearted to purposely and obstinately avoid mentioning their names. If his omission was not merely bigotry or obstinacy, then how will he explain himself in the face of the following hadîth-i-sherîf, in which our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ states: “If a person yearns after joining a certain community, he is one of them.” And what motives will absolve him from the danger purported in the following âyat-i-kerîma: “Beware from places and situations that will cause imputation and arouse suspicion!” If he denies the superior merits of the blessed Shaikhayn, i.e. of Abû Bakr and ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’, he has left the path of Ahl as-sunnat and become a member of the Shiite sect. If he does not believe the fact that it is necessary to love ’Uthmân and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’, in this case also he has deviated from the right path. I suppose, that aberrant khatîb is from Kashmir. He must have caught that foul contagion from the heretics living in Kashmir.

Let that man know this: That the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ are the highest members of this Ummat (Muslims) is a fact which was believed, and acknowledged at every occasion, by all the Sahâba-i-kirâm and the Tâbi’în-i-i’zâm. A great majority of the highest Islamic authorities have communicated this fact to us. Imâm-i-Muhammad Shâfi’î ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ is one of those authorities. Abu-l-Hasan al-ash’arî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of the two leaders of our credal Madhhab, stated: “That Abû Bakr and ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ are, respectively, the highest members of this Umma, is a definite fact.” Imâm Alî stated in the presence of a crowded group of his admirers, during his caliphate: “Be it known that Abû Bakr is the highest of this Ummat, and next comes ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’.” This (statement of Hadrat Alî’s) is quoted by Imâm Zahabî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, who notes, “This statement has been quoted by more than eighty narrators.” Giving the names of most of them, he adds, “May Allâhu ta’âlâ punish (the group of heretics called) Râfidîs because they do not know this.” Imâm Muhammad Bukhârî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ relates in his book Bukhârî-i-sherîf, which is the second most valuable Islamic book after the Qur’ân al-kerîm, the Book of Allâhu ta’âlâ: Imâm Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ stated, “The second best member of this Ummat after the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wasallam’ is Abû Bakr, who is the second highest as well, and next after him is ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’. Next after them is someone else.” When his son Muhammad bin Hanafiyya commented, “And you are that person,” he stated, “I am one of Muslims.”

Narrations like this on the authority of Imâm Alî and the greater ones of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ and of the Tâbi’în-i-izâm have reached us and spread far and near. It is either vulgar ignorance or sheer stubbornness to deny the fact despite all those narrations. That unconscionable khatîb must be told that “we have been commanded to love all the Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and not to offend any one of them. Hadrat ’Uthmân and Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ are Sahâbîs, too. And they are two of the greatest ones. They are our Prophet’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ sons-in-law. Then, it is necessary to love them, and they must be loved very much. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the Qur’ân al-kerîm: ‘O My beloved Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’! Say unto them: I demand only one price for (my service of) having invited you to Islam and for having guided you to eternal happiness: Love my relatives and those who are close to me.’ Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: ‘Fear Allâhu ta’âlâ, fear Allâhu ta’âlâ and do not offend my Ashâb ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’! After me, do not bear malice towards them, and do not show enmity against them! He who loves them, does so because he loves me. And he who is their enemy, is so because he is inimical towards me. He who hurts them hurts me (by doing so). He who hurts me hurts Allâhu ta’âlâ (by doing so). And Allâhu ta’âlâ torments a person who hurts Him.”

Never before since the birth of Islam has India harboured such malodorous rose-buds. All the citizens of Sâmâna are likely to be held responsible for this abominable attitude. In fact, entire India may lose its credibility. The present pâdishâh -may Allâhu ta’âlâ help him against the enemies of religion- is a Sunnî Muslim in the Hanafî Madhhab. It is so daring to invent such a heresy in the time of such a Sultân (emperor)! Perhaps, it means to stand against the state, the ruler. What is really appalling, however, is that the notables and the eminent Muslims of the city have been insensitive and remiss towards the event. Jews and Christians are refuted as follows, as is purported in the sixty-third âyat-i-kerîma of Mâida sûra: “Why do not the Rabbis and the doctors of law forbid them from their (habit of) uttering sinful words and eating things forbidden? Evil indeed are their works.” And the seventy-ninth âyat-i-kerîma purports as follows: “Nor did they (usually) forbid one another the iniquities which they committed: evil indeed were the deeds which they did.”

Reticence will embolden the enemies of religion who mean to defile Islam and try to mislead young Muslims by misrepresenting the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ as awkward and ridiculous acts and disguising the harâms and irreligious acts under false names such as ‘fashion’ and ‘modernism’. It will cause them to give a loose to their foul intentions and wound Islam. Is it not this lassitude on the part of Muslims that afforded Islam’s enemies an opportunity to openly carry on their plans to make Muslims’ children irreligious and mislead them into the heresies they have concocted? Like wolves, they are dragging the sheep by ones or twos away from the flock and destroying them. I would hate to bother you so much. Yet I went out of my mind when I heard the infuriating news. It set my Fârûqî veins into motion and these writings came out of my pen. I hope you will forgive me. May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless you and those who adhere to the right path and those who follow Muhammad Mustafâ ‘alaihi wa ’alâ âlihissalawâtu wa-t-taslîmâtu wa-t-tahiyyâtu wa-l-barakât’ with salvation! Âmin.

Muhammad is the Darling of the Creator of worlds.
Physically pure, Ahmad in name, and rahmat for worlds.

Owner of Khuluq-i-’azîm, and lauded in Leuw lâka... .
Source of knowledge, adab, fayz, nûr and muhabbat.

He is the true mediator between Haqq and the slave,
His words are medicine for souls, his name for rusty hearts.

He is the true doctor for hearts suffering from melancholy,
He is, nay, even his Ummat are higher than angels.

To His most distinguished slave Haqq has given assistants,
His most beloved slaves He made his Ashâb.

Rasûlullah said: their path is my path, indeed;
‘Best of times’ indicates their time.

They loved Muhammad more than they did their lives,
For his sake they sacrificed their property, positions’n lives.

For spreading Islam they gave their lives;
Yâ Rabb, how lovely a state; Yâ Rabb, how great an honour.

One single sohbat with him, and their nafs was purified,
Their hearts were with ma’rifat, fayz, nûr’n tajallî occupied.

States peculiar to Awliyâ took them a moment to attain;
And they ever followed him, what a great honour to attain.

All of them are just, blameless, and never cruel to anyone;
Never for their nafs would they yearn after caliphate.

Nor would they fight for that purpose or hurt one another;
They occupy the highest position, and they all are mujtahids.

Allâhu ta’âlâ always exists. He never ceases to exist. He, alone, creates everything from nothing. He keeps all His creatures always in existence. He, alone, cures the unhealthy; gives food to human beings and animals; feeds the hungry; kills; knows the unknown; sees and hears all; and has power over all. He does not eat or drink, is not begotten and does not beget, and does not have a likeness. No change takes place in His Person or Attributes. These Attributes are peculiar to Him. They are termed attributes of Ulûhiyyat. Human beings, medicines, machines, weapons cannot create anything. They serve as a means for His creating. He does not need the means or anything else. To believe that one of the attributes of ulûhiyyat exists in one of the creatures, e.g. in men, in beasts, in the sun or stars, is termed shirk. A person who holds that belief is called mushrik. With that belief, he has attributed a sherîk=partner to Allâhu ta’âlâ. To pray or entreat or venerate, with that belief, something or someone or his idol or picture, means to worship an idol = idolatry, and the object worshipped as such is an idol. Places or mausoleums containing such objects are called pagan temples. It is not idolatry, however, to respect a person or his picture or statue or grave because he is believed to have been a beloved slave of Allâhu ta’âlâ or a hero who served humanity and his country. One does not become a mushrik by doing so. After Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’ was raised to heaven, people who believed that he was a prophet held his pictures and statues in reverence in order to attain his intercession for them on the Rising Day. This reverence of theirs did not mean to worship him or to idolize him. After the christianization of the Roman polytheists, however, the Platonic philosophy, Trinity, spread and caught on, whereby some people’s belief was blighted by the heresy that he (Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’) possessed attributes of ulûhiyyat (deity, godhood). This, in its turn, gave rise to an ever-increasing number of people professing their belief in his procreation from God or his membership of a tripartite godhead. The heresy thus born proliferated into a new breed of polytheism that was finally adopted as an official religion in the Nicean Council. Votaries of this polytheism were called Christians. They are worshipping his pictures and icons and two perpendicular lines called the cross. All their churches are temples of idolatry. If a Muslim goes to a church or to a fountain held sacred by Christians and asks the priests therein to pronounce a blessing over him or to pray for him so that he will recover from a certain illness, he becomes a mushrik. A mushrik (polytheist) is worse than the worst of disbelievers. An (edible) animal that he kills (by jugulation) must not be eaten. A Muslim must not marry his daughter. All Christians and Jews are kâfirs (disbelievers) on account of their denial of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. Of these disbelievers, the ones who did not lapse into shirk (polytheism) are called Ahl-i-kitâb (People of the Book). Animals they kill (by jugulation) can be eaten (by Muslims). Muslims can marry their daughters by way of (the Islamic marriage contract called) nikâh. The Qur’ân al-kerîm states that Jews and polytheists are hostile to Muslims. They are trying to demolish Islam from within by means of lies, tricks and treacherous plans. This treachery was started by Jews during the time of ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, the third Khalîfa. Then Christians began to attack. They invented the heretical groups called Shiites and Wahhâbîs as against the true Muslims called Ahl as-sunnat or Sunnîs (or Sunnites), who are the true followers of the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Shî’ism means enmity towards the Ashâb-i-kirâm. They assert that the “Sahâba perpetrated inimical acts towards Alî.” The Qur’ân al-kerîm, on the other hand, informs us that the Sahâba loved one another very much and that they will all attain Paradise. Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ also stated, “Love all the Ashâb-i-kirâm and keep on their path!” He stated at another time, “My Ashâb are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them, you will attain guidance (to the right path).” A Muslim who loves Hadrat Alî is called Alawî (or Alevî). The Sunnî Muslims are truly Alawî since they love all the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Our Prophet called the enemies of the Ashâb-i-kirâm Râfidîs. He informed that all the Râfidîs will go to Hell. Shiites call themselves Alawîs in order to deceive Muslims. If they were Alawîs, they would be following the path guided by Hadrat Alî. He loved all the Ashâb-i-kirâm. He gave allegiance to Hadrat Abû Bakr as soon as he heard that he had been elected Khalîfa. He made Hadrat ’Umar his son-in-law by giving his daughter in marriage to him. Please see the eightieth letter in the first volume of Maktûbât, by Imâm Rabbânî ‘rahmatullâhî ’aleyh’. The book has Arabic and Persian versions. The first volume was also translated into Turkish under the title Müjdeci Mektûblar (Letters Giving Good News). An English translation of the eightieth letter exists in the final part of this book.

Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî states as follows in the two hundred and seventy-fifth (275) letter of his book Maktûbât:

You have attained that blessing by teaching Islamic knowledge and promulgating the rules of Fiqh. Ignorance was established and bid’ats were rife in those places. Allâhu ta’âlâ has blessed you with affection towards His beloved ones. He has made you a means of spreading Islam. Then, do your utmost to teach religious knowledge and to spread the tenets of Fiqh. These two are ahead of all happinesses, means of promotion to higher grades, and causes of salvation. Endeavour hard! Come forward as a man of religion! Perform amr-i-ma’rûf and nahy-i-munker and guide the people living there to the right path! The nineteenth âyat of Muzzammil sûra purports: “Verily this is an admonition: Therefore, whoso will, let him take a (straight) path to his Rabb, (i.e. to Allâhu ta’âlâ)!”

There are twenty-two groups who censure the Ashâb-i-kirâm. The worst of these groups are the heretics who say that “Allah exists in Alî. To worship Alî means to worship Him.” The second worst group, on the other hand, castigate the first group, saying, “How could Alî ever be Allah? He is human. Yet he is the highest member of mankind. Allah sent the Qur’ân al-kerîm to him. But Jebrâîl (the archangel) favoured Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ and brought the Qur’ân al-kerîm to him, depriving Alî of his right.” There is yet a third group, who reprove them, saying, “What a nonsense to say! Our Prophet is Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. Only, he had said that Alî should be Khalîfa after him. Yet the Sahâba did not obey him and gave the right of caliphate to the other three, leaving Alî the fourth place.” Thus they vilify the other three Khalîfas for having encroached upon Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ right and bear grudge against all the Ashâb-i-kirâm for having deprived him of his right, while expressing their indignation over his failure to protect his own right. All these three groups are disbelievers. The other groups are either disbelievers or holders of bid’at. May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless them all with hidâyat (guidance)! May He grant them the insight to see the right way!

Millions of people living in Iranian villages and in Iraq today are floundering about in the miasma of this heresy. We have come across a novel of some hundred pages, entitled Husniyya, which is said to have been being read as the most valuable book by these miserable miscreants. The book was printed in Istanbul and builds its theme over the concocted story of a conversation between a young woman, a concubine in the palace of Hârûn-ur-rashîd, and some men. It is understood that it was written in Iran, by an Iranian Jew named Murtadâ, and was translated from Fârisî into Turkish. Misinterpreting the âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs, distorting the historical facts and events, and fabricating pathetic stories so as to mislead the ignorant, it assails the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum’ and the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat. For instance:

1– “Imâm-i Shâfi’î was in Baghdâd. Abû Yûsuf was a qâdî as well. There was hostility between them,” he alleges. Being quite unaware of ijtihâd, he looks on differences of ijtihâd as hostility.

2– “Abû Yûsuf and Shâfi’î and the scholars of Baghdâd proved short of answering Husniyya,” he asserts. He has the face to write so because he does not know the greatness of Imâm-i-Shâfi’î. As a matter of fact, Farîdaddîn-i-Attâr ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ makes the following explanations in Tadhkira-t-ul-awliyâ:

Imâm-i-Muhammad Shâfi’î ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ was only thirteen years old when he had the self-confidence to make the following challenge in Harem-i-sherîf: “Ask me any questions you like!” He was fifteen years old when he could give fatwâ[36]. Ahmad ibn Hanbal ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, who was the greatest scholar of his time and had three hundred thousand hadîths committed to his memory, would pay him visits for the purpose of learning from him. It appeared paradoxical to a number of people around Imâm-i-Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) for him, such a great scholar as he was, to sit before a person as young as he was. Yet when he was asked why, he would explain, “He knows the meanings of the things we have memorized. If I had not seen him, I would have failed to get any further beyond the gate of knowledge. He is a sun illuminating the entire world; he is nourishment for souls.” At another occasion he said, “The gate of fiqh had been closed. Allâhu ta’âlâ opened this gate again for His slaves by means of Shâfi’î.” At some other time he observed, “I know no one who has served Islam more than Shâfi’î has.” And again, according to Imâm-i-Ahmad (bin Hanbal), the scholar denoted to in the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Allâhu ta’âlâ creates a scholar every hundred years, and through him teaches my religion to others,” was Imâm-i-Shâfi’î. [This hadîth-i-sherîf states that these scholars will appear in the Dâr-ul-Islâm.] Sufyân-i-Sawrî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ stated, “Shâfi’î’s wisdom was more than the sum of the wisdoms of half of the people of his time.” Abdullah Ansârî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ stated, “I do not know the Shâfi’î Madhhab well. Yet I like Imâm Shâfi’î very much. For I see him ahead of others in every realm I look into.” One day Imâm Shâfi’î was delivering a lecture, when he stood up and sat down again, repeating the same behaviour a couple of times. When, afterwards, he was asked why he had done so, he explained, “A child, who was a Sayyid, was playing immediately outside the door. Whenever he passed before me, I stood up out of respect for him. It would have been something inexcusable to see a grandchild of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and not to stand up.” If the author of the book Husniyya had known of this fact, he would perhaps have felt shame to say that “Imâm Shâfi’î was hostile towards the Ahl-i-bayt.” Rebî’ bin Haysam ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ related, “I saw Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ dead in my dream. (The next morning, when I told my dream to people who were good at interpreting dreams,) they said that the greatest scholar of our time was going to die. For it was stated in an âyat-i-kerîma that knowledge was a property of Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’. Imâm Shâfi’î passed away a few days later.”

3– “When Husniyya explained that her Madhhab was love of Ahl-i-bayt-i-Rasûl and put forward her arguments, the scholars were unable to answer her,” he writes. The Ahl-i-bayt-i-Rasûl and all the Ashâb-i-kirâm were of the same creed. They were in the path shown by the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs.

As a matter of fact, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ states, “My Ashâb are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them you will be following the right path.” He does not say, “some of my Ashâb,” or “only my Ahl-i-bayt.” He says, “my Ashâb,” which means to say that they held the same creed. These people, on the other hand, are trying to deceive Muslims by calling their wrong stories and heretical beliefs ‘The madhhab of Ahl-i-bayt’. If there had been a scholar in the so-called discussion, the concubine would not even have been able to open her mouth. The author (of the book Husniyya) attempts to blemish the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat by asserting that they were not able to answer her.

4– He says, (through the imaginary concubine), that “Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ became a Believer as he was a child,” tries to prove by means of lies and solecisms that “a child’s belief is acceptable,” and simulates how the so-called concubine “refuted the scholars by concluding that caliphate was Alî’s right.”

Misrepresenting the Ahl as-sunnat as having denied the fact that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was a child when he became a Believer, he alleges that the concubine put the Ahl as-sunnat scholars to shame. The truth, however, is that all the Sunnî books provide a detailed account of Imâm Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ becoming a Believer as a child and praise the Lion of Allah (Hadrat Alî) with highly laudatory remarks.

5– In another page he attacks the Ahl as-sunnat as follows: “After the Messenger of Allah, Alî is higher than the Anbiyâ-i-mursalîn (prophets). The Imâm (Alî) is the wasi-i-Rasûl (the Prophet’s trustee), who has committed to his memory all the heavenly books, the Torah, the Zabûr, the Bible, and the Qur’ân. Abû Bakr, on the other hand, was forty years old when he gave up worshipping the idols called Lât and Uzzâ and became a Muslim; he opposed the Rasûl-i-Hudâ several times; his skin and blood had been fed with wine; how come you accept the belief of that person while rejecting the belief of the innocent members of the Prophet’s family and harbouring enmity and grudge in your hearts against that noble family?”

At many places of the Qur’ân al-kerîm, e.g. in the eighty-sixth âyat of An’âm sûra, which reads as follows: “And Ismâ’îl and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: And to all We gave favour above the nations,” (6-80) Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that all prophets are higher than all non-prophets. To say that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is higher than prophets means to contradict the Qur’ân al-kerîm, which in turn is an act of kufr (disbelief). The other heavenly books, (e.g. the Torah and the Bible,) were not in poetic form, and nor were they memorized by anyone. As a matter of fact, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was unable to answer three questions he was asked about the Torah and waited for three days for Jebrâ’îl (Gabriel) ‘alaihis-salâm’ to arrive with the answers. He spent the three days in deep anguish, and so did all the Muslims around him. Finally, the Kahf sûra was revealed and the answers proved to be in agreement with the facts in the Torah. Hadrat Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ and the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ were friends since their boyhood. They were warm-hearted towards one another, and together most of the time. It is written in books that neither of them ever tasted wine or worshipped idols. For instance, the book Ma’al-il-faraj reports on the authority of Qâdî Abu-l-Hasan that Abû Hurayra ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ related: We were sitting in the presence of Rasûl-i-akram ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, when Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ said, “O Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’! I swear by your right that I never worshipped idols throughout my life.” Hadrat ’Umar warned, “Why do you swear by the right of Rasûlullah? We led a life of nescience for so many long years.” Upon this Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ related, “My father Abû Quhâfa took me to the place where the idols stood. ‘These are your creators. Prostrate yourself before them,” he said. When he was gone, I said to an idol, ‘I am hungry. Give me something to eat.’ It did not answer. I asked for water, and then for clothes. No voice came out. I challenged, ‘I shall throw stones at you. Stop me if you can!’ Silence, again. I threw stones at him. It fell flat on its face. My father was surprised when he was back and saw all that. He took me back home. My mother suggested that they should not say anything to me.” When Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ finished his words, the Messenger of Allah ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “Jebrâ’îl ‘alaihi-salâm’ has just come to me and said that Abû Bakr told the truth.”

Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ sacrificed all his property, his life, his children, and everything he had for his sake. The hadîth-i-sherîf that states, “Abû Bakr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ îmân is more than the sum of the îmâns of my entire Ummat,” would be sufficient in itself to prove that he was higher than all the other Sahâbîs. In addition, there is many another hadîth-i-sherîf stating that he was the highest of all. A few of them are quoted along with their documentary sources in the (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye. Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ never opposed Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wasallam’. In fact, even his ijtihâds were in agreement with those of the Messenger of Allah. Furthermore, (he was so deeply attached to Rasûlullah that) once he sincerely expressed his willingness to barter all his acts of worship for one single mistake ever made by the Messenger of Allah. The books of Ahl as-sunnat brim over with love and veneration for the Ahl-i-bayt. His assailing the Ahl as-sunnat scholars with the accusation that they “harbour enmity and grudge (against the Ahl-i-bayt)” reeks of the treacherous and ignoble attempts to defame the Ahl as-sunnat which his book bristles with. So many are the reports and passages laudatory of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ in the books of Tafsîr and Hadîth written by the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat that no Muslim can be imagined not to have heard at least one or two of them. For instance, Abdullah ibni Abbas ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ reports: I heard the Messenger of Allah state, “Love of Alî burns a Muslim’s sins like fire’s burning (pieces of) wood.” Love of him entails correct learning of his words and painstaking efforts to attain the personality typified in his example.

6– He states in a page, “According to the Ahl as-sunnat, evils, wrongdoings, disbelief and sins are in agreement with Allah’s qadâ and qadar (foreordination, fate), although He does not approve of them. This belief is like saying that a certain judge disapproves of his own decree. Those who say so are aware of their own disbelief and they try to cover their own guilt by putting the blame for disbelief on qadâ and qadar, which in turn is the devil’s madhhab.”

These statements betray his denial of qadâ and qadar. Also, they contradict Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq by doing so. Distorting the âyat-i-kerîmas purporting that Allâhu ta’âlâ is the Creator of all, he interprets them arbitrarily. However, the true meanings of those âyat-i-kerîmas are explained with such excellence as will command the admiration of owners of wisdom in the tafsîr of Shaikhzâda [Muhammad bin Shaikh Mustafâ], which is an annotation to (Qâdi) Baydâwî’s (book of tafsîr entitled Anwâr-ut-tanzîl). He quotes (the imaginary concubine named) Husniyya as having said, “I stayed in Imâm Abû Ja’far’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ home between the ages five and twenty. From him did I acquire all this knowledge.” He begrimes the honourable name of that great religious leader with his lies and disbelief for the purpose of smuggling them into people’s credence. As a matter of fact, Imâm-i-Ja’far Sâdiq’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ statements on qadâ and qadar are quoted and explained in minute detail in the (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye[37]. Furthermore, it is illogical of him to say that it would be paradoxical for a judge to disapprove of his own decree, in the matter of reconciling decree with approval. Naturally, it would be paradoxical for a judge to disapprove of his fair and correct decree. Likewise, it would be paradoxical for Allâhu ta’âlâ to disapprove of (people’s) obeying Him and doing good and charitable deeds. In fact, He declares that He will approve of such acts. Yet, how could a judge approve of a decree that he made under duress or by mistake and which he, later, finds out to have been wrong? He would not approve of it even if it was his own decree. Sirâj-ud-dîn Alî bin ’Uthmân Ûshî, owner of the fatwâs called the fatwâs of Sirâjiyya, states as follows in the third distich of the extremely valuable qasîda entitled Amâlî: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has the Attribute ‘Hayât’, [that is, He is alive]. He foreordains everything in the eternal past.” Several scholars wrote annotations to this qasîda. Sayyid Ahmad Âsim Efendi, who translated the book into Turkish, notes in his annotation, “Qadar means Allâhu ta’âlâ’s knowledge, in the eternal past, of all the future events. Qadâ means His showing this knowledge in Lawh-il-Mahfûz.”[38] [Tayyibî], the annotator of Kashshâf, noted that “According to some (scholars), ‘qadar’ means a ‘general commandment’, and ‘qadâ’ means ‘the happening, one by one, of the events (stated in the general commandment)’. For instance, [Every living being will die] is qadar. And death of every living being is qadâ.” Shams-ad-dîn Mahmûd bin Abdurrahmân Isfahânî, who wrote an annotation to the book Tawâlî’, makes the following definition: “Qadar means the existence of all things, en masse, in Lawh-il-Mahfûz. And qadâ means the creation of their causes and them one by one when their (foreordained) times come.” Qadar means a cellar-full of wheat, and qadâ is to dispense it piecemeal in certain quantities. The words ‘qadar’ and ‘qadâ’ can be used for each other. Qadar: (Ahmad becomes a Muslim of his own volition and using his own will power. And Gregory prefers disbelief, which, also, is his own wish and predilection. There is many an âyat showing this fact.) There is detailed information about qadâ and qadar in the (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye. A person who reads the information with due attention will easily detect the sly, tricky and hoodwinking sophistry which the Jewish author engineers throughout the book (Husniyya). It would take no time for connoisseurs of Tafsîr[39] to diagnose the unschooled and illogical inaptitude in the interpretation of the âyats. Yet people who are unaware of Tafsîr and the twenty main branches of Islamic sciences might be inveigled into taking the book for granted under the influence of melodramatic expressions, such as “She routed them, put them to shame, refuted them, outwitted them, proved them false,” which abound in the book. Therefore, such mendacious and heretical books, magazines and newspapers should not be read at all. Not to read them means to protect yourself from becoming a disbeliever.

7– At one place he says, “At one time Shaikh Behlûl [Behlûl Dânâ] said (to Imâm a’zam Abû Hanîfa): ‘O Abû Hanîfa! You say that man does not have ihtiyâr (choice). An ass is wiser and more virtuous than you are. For it would not walk across an impassable stream whatsoever you do to force it to!’ Ibrâhîm Khâlid was unable to answer her. Hârûn Rashîd and Yahyâ Bermekî laughed.”

And, quoting the hadîth-i-sherîf stating that the group of Qadariyya are the fire-worshippers of this Ummat, he adds, “The group of Qadariyya are people who commit sins and then say that their sins were preordained in the eternal past by Allah. The pre-Islamic Qouraishî polytheists were in the Jabriyya madhhab. Islam rescinded that madhhab. But after the martyrdom of the Amîr-ul-mu’minîn Hadrat Alî, during the reigns of Mu’âwiya and Yazîd, the ’alaihi-il-la’na[40], that madhhab reappeared and survived as a cultural heritage for Muslims.” He tries to prove himself to be right by offering preposterous arguments which give the impression of puerile confabulations.

The scholars of Ahl as-sunnat have never said that man does not have ihtiyâr (choice). According to them, the group of Jabriyya are disbelievers. One should have never read books written by the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat to believe the shameless slanders in the so-called book. Qadariyya is another apellation for the sect of Mu’tazila. It can be concluded from the so-called book that Shiites are in that sect, too. The sect of Mu’tazila can also be called Qadariyya because they deny qadâ and qadar and say that man is definitely able to do whatever he likes and creates his own actions. In other words, those who deny qadar are the group of Qadariyya, and (the true Muslims) who believe in qadar and qadâ are in the Madhhab of Ahl as-sunnat.

Muhammad bin Abdulkerîm Shihristânî states as follows in his book Milal wa Nihâl: Wâsil bin Atâ, leader of the group Mu’tazila, and his followers assert that “Man is the creator of his own optional actions. Allâhu ta’âlâ has to make the things that are useful for His slaves. He has to reward the good and torment the evil. Allah is one. He cannot have attributes additionally. The Qur’ân is composed of letters, words and sounds, which, in their turn, are creatures and were created afterwards. Man creates his own actions, good or evil. It is not something right to say that Allâhu ta’âlâ creates evil, bad things, sins and disbelief. To say so means to malign him. For he who creates cruelty is cruel himself. And Allâhu ta’âlâ is not cruel.” These words of theirs are wrong. The owner of an action is its agent, not its creator. As man himself is a creature, likewise, his disbelief, belief, worship and disobedience are creatures as well. The ninety-sixth âyat-i-kerîma of Sâffât sûra purports: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has created you and your handiwork.” Imâm Baydâwî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, a scholar of Ahl as-sunnat, explains the âyat as follows: “The actions you do and the things you make are man’s handiwork. Yet Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, gives you energy to act and creates the causes of your work.” Because the group Qadariyya have held the belief that everyone is the creator of his own handiwork, they have become the fire-worshippers of this Ummat. The Sunnî Muslims say that there is one creator. Fire-worshippers say that there are two creators.

The Arabic book Ikd-ul-jawharî, by Mawlânâ Khâlid Baghdâdî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, contains detailed explanations about irâda-i-juz’iyya (limited will, man’s will). Abdulhamîd Harpûtî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ wrote an annotation to the book and entitled his annotation Sim tul’abqarî. The annotation was published in Istanbul in 1305 [1888 A.D.]. Also, Mawlânâ’s[41] booklet Irâda-i-juz’iyya was published by offset litho as an appendix to the book Rashahât in Istanbul in 1291 [1874 A.D.], during the period when Safwat Pâsha was Minister of Education. The ninth letter in the book Bughyat-ul-wâjid[42] is a lithographic copy of that booklet. It is stated as follows in the booklet:

May hamd (praise and gratitude) be to Allâhu ta’âlâ, who created the earth and heaven, human beings and animals, and all their works and actions from nothing. When Allâhu ta’âlâ wills to create something, he says, “Be!” and presently that thing comes into being.

May blessings, salvations and goodnesses be upon Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, our master and superior and best of the people living in hair tents and in buildings made of sun-dried bricks, (i.e. all people,) and upon his Âl (family, household), upon his relatives, and upon his Ashâb!

O you Muslim! May Allâhu ta’âlâ increase your mental capacity! May He bless you with the lot of following the right path! You must know that all groups of Muslims, and also most philosophers and non-Muslims have acknowledged the fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, is the one and only power that moves and effects every being, everything, aside from the movements of animals. It is doubtless that He is the creator also of the movements of animals and human beings. In other words, Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, creates all their movements, both the conscious ones, [i.e. those which they are aware of,] such as illness, wealth, sleep and awakenness, and the unconscious ones, [i.e. those they are unaware of,] such as growing and digesting the food consumed, which are not dependent upon their will and option. As for the optional movements of animals and human beings, i.e. their actions which they do by using their will and choice; there are different views concerning these movements. According to the group Jabriyya, for instance, there is only one source of power effective in the optional movements: Allâhu ta’âlâ. They say that man’s power has no function at all. Also, Abul-Hasan Alî Ash’arî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ, who is one of our imâms in credal matters, says that they are dependent only upon Allâhu ta’âlâ’s power and that man’s power has no function in them. The group Mu’tazila, on the other hand, maintain that the so-called movements come into existence only out of man’s power and option, while in the view of philosophers they happen from man’s power and yet man has to do them. Abdulmalîk Juwaynî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, who has been known as the Imâm of Haramayn, is wrongly said to have held the same view. As a matter of fact, this jaundiced information is belied by the sagacious scholar Muhammad bin Yûsuf Sinnûsî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in his book Umm-ul-barâhîn, and by Sa’duddîn Teftâzânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ [722-792, Semmerkand], in Sharh-i-makâsid. The great scholar Ibrâhîm bin Muhammad Isfarâinî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of our masters in credal matters, states that those movements are dependent both upon the power of Allâhu ta’âlâ and upon the slave’s power. According to Qâdî Abû Bakr Bâqillânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, however, the only power effective in the creation of such movements is Allâhu ta’âlâ, and that man’s power is effective only in the nature of the movements, i.e. in their being good or evil. That the Imâm of our Madhhab in credal matters, Muhammad bin Mahmûd Abû Mansûr Mâturîdî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, held the same view, is acknowledged by Kemâladdîn Muhammad ibn-ul-humâm ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in Al-musâyara; by Kemâladdîn Muhammad ibn Abû Sherîf-i-qudsî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in Al-musâmara fî sharh-il-musâyara; by Hasan Chalabi (Çelebi) bin Muhammad Shâh ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, -who was a descendant of Molla Ghurânî-, in his annotation entitled Sharh-i-mawâqif; and by the research scholar Gelenbevî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in Aqâid-ud-dawwâniyya.

Imâm Birgivî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a Sunnî scholar, explains the true meanings which the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat derived from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs in a splendid, concise and clear style in his Turkish book Birgivî Vasiyyetnâmesi. Qâdî-zâda (Ahmad Amîn bin Abdullah) ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ makes the following explanation in the twenty-fourth page of his commentary to the book:

Allâhu ta’âlâ is Murîd. In other words, He has the Attribute Irâda (Will). He creates whatever He wishes. He creates whatever He wills to exist. And whatever He does not will to exist, does not exist. It is not necessary for him to make anything. He cannot be forced to do something. For Allâhu ta’âlâ is powerful over all. No one can have power over Him. He never is incapable. Everything comes into existence out of His Will. Goodness such as îmân and obedience (to His commandments), as well as evils such as disbelief and disobedience, all come into existence out of His Will. According to the group Mu’tazila, “Allâhu ta’âlâ does not will, and so He does not create, evils and sins. These things are created by human beings and by the devil. For it would be an evil deed to create evils. And Allâhu ta’âlâ will never do an evil deed.” The (scholars of) Ahl as-sunnat answer them as follows: “It is not an evil deed to create evils. It is an evil deed for men to do evils.” The group Mu’tazila put forward the argument that “If Allâhu ta’âlâ willed and foreordained evils and disbelief, men would have to acquiesce in disbelief and evils. For it is necessary to acquiesce in qadâ.” The Ahl as-sunnat scholars answer them: “Disbelief itself is not Allâhu ta’âlâ’s qadâ or qadar. It is His maqdî. That is, it is something made qadâ. It is necessary to acquiesce in His qadâ. Yet it is not necessary to acquiesce in the maqdî. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that He is the creator and foreordainer of all, and that, yet, He does not approve of disbelief.” The group Mu’tazila argue that “If Allâhu ta’âlâ willed the perpetration of evils, evil practices, disobedience (to His commandments) and disbelief would be blessed and rewarded (in the Hereafter). For these things would mean to do what He willed. To do His will means to obey His command.” And the Sunnî answer is as follows: “Obedience that deserves rewards and blessings (thawâb) is only obedience to His commandments. And it is not obedience to do what He willed.”

Abduljabbâr Hemedânî, who was Qâdî of the city of Ray and a scholar in the group Mu’tazila, visited the vizier Sâhib bin Ibâd in his office. Abû Ishâq Isfarâînî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a Sunnî scholar, happened to be there. The following conversation took place between the two scholars:

Abd. – Allâhu ta’âlâ does not will evils and sins. He does not like them and does not create them. These things are created by evil people and by the devil.

Abû Ishâq – All the good things as well as the evil ones are created by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Only what He wills comes into existence in His property.

Abû Ishâq – Could the slaves ever be disobedient to Him if Allâhu ta’âlâ did not will and create (their disobedience)? The slaves (men) use their irâda-i-juz’iyya and wish to commit sins and evils. And Haqq ta’âlâ creates their wishes, if He wills to do so.

Abd. – If Allâhu ta’âlâ did not will hidâyat (guidance) for a person, and if He decreed and foreordained that that person would do evils, would He be doing good to him or harming him?

Abû Ishâq – He would be harming him if He did not will to give him his right. However, not to will to take His own right would not mean to harm the slave. He will reward for the tiniest goodness done. Nobody’s good deeds will be left unpaid for. He will forgive most of the wrongdoers, except for (people guilty of) disbelief. As for the question why He wills (and creates) disbelief; Allâhu ta’âlâ has knowledge. He knows everything that will happen in the future. He is Hakîm; whatsoever He does and makes, it is always the best that can ever be (done and made). It depends only and only on His will to bless any of His slaves with His Compassion by guiding him (or her) to the true way of salvation. He does not have to do or make anything. As a matter of fact, the eighth âyat-i-kerîma of Fâtir sûra of the Qur’ân al-kerîm purports: “... For Allâhu ta’âlâ leaves to stray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. ...” (35-8) In other words, He creates good and evil upon the slave’s will and option. The slave’s will is the cause, the means for the creation. When Believers will îmân and obedience by using their irâda-i-juz’iyya, Allâhu ta’âlâ also wills them and creates them. If Allâhu ta’âlâ did not will them, too, no one would be a Believer or an obedient Muslim. On the other hand, when a disbeliever wills disbelief and a sinner wills wrongdoing, He creates those evils if He, too, wills them. No one could be a disbeliever or a sinner if He did not will their evil deeds.

Nothing comes into existence upon only the slave’s will. Its creation takes place when Allâhu ta’âlâ, also, wills it. Allâhu ta’âlâ wills and creates evils and iniquities as well. Yet He does not like them and does not approve of them. As for goodnesses; He both wills them and likes them and approves of them. A fly cannot move its wings unless Allâhu ta’âlâ wills it to do so. All the goodnesses and evils that men do come into existence with His Will. When the slave wants to do something, it does not take place if He does not will it, too. It takes place if He, too, wills it. Something He does not will to exist, does not exist. If it existed after all, it would mean some drawback in His power. Allâhu ta’âlâ is omnipotent. All human beings and genies would be obedient Believers if He willed them to be so. Conversely, they would all be disbelievers if He willed them to be so.

Question: Everything comes into existence with His Will. He has willed the disbelief of disbelievers. They cannot stand against His Will. Therefore, they have been forced to be disbelievers. To command them to be Believers would mean to command something impossible. Why doesn’t He will them to be Believers while commanding them to be Believers? Since He commands everybody to be Believers, why doesn’t He will everybody to be Believers?

Answer: Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Deeds cannot be disapproved of or questioned. Allâhu ta’âlâ knew in the eternal past all the things that would (and will) take place in the future. His Knowledge is dependent upon the things that will happen. In other words, He knew them as they would happen. He knew them as such because they would be so; they do not have to be so because He knew that they would be so. So, Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Will is in agreement with His Knowledge. And His Attributes Power and Creativeness also are in agreement with His Will.

The slaves have irâda-i-juz’iyya, i.e. choice and wish. They may wish or not wish to do something. Abû Mansûr Mâturîdî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of the two imâms (leaders) of Ahl as-sunnat, states that irâda-i-juz’iyya is not a distinct being by itself. It is not a self-standing existence. It has no relation with the Divine Power (of Allâhu ta’âlâ). Allâhu ta’âlâ knew in eternity that so and so would wish to commit a certain sin (at a certain time). When (the time comes and) that person wishes to commit that sin, Allâhu ta’âlâ also wills and creates it, and thereby the sin takes place. Man’s will is the cause of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s qadâ, decree and creating.

1– Things that are themselves impossible to do. An example of them is to make two objects occupy the same space at the same time. A bottle cannot be refilled before the liquid it already contains is poured out.

2– Things that are naturally possible themselves, and yet pragmatically impossible for men to do. An example of them is to lift a mountain.

3– Things that are possible to do. However, men do not do them because Allâhu ta’âlâ knew (in the eternal past) that they would not do them. Allâhu ta’âlâ does not command the first and second kinds of things. Yet He commands the third kind. For instance, He commanded Abû Jahl to be a Believer although He knew in the eternal past that he would not be a Believer, and although He willed his disbelief.

As is seen, man has the choice to do or not to do something, and he does whatever he chooses to do. This choice of the slave’s causes Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Will and creation. When the slave wishes to do something good, He wills and creates it. When the slave wills to commit an evil, He, too, wills it, and creates the evil. He does not force anyone to be a disbeliever or to commit sins.

It is Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Divine Law of Causation to create everything through causes. Likewise, He has made man’s will a cause for creating his good and evil deeds. He has sent Prophets ‘alaihim-us-salâm’ to men to teach them îmân and the ways of doing good deeds and deserving thawâb (rewards, blessings in the Hereafter). He has commanded them to have îmân and to perform the acts of worship and good deeds, (which are taught in the books written by the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat). He has prohibited them from disbelief and from committing sins and evil deeds. He has given them wisdom, and has enjoined these responsibilities on owners of wisdom.

Allâhu ta’âlâ creates whatsoever He wills. Everything He creates has infinite uses. That is, He is Hakîm. The human mind cannot comprehend these facts. Mind can assess and comprehend only things it has been familiarized with and things perceived through the sense organs. There are innumerable ultimate divine causes and uses in His creating the disbelievers, giving them long lifespans, abundant food, high ranks and positions, and willing that they abide by their disbelief and commit evil deeds; in His creating snakes, swine and poisons; [in His creating sources of destructive energy that are fatal to mankind and ruinous to countries; in His placing stupendously great energy that can annihilate biggest cities in the unimaginably small nucleus of an atom, itself already imperceptibly tiny; in His creating kinds of energy such as light, electricity, magnetism and chemistry; and in His formulating laws and orders in substances, forces and organisms, most of which still remain unsolved and unknown despite all the studies and research carried on under various subjects such as physics, chemistry and biology.] It is a base and inferior deed to make something useless. Everything Allâhu ta’âlâ creates has various uses. His Will, which is one of His eight Attributes, is eternal, i.e. it always existed. Both He Himself and His eight Attributes existed in the eternal past. They are not beings that came into existence afterwards. The heretics called Kerrâmiyya, a sub-group in the group Mushabbiha, asserted that the Divine Attribute ‘Will’ was not eternal, it was an attribute that came into being afterwards. This assertion caused them to become disbelievers. A person who denies the fact that the eight Attributes are eternal, and asserts for instance that one of the Attributes came into existence afterwards, becomes a disbeliever (kâfir).

Allâhu ta’âlâ creates everything through His Attribute Tekwîn, which means to create. He, alone, is the creator of all classes of beings on the earth and in heaven, all substances, objects, peculiarities, events, forces, laws and relations. No other creator exists. No other being can be called ‘creater’, and no other person can be said to have ‘created’ something. An âyat-i-kerîma in the Qur’ân al-kerîm purports that “Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, created all.” The blessed meaning of another âyat-i-kerîma is: “He, alone, is the Creator and the Commander.” An âyat-i-kerîma in the Yâsin sûra purports, “... For He is the Creator Supreme, of skill and knowledge (infinite).” (36-81) He, alone, creates animals that live on land, in water and in air, [microbes, electrons around (the nuclei of) atoms, molecules, ions], men, angels and genies, all beings and their movements, deeds, pauses, acts of worship, sins, good deeds, harms, disbeliefs and beliefs. The group Mu’tazila say, “The slaves create their own good deeds. Haqq ta’âlâ has given the slaves such great power as they can create their own deeds. This is the case with animals as well.” They are wrong.

Men and animals wish to do something by using their irâda-i-juz’iyya. This wish is called kasb (acquiring, acquisition). Allâhu ta’âlâ creates that act if He wills to do so. The slave cannot create anything. We, [i.e. Qâdîzâda Ahmad Efendi,] explained this fact in detail in our booklet Irâda-i-juz’iyya. He, alone, creates the movements of hands and feet, the speech of a tongue, the opening and closing of eyes. He, alone, creates the movements of flies, insects, microbes, stars and winds, [and their vibrations, and electrical attractions and repulsions, gravitations, lifting forces of liquids and gasses]. He, alone, creates and sends sustenance (rizq) for men, animals and genies and for our souls. Food that we consume is our sustenance, whether it reaches us through (ways and means which Islam countenances and which are termed) halâl or through (religiously illegal ways which Islam terms) harâm. According to the group Mu’tazila, food that reaches a person through harâm is not rizq (sustenance). They are wrong in this, too. Life of a living being does not come to an end before the sustenance assigned for it (by Allâhu ta’âlâ in the eternal past) is finished; i.e. it does not die as long as it has sustenance to consume. No one can consume some other person’s sustenance. Acts of worship do not increase a person’s sustenance, yet they add barakat[43] to it. Allâhu ta’âlâ foreordained and allotted everybody’s sustenance in the eternal past. Its amount does not increase or decrease. He, alone, kills the living, gives life to the dead, makes the healthy ill, and makes the ill healthy. Microbes, doctors, and Azrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ (the Angel of Death) are all causes and means. When they take effect, it is Him who creates and gives them the effect. He, alone, creates the burning effect in fire, the cooling effect in snow, [heat, light, and electrolysis in electricity]. Fire, snow and electricity are the apparent causes. They are the means and conditions which Allâhu ta’âlâ has made causes for His creating. [He, alone, creates our sense organs as well as the sensory powers they enjoy; the events of nutrition, reproduction, excretion, oxidation and osmosis in cells; the heart, blood, the functions of the circulatory system and other tissues, organs and systems, and the order whereby they interact. Communists, heathens and miscreants and] heretics, [who have existed since very old times,] say that every substance and every force have their own properties whereby they effect and that fire, for instance, has burning properties whereby it always burns. They are quite wrong. In fact, according to the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat, the effects that the causes appear to possess are not their essential properties. It is His Divine Law of Causation to create the effects and functions in the causes as soon as He creates the causes themselves. Fire will never be able to burn if He does not create its burning property and it will not burn a person who falls into it unless He wills it to do so. Substances do not have any properties in their essence. Haqq ta’âlâ creates the properties of substances and the effects and functions in the causes. He does not create the so-called properties and effects if He does not will to do so. He would have created heat in snow and coldness in fire if He had willed to do so. He, alone, creates the cutting effect on the sword, the piercing power displayed through a bullet, and the fatality that poison seems to exercise. He creates the drowning of a person who falls into deep water. He would not drown him, and on the contrary, he would, for instance, become healthier, if He willed so. He, alone, creates a bird’s and an aircraft’s flying, [the air’s power to lift as well as the various types of friction]. He could as well not create such properties and forces and not make them fly. He creates diseases and various faculties in various medicines. Ibrâhîm (Abraham) ‘alaihis-salâm’ sat on Nimrod’s fire, and it did not burn him at all. It would have burned him if it had been the fire’s essential property to burn. It is not the fire itself that makes the burning. Allâhu ta’âlâ makes it burn. Allâhu ta’âlâ creates the properties and functions He wills in substances. The deed that He creates comes into existence through the substances. However, the ultimate Divine Habit of Allâhu ta’âlâ is such that He has given certain different properties and effects to every substance. He has made different substances causes and means for the changes in one another. He creates wheat from grains of wheat, and barley from seeds of barley. He creates man from man and animals from their own genera. [He creates plague from plague bacilli and meningitis from meningoceles. In different substances He creates different interchanges of electrons between their atoms, different radioactivities and different reactions in their nuclei.] He creates satiation with food. If He had not created satiation, we would not feel satiated after eating tons of food. If He had not created thirst we would not feel thirsty even if we did not drink any water.

There is no other creator besides Him. He is the creator of the entire existence. He makes substances move. He changes their places. He takes them from one time to another. He converts them from one state into another. He creates things that the minds of mankind marvel at. From a drop of semen and infinitesimally small spermatozoa He creates a mature man. [From a great Prophet such as Nûh (Noah) ‘alaihis-salâm’ He creates a disobedient, atheistic and asinine son named Canaan. From a stone-hearted and narrow-minded unbeliever like Abû Jahl He creates a faithful son, the Believer named Ikrima. He creates disbelief in the heart of a base unbeliever who announces and advertises His existence and Will and the greatness of His power with the perfectly systematic structures, properties and movements of his hands, tongue and all the motes of his body. He creates such people’s attacking the religion in such fury as they unleash all their forces based on diction, penmanship, rank and wealth. He makes His own creature His enemy. He creates a talent, a force called ‘heart’ in the human heart, which He sometimes illuminates, purifies and makes a mirror reflecting His existence, and sometimes a blackened rubbish heap emitting disbelief and iniquity.] He creates a nuclear energy powerful enough to blow up a mountain, in the depth of the nucleus of an atom, which cannot be seen even with a microscope. He creates sugar in the beet; the power of assimilation termed photosynthesis in the leaves; honey in the bee; countless grains of wheat from one grain; a living animal from the lifeless egg; fragrance from the flower; leaves, flowers and fruits from a dry tree; animals, flowers and trees in water; and soft water in hard water. [He creates chemical reactions and many physical and chemical properties. He converts the soil into plants, and plants into animals. He decomposes human beings and animals and converts them into earthen substances, liquids and gasses. He creates the opposite of everything, reversible reactions, and even from them, other reversals. He creates everything in a perfectly calculated order in this factory of the universe. Day by day, it is being realized better under the lights of science that all the apparently destructive and ruinous changes are in actual fact created with very well calculated and utterly harmonious relations and in an amazingly perfect order.]

8– He says, “When the Messenger of Allah was requested to define the Firqa-i-nâjiyya, i.e. the only group of Muslims who will be saved from going to Hell, of all the seventy-three groups; he stated: My Ahl-i-bayt are like Nûh’s Arch. He who gets on board will be saved.”

The fact, however, is that this statement (of the Prophet’s) was made at another time. The blessed Prophet’s answer to the question mentioned above is quoted in (the authentic Islamic) books as, “The Firqa-i-nâjiyya are those who follow me and my Sahâba.” He is shameless enough to make changes even in hadîth-i-sherîfs. Muslims who hold the true îmân and follow the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ and the Ashâb-i-kirâm, are called Ahl as-sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at.

9– He makes a mockery of himself as follows: “All the Sahâba were neither Mu’tazilî, nor Shâfi’î, nor Mâlikî, nor Hanafî, nor Hanbalî. The group of salvation are those who follow the Messenger of Allah and the Ahl-i-bayt. He who is not in the path guided by the Ahl-i-bayt will not be saved.” With these words he tries to make others believe that he holds the same belief as did the Ahl-i-bayt.

The truth is that the belief held by the Ahl-i-bayt ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ was the belief held by Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, who in his turn shared the same belief with the rest of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. And this belief is the very belief taught by the Messenger of Allâh ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. Thousands of Sunnî scholars gathered the tenets of this belief and wrote them in their books along with the documents and sources of each and every one of them. A group of people far below the grade of ijtihâd and without any expertise in the Islamic sciences derived wrong meanings from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs, called their concoctions and absurdities the ‘madhhab of Ahl-i-bayt’, and tried to make others believe them. Enemies of Islam incited this fitna and wrote books insidiously. Imâm a’zam Abû Hanîfa learned most of his knowledge from his master, Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq, who was a very much beloved member of the Ahl-i-bayt, and conveyed his learnings to his disciples. Then, ‘Alevî’ (Alawî), which means a follower of Imâm Alî and a member of the madhhab of Ahl-i-bayt, is synonymous with ‘Sunnî’. Therefore, the group with whom the attribute ‘Alawî’ would go appropriately are the Sunnî Muslims. People who live in Irân, Syria and Iraq and call themselves Alawîs today are not Alawîs at all.

The following observations are made in the six hundred and seventh page of the book Mawdû-ât-ul-’ulûm: All the Ashâb-i-kirâm held the same credal tenets. For they had had the honour of attending the sohbat of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and serving him. Under the edification of that sohbat, they had completely liberated themselves from the shackles of mistrust. They had developed full understanding of the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs and a perfect and unshakable belief in the truth revealed in these most authentic sources. No sooner had the last members of the Ashâb-i-kirâm migrated from the world to the Hereafter than ignorant people began to appear here and there and write duplicitous books which were merely heaps of platitudes reflecting their personal sensuous indulgences. With time these blind adventurers lost their way for good and misled many others as well. Bid’ats and heresies began to spread far and wide. Muslims parted into seventy-three groups. A group of scholars protected themselves from all the eccentricities they were being tempted into, survived the devil’s persistent efforts to misguide them, and managed to abide by the path led by the Ashâb-i-kirâm. The people of this right path were called Ahl as-sunnat. The scholars of (this lucky group called) Ahl as-sunnat parted into various Madhhabs in matters pertaining to acts of worship, personal behaviours and social transactions. Four of these Madhhabs have reached our time intact so as to be correctly learned from books. These Madhhabs are Hanafî, Shâfi’î, Mâlikî, and Hanbalî. No other true Madhhab exists any longer. It is a fruit of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s compassion (over Muslims) that the group of Ahl as-sunnat parted into different Madhhabs. The hundred and fifth âyat-i-kerîma of Âl-i-’Imrân sûra purports: “Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving clear signs: ...” (3-105) Baydâwî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ explains this âyat-i-kerîma as follows: “Jews and Christians had been informed of the true path whereon on they were to be united, along with clear evidences and authentic documentary sources. Yet they could not understand the unity of Allâhu ta’âlâ, that He is unlike His creatures, and many other facts about the Hereafter. They passed various provisional judgements about them. O Muslims! Be not like them, and do not part into sects like them!” This âyat-i-kerîma proscribes disunity on tenets of belief. It does not prohibit parting into Madhhabs in the teachings of fiqh or in the technicalities pertaining to acts of worship. For Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “It is rahmat-i-ilâhî (compassion of Allâhu ta’âlâ) for my Ummat to part into groups [in the knowledge of fiqh].” Another hadîth-i-sherîf reads as follows: “A mujtahid is given two blessings (thawâb) if his ijtihâd turns out to be correct. However, if he is mistaken in his ijtihâd he will still be rewarded with one blessing.”

10– He writes as follows: “The âyat-i-kerîma telling about Abû Bakr’s having been together (with the Messenger of Allah) is a sign showing his belieflessness and infamy, rather than his virtue. That night Jebrâîl came down and said, ‘The unbelievers have reached a unanimous decision on your murder tonight. Tell all your Sahâba not to go out of their homes tonight. Go to the (so-called) cave, alone.’ So, Hadrat Messenger convened the Sahâba towards sunset and told them about the commandment. That night Hadrat Alî, despite his child age, fearlessly took the Prophet’s place in his bed. As Rasûlullah was on his way to the cave, he saw someone approaching from the distance. He stopped and waited. When that person came near him, he saw that it was Abû Bakr. Presently the Prophet asked him why he was out despite Allah’s commandment. The latter’s answer was: ‘O Messenger of Allah! I was anxious about you. I could not leave you alone and sit at home.’ Jebrâîl came and warned: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Do not leave Abû Bakr! If the unbelievers come here and catch Abû Bakr, they will follow you, find you, and kill you.’ Reluctantly, Hadrat Messenger took Abû Bakr along to the cave. For Hadrat Messenger did not feel safe against the unbelievers and against Abû Bakr. Haqq ta’âlâ had informed him that the unbelievers and Abû Bakr were going to conspire against him, that Abû Bakr meant harm, and that they were ‘saying things that were not in their hearts.’ There are many âyats informing about their conspiracies. The Messenger of Allah did not need companions or comrades. The âyat, ‘He (Allah) hath reinforced thee with soldiers that thou dost not see,’ proves this fact. Abû Bakr did not join any of the holy wars and somehow deserted from all of them. There are many âyats exemplifying friendships between Believers and unbelievers. The Arabic language teems with examples wherein the word ‘sâhib = companion’ is used to describe a donkey’s keeping company with a man. Then, Abû Bakr’s having been called ‘sâhib = companion’ should not be construed as a sign of virtue that he was in possession of. If the anxiety he felt in the cave had been on behalf of the Messenger of Allah, then it would have been an act of worship. In that case, to tell him not to be anxious would in effect have meant to prevent an act of worship, which, in its turn, is not something that the Messenger of Allah could be imagined to have done. If his anxiety proceeded from sinfulness, then he did not have belief in the Prophet of Allâhu ta’âlâ. In that case, what use could there have been for him in that companionship? And it would have been useless to tell him not to be anxious. Preventing a sinful act is, on the other hand, something the Messenger of Allah normally should have done. The Messenger had told him, before, that he, (the Prophet, that is,) would be permanently protected against enemies. Abû Bakr did not have confidence in that (divine assurance). It would not be incorrect to say that his wailing and crying served no purpose unless it was intended to betray (their hiding place) to the unbelievers. If he had had îmân, Allâhu ta’âlâ would have protected him against the biting of the snake. Nor could the Prophet’s consolatory remark, ‘Allah is with us,’ considered to have reflected any credit on him. Otherwise, the âyat, ‘When three people talk secretly among themselves, Allâhu ta’âlâ is the fourth’, would necessarily connote that disbelievers who talked secretly were to be held dear. This âyat-i-sherîfa shows clearly that Abû Bakr was a base person and did not at all have îmân. The âyat-i-kerîma (that describes the event) says, ‘I gave him serenity and ease of heart.’ It does not say, ‘I gave them... .’ This shows that he (Abû Bakr) did not have îmân. Sinners and wrongdoers of this sort, and even people who were worse than unbelievers are held higher and better than the innocent members of the Prophet’s family. Such preferences show that the Muhâjirs are those who migrated (to Medina) after the Prophet did. Those who migrated with him or after him should not be called Muhâjirs.”

The fact, however, is quite the other way round. The fortieth âyat-i-kerîma of Tawba sûra, which relates (Hadrat Abû Bakr’s) companionship (with the Messenger of Allah) in the cave, is a clear sign signifying the high virtue and honour of Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. For, that night Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ came down with the news, “The unbelievers have decided to kill you tonight,” and said, “Tonight, tell Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ to lie in your bed, and migrate to Medîna-i-munawwara, taking Abû Bakr as-Siddîq along!” His assertion that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was only a child, is untrue, too. He was twenty-three years old. Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ said, “If I had a thousand lives in my body, I would sacrifice all of them for the sake of following you,” and presently took the Prophet’s place in his bed. On the night between the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh days of the blessed month of Safer, a night between Wednesday and Thursday, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ went out of his house, recited the initial twelve âyat-i-kerîmas of Yasîn sûra, breathed them on the unbelievers standing along the street, walked quickly past them, and went to a place. At noon time he honoured Hadrat Abû Bakr Siddîq’s place. The blessed arrival was reported to Hadrat Abû Bakr. As soon as he saw Rasûlullah’s beautiful face, which appeared at the door like the rising of a full moon, he exclaimed with joyous surprise, “Please do come in, o Messenger of Allah! Let us be honoured with your orders!” The blessed Prophet went in, honouring the place with his presence, and stated, “I have been commanded to migrate to Medina tonight.” Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ suggested, “Could I come along and be honoured with your service?” When the blessed Prophet said, “You will be going, too,” Hadrat Abû Bakr was very happy. And when the Prophet stated, “I need a camel for the migration,” he said, “I would sacrifice all my property, my life and my children for you. I have two camels. Please choose one of them as a gift from me.” The Prophet’s answer was: “I have always accepted your presents, and I shall go on doing so. But I would like to use my own property for tonight’s worship of migration. Sell me one of your camels!” Presently he paid for it, and ordered Abû Bakr to send for a certain person, namely Abdullah bin Urayqit, and hire him as their guide. Hadrat Abû Bakr did as he was told, and the Prophet entrusted the two camels to the newly hired guide’s care, telling him to herd the two camels to the cave on mount Sawr three days later (and that they would be awaiting him there). Then he said to Abû Bakr’s son Abdullah, “Every night, come to the cave (where we will be hiding) with intelligence on what is going on in Mekka.” Abû Bakr Siddîq’s daughter, Asmâ, prepared them food enough to last for three days. Because she could not find any string to tie up the parcel, she used her own sash, which she undid, cut into two lengthwise, and wrapped around the parcel. So she has been known with the nickname ‘Asmâ of two sashes’ ever since. When Abû Bakr Siddîq opened the (front) door for them to go out, the blessed Prophet warned, “Close the door. We will use the window facing the back.” They jumped out through the window lest there should be any track left behind them. When they reached before the cave, Abû Bakr implored, “Please do wait, O Messenger of Allah! Let me go in first. There may be something harmful and your blessed body may be hurt.” He entered the cave, cleaned inside it, took off his shirt, tore it into pieces, plugged the holes, and invited the Best of Mankind, saying, “Please come in, O Messenger of Allah!” The Master of Mankind and the Darling of Allâhu ta’âlâ ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ honoured the dark cave with his presence. On an occasion later, Abû Bakr Siddîq related the event as follows: “When he entered the cave, I saw blood on his blessed feet. I wept. I knew then that he was not accustomed to walking barefoot.”

[After spending three nights in the cave, they went out on Monday night, (i.e. on the night between Sunday and Monday). They came to the Kubâ village of Medina on Monday, which was the twentieth of September and the eighth of the Arabic month Rabî’ul-awwal. That day became Muslims’ Hijrî[44]-Shamsî[45] new year’s day. The six hundred and twenty-third (623) Mîlâdî[46] new year’s day took place within the first hijrî shamsî and qamarî (lunar) year.]

As is seen, in order to vilify Abû Bakr Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, he gives a false account of the events during the Hegira, and laces his fiction with a pathetic bouquet by adding the lie that Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was only a child when he took the Prophet’s place in his bed. For achieving his aim of maligning the Sahâba he shows no hesitation as to the sordid methods to be used, including false interpretation of âyat-i-kerîmas, fabrication of bogus hadîth-i-sherîfs, and denial of sahîh hadîth-i-sherîfs. He is immoral enough to misrepresent the âyat-i-kerîmas that were intended for unbelievers and hypocrites and to interpret them in such a manner as if they had been revealed to castigate Hadrat Abû Bakr Siddîq and the Sahâba ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’. As a matter of fact, the eleventh âyat-i-kerîma of Fat-h sûra purports: “Those who lagged behind and deserted from the Jihâd will say: We were engaged in (looking after) our flocks and herds and our families:... They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts. ...” (48-11) He inverts this âyat-i-kerîma into a sheer vilification of Hadrat Abû Bakr. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ foretold the appearing of heretics in his various hadîth-i-sherîfs. He stated in one of those hadîth-i-sherîfs: “Of all those people who carry Muslim names, the person I fear most is he who changes the meanings in the Qur’ân al-kerîm.” On another occasion he stated: “They will be taxing the Muslims with (the iniquities censured in) the âyat-i-kerîmas which were intended for (censuring) the disbelievers.” It is written in all the literature of siyar[47] as well as in books of Tafsîr (explanation of the Qur’ân al-kerîm) that Abû Bakr Siddîq and ’Umar Fârûq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ joined all the Holy Wars, including Badr, Uhud, Hendek (Trench), Conquest of Mekka, Hunayn, and Tabuk, and that they always kept around him (in order to learn from him and to protect him against danger) like moths hovering around a bright light.

Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was commander of some of the military expeditions. For instance, a company under his leadership was sent onto the tribe of Fezâra in the blessed month of Sha’bân in the seventh year of the Hegira. He went there, slew some of the unbelievers, took others captive and brought them to Medina.

An important example is given in the following passage which we borrowed from the book Manâqib-i-Chihâryâr: During the Holy War of Badr, on the seventeenth day of Ramadân-i-sherîf, Friday, under the sweltering heat of a July noon the two armies attacked each other. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wasallam’, Abû Bakr, ’Umar, Abû Zer, Sa’d and Sa’îd ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ were seated at the commanding post. The Muslim soldiers were in trouble. The blessed Prophet sent Sa’d and Sa’îd for help. He sent Abû Zer next, and he was followed by ’Umar. An hour later, Abû Bakr saw that there was no decrease in the trouble, drew his sword, and was about to gallop off on his horse, when the blessed Messenger held him by the hand and said, “Stay with me, O Abâ Bakr! Seeing your face relieves me of all sorts of suffering that come to my body and heart. Your company gives strength to my heart.”

The word ‘sâhib’, [which means ‘companion’,] is used for good and bad people alike, and for animals as well. Yet it can be clearly understood from the semantic content of the âyat-i-kerîmas (wherein the word was used) whether it was used for a complimentary purpose or a censorious one. In fact, it means ‘gentleman’, ‘protector’, and ‘adviser’ in some âyat-i-kerîmas. To understand these meanings, it is necessary to have expertise in some extensive and profound literary sciences such as lughat, metn-i-lughat, ishtiqaq, sarf, nahw, beyân, bedî, meânî, belâghât, etc. People who just scribble what they understand from âyat-i-kerîmas in the name of explaining the meanings in the Qur’ân al-kerîm, without learning these sciences, are slandering the Qur’ân al-kerîm by doing so. Allâhu ta’âlâ complains about such slanderers, and says that they are the worst of the cruel people, in the twenty-first âyat of An’âm sûra. That Abû Bakr as-Siddîq’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ being called ‘sâhib’ is intended to acknowledge his value and high virtue is manifested in the same âyat-i-kerîma. For, (as is related in the âyat-i-kerîma,) he was told not to be afraid and he was blessed with serenity [peace and courage].

Fear and sorrow are not acts of worship by themselves. Nor are they sinful acts. They are acts of worship or sinful acts depending on the intention (of the person who feels them). It is sinful to be afraid that you may suffer harm if you perform the acts of worship such as ghusl[48], namâz^[1], wudû^[1], and jihâd^[1] for the sake of Allah. On the other hand, it is an act of worship to fear Allâhu ta’âlâ with the thought of His greatness. Indeed, the anxiety or fear in the former case prevents you from performing the acts that are farz, (i.e. commanded by Allâhu ta’âlâ,) whereas the fear (of Allâhu ta’âlâ) that you feel in the latter case protects you from committing the acts that are harâm, (i.e. forbidden by Allâhu ta’âlâ). Husayn Wâiz-i-Kâshifî Hirawî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ gives the following account in his Tafsîr: “The unbelievers came before the cave. Abû Bakr said (to the blessed Prophet): ‘O Messenger of Allah! If one of the unbelievers looks under his feet, he will see us.’ Rasûlullah’s answer was: ‘What do you think will become of those two people when Allâhu ta’âlâ is with them as the third (person)?” This hadîth-i-sherîf manifests the superior position occupied by Hadrat Abû Bakr. In other words, the Best of Mankind assures his companion that Allâhu ta’âlâ’s help and protection is with them.” Then, to tell Abû Bakr as-Siddîq not to be afraid or anxious does not mean to say, “Take your love of me out of your heart.” Hence, the fear that Abû Bakr as-Siddîq felt on behalf of the Messenger of Allah was a token of the affection he had in his heart, which in its turn was an act of worship. To tell him not to be afraid must, therefore, have been intended to make known that most valuable and most virtuous act of worship, rather than to prevent him from that act of worship.

He writes, on the one hand, that the Messenger of Allah had told his Ashâb that he would be under (Allah’s) protection against the enemy and, on the other, that “Jebrâîl came to him and said: O, Messenger of Allah! Do not leave Abû Bakr! The unbelievers will catch him, find your track and kill you.” This inconsistency in his statements betrays his mendacity.

Abû Bakr as-Siddîq did not cry and yell at all. His anxious statement, “O Messenger of Allah! I fear that they may harm your blessed body,” is quoted in all authentic books. As they were in the cave, he pressed his blessed foot against one of the holes, which he noticed had been left unplugged, in order to protect the Messenger of Allah from any possible danger. Why should it detract from his high honours that the snake in the hole bit his foot? Rasûlullah himself ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was stung by a scorpion one day. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ had a very much beloved son named Muhsin. That blessed boy was pecked to death by a cock. Why should these events bring discredit on a person? And why should they, after all, ever be signs of unbelief in a person’s heart?

Allâhu ta’âlâ’s being with His slaves (men) means His Attributes’ being with them. Whereas His Attribute Wrath’s being with them brings them ruination and disgrace, His Attributes Rahmat (compassion), Nusrat (help) and Muhabbat (love) bless them with esteem and happiness when they are with them. By saying, “Allah is with us,” Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ shares his high prophetic honour, togetherness (with Allâhu ta’âlâ) with Hadrat Abû Bakr. Thereby he gives the good news that Abû Bakr also will enjoy the muhabbat (love), the merhamat (mercy, compassion), the ihsân (kindness) and the ikrâm (grace and favour) that Allâhu ta’âlâ manifests to His most beloved slave, the Prophet. What a great fortune! That is virtue itself! What other honour could be as superior as the virtue acknowledged through âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs? What enemy concoctions could ever convince a person into denying the brightness of the sun? One must be a blind idiot to believe such downright falsehood.

Allâhu ta’âlâ’s being with those who talk secretly among themselves means His Attribute Knowledge’s being with them, which in effect means that He knows their secrets. The âyat-i-kerîma in question has nothing to do with liking or censuring. It is a mere restatement of the fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ has the Attribute Knowledge.

He also misinterprets the âyat-i-kerîma which purports, “... then Allâhu ta’âlâ sent down His peace upon him, ...” (9-40) He says that peace was sent down upon Rasûlullah. Peace is sent down upon a place where it does not exist. His assertion connotes that Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ did not have peace in his heart before (the descent of peace), and that he was afraid. On the other hand, he says within the same context that Allâhu ta’âlâ had promised him that He would protect him against the unbelievers. Accordingly, should we conclude that the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was afraid because he did not have confidence in Allâhu ta’âlâ’s promise? It is a very nasty insult to the Prophet of Allâhu ta’âlâ to allege that peace was sent down upon him (despite the earlier divine promise). His bigoted impulse to vilify Abû Bakr as-Siddîq side-tracks him, unknowingly, into a vicious denigration of the Messenger of Allâhu ta’âlâ, which in effect means his ending up in the pit of unbelief. Perhaps his real aim is to denigrate the Messenger of Allah, and thus to demolish Islam. It is written in all books of Tafsîr that the peace (mentioned in the âyat-i-kerîma) was sent down to Abû Bakr as-Siddîq. In fact, Rasûlullah already had peace in his heart. Yet Abû Bakr Siddîq had lost the peace in his heart on account of his excessive affection for the Messenger of Allah. Likewise, during the Holy War of Hunayn, most of the Ashâb-i-kirâm scattered, with the exception of Abbâs, Abû Bakr and a few other heroes ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’, who would not retreat at risk to their lives. It is understood from the semantic content of the âyat-i-kerîma that at that moment Rasûlullah lost the peace in his heart because of his apprehension that the religion of Allâhu ta’âlâ would perish. Indeed, an âyat-i-kerîma in Tawba sûra purports: “On the day of Hunayn, Allâhu ta’âlâ sent down peace upon his Messenger and upon the Believers.”

The âyat-i-kerîma that purports, “Those who migrated to Allâhu ta’âlâ and to His Messenger,” does not mean, “Those who joined the Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ after his migration to Medîna.” It means, “Those who left their hometown for the sake of Allah and with the command of His Messenger.” The âyat-i-kerîma is explained so in the hadîth-i-sherîfs. Also, those people who were sent to Abyssinia and to Medîna-i-munawwara before Rasûlullah’s Hijrat (migration to Medîna), were Muhâjirs as well. Ahmad bin Muhammad Qastalânî gives the following brief account of the events previous to the Hegira in his book Mawâhib-i-ladunniyya: After the treaty of Aqaba, the Rasûl (Messenger) ‘alaihis-salâm’ ordered his Sahâba to migrate to Medîna. The Sahâba left Mekka in groups. The Prophet himself stayed in Mekka, awaiting the divine permission to migrate. ’Umar bin Khattâb and his brother Zayd and twenty other Muslims rode off on camels. The only two people who shared Rasûlullah’s abide in Mekka were Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’. When Abû Bakr asked for permission to leave, the Prophet said, “Be patient, O Abâ Bakr! I hope that Allâhu ta’âlâ will make you my comrade.” This information belies the false author’s statement that “That night Jebrâîl came down and said: ... Tell all your Sahâba not to go out of their homes tonight.” There were only two Muslims left in Mekka-i-mukarrama. Who could have been the Sahâbîs to be told to stay home, then? The unbelievers came together and made a unanimous decision to kill Rasûlullah. Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ informed him about this and said, “Don’t lie in your bed tonight!” It is an open fact that the so-called book’s assertion that the Muhâjirs are those few people who “migrated (to Medîna) after the Prophet did,” and that the Sahâbîs who left Mekka with the (Prophet’s) command afterwards “should not be called Muhâjirs,” is quite wrong. Then, Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is the most honourable and the most valuable member of the Muhâjirs.

11– He asserts, “The Qur’ân is made up of letters and words, which are things that came into existence afterwards. Then, Kalâmullah (the Word of Allah) is not eternal. The other Attributes (of Allâhu ta’âlâ) are not eternal, either. If the Qur’ân had been eternal, whom would it have commanded and prohibited in the absence of creatures? It would have been out of place to command something nonexistent to do or not to do something. Allâhu ta’âlâ challenges the unbelievers to “make a hadîth like it (if you can).” The ‘hadîth’ in this context means ‘Qur’ân’. Something which is hadîth cannot be qadîm (eternal). If the Qur’ân were qadîm, the people named in the Qur’ân would be qadîm, too.”

The belief that the eight Attributes (of Allâhu ta’âlâ) are not eternal entails the surmise that Allâhu ta’âlâ must have been -may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from believing or saying so- powerless, unable and ignorant before He created the creatures. Allâhu ta’âlâ knew in the eternal past all the facts that are stated in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. His stating the things that He knows does not necessarily mean that the things that He states are eternal as well. Because this person compares the Attributes of Allâhu ta’âlâ to human attributes, he denies the Attributes stated in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. Please read the first chapter of the third fascicle of Endless Bliss! The word ‘hadîth’ in the âyat-i-kerîma (that he quotes) does not mean ‘Qur’ân al-kerîm’. It means ‘words of unbelievers’. Hence, the âyat-i-kerîma means, “Say words like (those in) the Qur’ân al-kerîm (if you can). But you can’t! For the Qur’ân al-kerîm is qadîm (eternal), whereas your words are hâdith, i.e. creatures.”

The distich, “The Sifât-i-dhâtiyya and the Sifât-i-thubûtiyya of Allâhu ta’âlâ are all qadîm. They always existed. And they will never cease to exist,” is explicated as follows in the qasîda (eulogy) entitled Amâlî: “If the Attributes had come into existence afterwards, there would have been changes in the Dhât-i-ilâhî (Divine Person = Allâhu ta’âlâ Himself). And something which is susceptible to changes must be hâdith, i.e. it must have come into existence afterwards. Hence, Allâhu ta’âlâ must have come into existence afterwards, which is something quite contrary to fact.”

The eleventh distich of Qasîda Amâlî reads as follows: “The Qur’ân al-kerîm is the Word of Allâhu ta’âlâ. It is not a creature, i.e. something created afterwards. It is an Attribute of the Dhât-i-ilâhî.” Ahmad Âsim Efendi explains it as follows: The Qur’ân al-kerîm is the meanings that come out of the words and sounds. The words and sounds themselves are not the Kalâm-i-ilâhî (the Word of Allah). Likewise, our speech is in our heart. Our words are its translation into the world of tangibility. Perfection and superiority of every living being lies in its attribute of speech. A living being without speech is imperfect. Since Allâhu ta’âlâ also is a living being, He must have the attribute ‘speech’. All prophets and heavenly books taught the belief that Allâhu ta’âlâ has the Attribute ‘Speech’. The word and the sound which Mûsâ (Moses) ‘alaihis-salâm’ heard from the tree was the Kalâm-i-ilâhî. Yet a hâfiz’s voice is not the Kalâm-i-ilâhî. The meanings it represents are the Kalâm-i-ilâhî. Allâhu ta’âlâ hears creatures’ speech without letters and sounds. He revealed His Speech, which is letterless and soundless, in the Arabic language. It did not make any changes in the Kalâm-i-ilâhî. A person wears various clothes and appears in various guises, yet he himself does not change at all. The Speech of Allâhu ta’âlâ, unlike the speech of creatures, does not need words and sounds. However, to change or translate the words and sounds (through which the Speech of Allâhu ta’âlâ is revealed) means to change and defile the Kalâm-i-ilâhî (Word, or Speech of Allâhu ta’âlâ). The Qur’ân al-kerîm is committed to these words and sounds. Allâhu ta’âlâ Himself placed His Speech into these words and sounds.

The Qur’ân al-kerîm was written also in Lawh-il-mahfûz in the same words in a state that we are not familiar with. It was not a creature. (The Archangel named) Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ revealed it to our master, the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, sometimes saying the message softly in lettered and vocal susurration into his blessed ear, (in a nature tasted and enjoyed, and therefore known, only by the blessed Darling of Allâhu ta’âlâ,) and sometimes planting it into his heart in the form of lettered but voiceless inspiration. It is not the case that the meanings were “inspired into his heart without words and Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, an Arabic-speaking person, translated the Kalâm-i-ilâhî into these words and sounds.” Yes, there was also Wahy that was inspired in this manner. That is, the Kalâm-i-ilâhî was (sometimes) inspired into his blessed heart and he rendered the inspired meanings into certain locutions and uttered them. These utterances, whose meanings were inspired by Allâhu ta’âlâ and words and sounds were articulated by Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, were termed hadîth-i-qudsî. The Qur’ân al-kerîm should not be mistaken for the (prophetic utterances called) hadîth-i-qudsî. The Kalâm-i-lafzî, which is (the Kalâm-i-ilâhî) in words and sounds, is the same as the Kalâm-i-nafsî, which is (the Kalâm-i-ilâhî) without words and sounds. ’Ilm (Knowledge) and Kalâm (Speech, Word) are two distinct Attributes of Allâhu ta’âlâ. The Qur’ân al-kerîm is not the Attribute Knowledge; it is the Attribute Speech.

Imâm Rabbânî, Mujaddid-i-alf-i-thânî, Ahmad bin Abdul-ahad Fârûqî ‘quddisa sirruh’ provides the following information in the eighty-ninth letter of the third volume of his book Maktûbât: “Imâm a’zam Abû Hanîfa and Imâm Abû Yusûf ‘rahimahumallâhu ta’âlâ’ discussed the matter whether the Qur’ân al-kerîm was a creature or not for six months between themselves, and did not reach a settlement. After the sixth month, they reached a consensus and said unanimously that a person who said that the Qur’ân al-kerîm was a creature would become a disbeliever. The letters, words and sounds which represent the Kalâm-i-nafsî and express the Kalâm-i-lafzî are definitely creatures, i.e. things that were created afterwards. Of all creatures, the letters and words of the Qur’ân al-kerîm are the closest to Allâhu ta’âlâ and therefore the most valuable. As for the Kalâm-i-lafzî and the Kalâm-i-nafsî; they are azalî and qadîm (eternal in the future and [everlasting] in the past).” He gives detailed information on this issue in the hundredth and the hundred and twentieth letters.

12– He says, “The hadîths and tafsîrs which we know were reported by the Amîr-ul-mu’minîn Hadrat Alî, by Imâm Hasan, by Imâm Husayn, by Salmân, by Abû Zer, by Mikdâd, and by Ammâr bin Yâser. The hadîths that you narrate were reported on the authority of people like Mu’âwiya and ’Amr ibn Âs and Enes bin Mâlik and Âisha and others. On the other hand, the Owner of the Sharî’at, (i.e. the Prophet) said, ‘The hadîths reported from me can be narrated on the authority of four people. There is not a fifth person. Others are hypocrites.’ You have made these hypocrites dominant over Muslims. None of the Sahâba could ask the Messenger of Allah any questions. For the Believers had been prohibited to ask questions. Hadrat Alî was the only person who asked questions.”

The author’s enmity against religion betrays itself throughout the passage we have quoted above. The (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i Ebediyye abounds with answers to such falsifications. We specially recommend that you read the great scholar Sayyid Abdulhakîm Arwâsî’s ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ letter, which covers the fifth chapter of the second fascicle of Endless Bliss under the caption Books of Tafsîr - Hadîth-i-sherîfs.

The book Miftâh-us-sa’âda, which was written by Taşköprüzâde Ahmed bin Mustafâ Efendi, -who was at the same time the author of the biography entitled Shaqâyiq-i-Nu’mâniyya, which provides an extensive list of profiles of the scholars who were raised and educated during the Ottoman period-, was rendered into the Turkish language, with the title Mawdû’ât-ul-’Ulûm, by his son Kemâleddîn Muhammad ‘rahima-humullâhu ta’âlâ’. The following passage is a translation from the Turkish version:

Of the (earliest) four Khalîfas, (i.e. Abû Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthmân, and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’,) Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ occupies the first place in point of number of the hadîth-i-sherîfs that the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat ‘rahima-humullâhu ta’âlâ’ reported on the authority of them each. This is a natural concomitant of the fact that he outlived the other three Khalîfas. Because Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was the earliest Believer of them all and spent all his time spreading Islam’s rules and principles and solving Muslims’ problems, fewest traditions have reached us through him. For this reason, most of the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat obtained their religious information from Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ would say: “Ask me whatever you like! I know whether each âyat came down at night or during the day, during a battle or in peace-time, on a plain or in the mountains. I know why each âyat came down. I asked (the Messenger of Allah) the meaning of each âyat, learned it and memorized it. Ask me and I shall tell you.” Abdullah ibn Mes’ûd reports, “The Qur’ân al-kerîm was revealed in seven different dialects. Each dialect has inner and outer meanings. Alî possesses all those meanings.”

The scholars of Ahl as-sunnat acquired their information not only from Imâm Alî, from Hadrat Hasan and Husayn, from Salmân and from Abû Zer ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’, but also from all the other Sahâbîs. For they were all exalted and ’âdil (just and trustworthy) people. Jamâladdîn Yûsuf bin Ibrâhîm Erdebîlî makes the following observation in his book of Fiqh entitled Anwâr-il-’amal-il-abrâr: As Abû ’Amr bin Salâh states in his book Ma’rifat-ul-hadîth, and Yahyâ bin Sharaf Muhyiddîn Nawawî states in the book Irshâd, there were a hundred and twenty-four thousand Sahâbîs when Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ passed away. All of them were exalted and ’âdil (just and trustworthy) people. It is stated as follows in a hadîth-i-sherîf, which is reported on the authority of Abû Sa’îd Hudrî in Imâm Baghawî’s book of hadîths entitled Masâbîh, [which contains four thousand, seven hundred and nineteen (4719) hadîth-i-sherîfs]: “Do not speak ill of my Sahâba! If you gave alms in pure gold as huge as the mount of Uhud, you would not attain thawâb (blessings, rewards in the Hereafter) comparable to the thawâb which one of my Sahâba would be given for half a mud’ of barley which he gave with the intention of alms!” [One mud’ is a unit of weight equal to eight hundred and seventy-five (875) grams.] This transcendent discrepancy was only one of the benefits of having attained the sohbat of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ and of having been in his presence (at least once, regardless of the brevity of the togetherness). It is harâm to swear at the Ashâb-i-kirâm. It is a grave sin. For, all the Ashâb-i-kirâm were mujtahids. It was wâjib for them to behave in accordance with their ijtihâd in those wars, and they did so. Another point which Erdebîlî stresses in Anwâr is that it is not permissible to swear at or to censure Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, for he was one of the greatest Sahâbîs. Imâm Muhammad bin Muhammad Ghazâlî gave the following warning: It is harâm to describe, in oral or written forms, the martyrdoms of Imâm Hasan and Imâm Husayn or the battles that took place among the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Indeed, doing so may imply animadversion and provoke enmity against any one of them. Conveying the Islamic religion to posterity was their common service, whereto each and every one of them had contributions. To censure any one of them, therefore, means to censure Islam, which in effect means to demolish the religion.

It is stated as follows in a hadîth-i-sherîf, which is quoted on the authority of Imrân bin Hasîn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ in the book Masâbîh: “The most useful and the highest Muslims among my Ummat are those contemporary with me. The second best ones are the Muslims posterior to them. The third highest Muslims are the generation following them. After them people will be (mostly) apt to give evidence without being asked to do so; and they will not be trustworthy. They will be treacherous. They will not keep their vows. They will be pleasure-seeking and lecherous people.” Another hadîth-i-sherîf quoted in the same book on the authority of Jâbir bin Abdullah states, “None of the Muslims who have seen me will enter Hell; nor will any of the Muslims who will see the ones who have seen me!”

It is stated in another hadîth-i-sherîf, which Abdullah bin Zubayr reported on the athority of his father Zubayr bin Awwâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’: “On the Rising Day each of my Sahâba will (rise from his grave in the country where he died and) lead the other Muslims who lived (and died) in the same location to the place of gathering (for judgement), illuminating their path.”

Husayn bin Yahyâ Bukhârî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ provides the following information in his book Rawda-t-ul-’Ulamâ: “It is permissible for a mujtahid to act in accordance with any hadîth-i-sherîf. Any Sahâbî’s word (any information given by any of the Sahâba) is an authentic document.” Imâm a’zam Abû Hanîfa ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ said (to his disciples): “If you discover a statement made by any of the Ashâb-i-kirâm and disagreeable with my ijtihâd, leave my word aside and follow the Sahâbî’s statement!”

These facts show that the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat ‘rahima-humullâhu ta’âlâ’ took the words of the Ahl-i-Bayt as documentary sources and hinged their teachings on this base. For, the Ahl-i-Bayt and all the Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ always stated the same things, which were what they had heard from Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. Their disagreements based on ijtihâd should not be construed as changing the âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs.

13– He writes, “We are in the madhhab of Ahl-i-Bayt. A person who denies the Ahl-i-Bayt is accursed. Existence of an undisputed and innocent imâm is always necessary. Every prophet appointed a trustee, a caliph. Our Messenger is the highest of prophets and his trustees are the sayyid-i-awsiyâ. Those who are on our side are never without tahârat (cleanliness). When they cannot find pure water, they do not make ablution. They wash their face with their right hand, instead of using both hands. They do not make masah behind their ears or on the back of their neck. They do not wash their feet. They perform the acts of sujûd (prostration), rukû’, qiyâm and quûd in the same manner as the Ahl-i-Bayt performed them. They believe that it is harâm (forbidden by Islam) to eat the rabbit, which is a menstruating animal. They say that tanning will not clean a dog’s skin. They do not perform namâz behind a sinful person. They do not renounce (the worship called) hajj with favour of sinners’ prevention. They do not make nikâh with, (i.e. they do not marry) a girl born out of wedlock. They do not base their deeds (of worship) on qiyâs. ‘Satan is the first person who employed qiyâs. And the second person to employ qiyâs was Abû Hanîfa,’ they say. They wear their ring on the index finger of their right hand. They say that the title ‘Amîr-ul-mu’minîn’ belongs only to Alî by rights. They curse his enemies and know them as disbelievers. They say, ‘Formerly, Shâfi’î satirized Abû Hanîfa. Later he became his partner in his villainous path and accompanied him to his destiny: the fire. The Sunnîs abandoned love of Alî and joined the wrongdoers and the cruel in their journey to Hell. When Abû Bakr was intent upon caliphate, Alî embarrassed and discomfitted him and his followers. This is the path of Âl-i-Rasûl.”

This word for word translation from the heretics’ book is intended to alert the true Muslims to the heinous intentions lurking behind the sophisms. We owe Allâhu ta’âlâ infinite gratitude, for the Islamic scholars confute their arguments with authentic documents and prove that the path that these heretics have been following is quite wrong. Qiyâs means to elucidate the religious commandments that are not openly stated in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and in hadîth-i-sherîfs. Satan did not practise qiyâs. It opposed itself to the commandment (of Allâhu ta’âlâ). The heretic tries to dissimulate the grudge he harbours towards Imâm a’zam Abû Hanîfa by misrepresenting Satan’s opposition and denial as qiyâs, (which is one of the methods used by the Islamic scholars, particularly by the great Imâm Abû Hanîfa, for the benevolent purpose of exploring the hidden rules and commandments in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and in hadîth-i-sherîfs,) and thereby to camouflage his ulterior plan to demolish the Islamic religion by blackening the name of the great Islamic scholar.

That the book Husniyya was written by a Jewish enemy of Islam is reported in the book Tuhfa-i-ithnâ ash’ariyya, which is in Persian and was reproduced by Hakîkat Kitâbevi (in Istanbul, Turkey). It is a palpable fact that the book Husniyya was written by a Jew for the purpose of generating discord among Muslims and thereby demolishing Islam from the interior. His most deadly weapon is the casuistry whereby he misrepresents the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat as if they were enemies of the Ahl-i-Bayt. In point of fact, it is written in our books that the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat had very profound love and respect for the Ahl-i-Bayt and that every statement made by (any individual member of) the Ahl-i-Bayt was an authentic documentary source whereon they based their religious instructions. It is such a shameless effrontery to misrepresent the lovers of the Ahl-i-Bayt as their enemies. It is very clever of him to write a scenario in which the protagonist is a concubine who gets into a discussion with the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat and disgraces them with arguments that they cannot confute. He tries to smear the dirt of his infidelity and animus on the great Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ by asserting that the concubine had learned her knowledge from Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq. His assertions are refuted one by one with antitheses based on the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs in the translation of Sharh-i-’aqâid by Sirri Pâsha of Crete; in the book Milal wa Nihâl (by Abul Fat-h Muhammad bin Abdulkarîm Shihristânî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’); in the commentary of Qasîda-i-Amâlî by Ahmad Âsim Efendi ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, who was at the same time the translator of the Arabic dictionary Qâmûs, written by Muhammad Ya’qûb Fîrûzâbâdî (729 [1329 A.D.], Fîrûzâbâd, which is to the South of Shîrâz, Iran – 816 [1414 A.D.], Zebîd, Yemen); in the Turkish book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye; and in Documents of the Right Word. (The book Qasîda-i-Amâlî was written by Alî Ûshî bin ’Uthmân of Ferghâna (d. 575 [1180 A.D.])). Sayyid Ayyûb bin Siddîq ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ relates the following event in the sixty-third episode in the book Chihâr yâr-i-ghuzîn: There was a heretic named Abdulmajîd in the city of Kûfa [today’s Baghdâd]. One day he visited Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ and asked the following question:

Ja’far Sâdiq: Abû Bakr as-siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ is the highest of them all.

J.S.: Allâhu ta’âlâ has declared him to be the second person after His Messenger. There cannot be an honour higher than that.

H: Didn’t Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ lie in the Messenger’s bed without any fear of the unbelievers?

J.S.: Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ entered the cave before the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’, and did not fear at all.

H: He wouldn’t have done so if he had not feared the unbelievers. Indeed, Allâhu ta’âlâ told Abû Bakr through His Messenger not to be afraid.

J.S.: His fear was lest the Messenger of Allah should suffer harm. He put his foot on a hole. The snake bit him several times. He did not withdraw his foot despite the unbearable pain lest the Messenger of Allah should be disturbed. He suppressed an interjection of pain not to wake the Messenger of Allah. If his fear had been for himself, he would not have put himself at risk of being poisoned to death.

H: The fifty-fifth âyat-i-kerîma of Mâida sûra, which purports, “Those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in rukû’),” praises Alî.

J.S.: The âyat-i-kerîma which purports, “Allâhu ta’âlâ will bring a tribe that will perform jihâd against apostates. Allâhu ta’âlâ will love them,” is about Abû Bakr as-siddîq and exalts him even higher.

H: The two hundred and seventy-fourth (274) âyat of Baqara sûra, which purports, “Those who (in charity) spend of their goods by night and by day, in secret and in public, ...,” praises Alî, doesn’t it?

J.S.: Wa-l-layl sûra lauds Abû Bakr as-siddîq and adds greatly to his honour. For, he donated forty thousand gold coins, leaving aside none for himself. Allâhu ta’âlâ sent Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ to His Messenger with the glad tidings, “I am pleased with Abû Bakr. Is he pleased with Me, too?” Abû Bakr answered, “I am pleased with Allâhu ta’âlâ, I am pleased (with Him), I am pleased (with Him).”

H: Alî is lauded in the nineteenth âyat of Tawba sûra, which purports, “Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allâhu ta’âlâ and the Last Day and strive with might and main in the cause of Allâhu ta’âlâ? They are not comparable. ...”

J.S.: The tenth âyat of Hadîd sûra, which purports, “Not equal among you are those who spent (freely) and fought, before the victory, (i.e. the conquest of Mekka,) (with those who did so later). They are higher in rank than those who spent (freely) and fought afterwards. ...,” lauds Abû Bakr. Abû Jahl [’Amr bin Hishâm bin Mughîra] attempted to hit the Messenger of Allah. At that moment Abû Bakr arrived and prevented him.

J.S.: It is true. Yet Allâhu ta’âlâ commends Abû Bakr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ îmân in the hundredth âyat of Tawba sûra, which purports, “The vanguard (of Islam) - the first of those who forsook (their homes) (the Muhâjirs) and of those who gave them aid (the Ansâr), ... Well-pleased is Allâhu ta’âlâ with them, ... For them hath He prepared Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein for ever...”, and in the thirty-third and thirty-fourth âyats of Zumar sûra, which purport, “And he who brings the Truth and he who confirms it...” “They shall have all that they wish for, in Paradise. ...” No one’s îmân has been praised so strongly. Whenever the Messenger of Allah said something, the Meccan disbelievers would contradict him, saying, “You are lying.” Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ would always be there to confirm: “You are telling the truth, O Messenger of Allah.”

H: Doesn’t Allâhu ta’âlâ complain in the hundred and fifty-fifth âyat of ’Imrân sûra, which purports, “Those of you who turned back on the day the two hosts met (at Uhud). It was Satan who caused them to fail, ...”?

J.S.: Quote the final part of the âyat, too! It purports, “... But Allâhu ta’âlâ has blotted out, (i.e. I have forgiven,) (their fault): ...”

H: It is farz (an open commandment of Allâhu ta’âlâ) to love Alî. The people suggested in the twenty-third âyat of Shûra sûra, which purports, “... Say: No reward do I ask of you for this, (i.e. for having taught you Islam and giving you the glad tidings of Paradise,) ... except the love of those near of kin, (i.e. my close relatives) ...,” are Alî, Fâtima, Hasan and Husayn.

J.S.: It is farz to invoke blessings on Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ and to love him. The tenth âyat of Hashr sûra purports, “And those Believers who came after them, (i.e. after the Muhâjirs and Ansâr,) (till the end of the world) say: Yâ Rabbî (O Allah)! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us, [i.e. the Ashâb-i-kirâm]!...” A word to the wise from the (book of) Tafsîr (entitled) Husaynî: “The Islamic scholars caution that if a person dislikes any one of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ he will not be included among the Believers mentioned in this âyat-i-kerîma, and he will be deprived of the blessing in the prayer for forgiveness.”

H: The Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “Hasan and Husayn are the highest youngsters of Paradise. And their father is even higher.”

J.S.: The blessed Prophet’s statement about Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ bears even higher recommendation. As I have heard from my father Muhammad Bâqir, our forefather Imâm Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ related: I was in the presence of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ one day, when Abû Bakr and ’Umar came round. Rasûlullah stated, “O Alî! These two are the highest male inhabitants of Paradise.”

J.S.: Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ was Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ wife. She will be with him in Paradise. Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ was Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ wife. She will be with him (in Paradise).

J.S.: The fifty-third and fifty-fourth âyats of Ahzâb sûra purport, “Do not hurt the Messenger of Allah. After him, never marry his wives with nikâh. Both these deeds are grave sins.” As is stated in the books of Tafsîr entitled Baydâwî and Husaynî, we must maintain our respect for the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ after his death by holding his blessed wives in respect.

H: Could you authenticate Abû Bakr’s caliphate with passages from the Qur’ân al-kerîm?

J.S.: I can furnish proof from the Torah and the Bible as well as from the Qur’ân al-kerîm. The hundred and sixty-fifth âyat of An’âm sûra purports, “Allâhu ta’âlâ hath made you (His) agents, inheritors of the earth: He hath raised you in ranks: some above others: ...” The fifty-fifth âyat of Nûr sûra purports, “Allâhu ta’âlâ has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them, (i.e. to the Israelites); ...” It is stated in (the books of Tafsîr entitled) Baydâwî and Husaynî that this âyat-i-kerîma informs about the ghayb (facts unknown to creatures), that the Qur’ân al-kerîm is the Word of Allâhu ta’âlâ, and that the (earliest) four Khalîfas, (i.e. Abû Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthmân, and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum ajma’în’,) are canonically lawful and rightly-guided Khalîfas. In the Torah and in the Bible, (in their undefiled originals), and also in the last âyat of Fat-h sûra it is purported, “Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ is the Messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst one another,...” This âyat-i-kerîma generalizes about all the Sahâba and implies the great honour attached to Abû Bakr. The latter half of this âyat purports, “... This is their similitude in the Taurah (Torah); and their similitude in the Gospel. ...” It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf reported on the authority of my forefather Alî, “Allâhu ta’âlâ gives me such miracles as He has given to none of His (other) prophets. On the Rising Day I shall be the first to rise from the grave. He will command me to summon my four Khalîfas. When I inquire, ‘Who are they, Yâ Rabbî?’ He will declare, ‘Abû Bakr.’ Upon this the ground will be cleft apart and Abû Bakr will rise from the grave before all. ’Umar will rise next, being followed by ’Uthmân and Alî, respectively. ...”

J.S.: The sublime meaning of the sixty-ninth âyat-i-kerîma of Zumar sûra is: “... The prophets and their witnesses, (or the martyrs,) will be brought forward (for the settlement of accounts; ...”

H: O, Ja’far! I have felt hatred towards the three Khalîfas throughout my life. Now I am penitent for it. Would Allâhu ta’âlâ forgive me if I made tawba?

J.S.: Make tawba right away! This tawba is a sign for your future happiness (in the Hereafter). If you had migrated to the Hereafter with your (former) heresy, your life of piety would have come to naught.

As is seen, all the Ahl-i-Bayt loved Abû Bakr and all the Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. If there really had been a concubine honoured with having seen Imâm-i-Ja’far Sâdiq and serving him, she, too, would necessarily have learned the greatness of the Ashâb-i-kirâm and she would have loved them all. This fact shows that the heretics living in Iran, Iraq and Syria are lying in the name of Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq.

When Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ passed away in the thirteenth year (of the Hegira), all the inhabitants of Medîna wept for him. When Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ heard about the sad news, he, too, wept and came (to Hadrat Abû Bakr’s house), saying, “So the caliphate is over.” He stood at the door and uttered the following words:

“Yâ Abâ Bakr! You were Rasûlullah’s darling, companion, fellow-sufferer, intimate, and counsellor. You were the earliest Believer. Your îmân (belief) was purer than that of us all. Your yaqîn (certitude of belief) was firmer and your fear of Allah was greater. You were the wealthiest and the most generous of all. You were the most compassionate and the most caring to the Messenger of Allah. Your sohbat (company, togetherness) with the Messenger of Allah was better than the sohbat of any of us. You are the champion of the beneficent! Your good deeds tower above ours. You are ahead of us in all kinds of goodness. Your position in the presence of the Messenger of Allah was the highest. You were the closest to him. In kindness and goodness and all sorts of refinement, in stature, age and mental capacity you were the most similar to the Messenger of Allah. May Allâhu ta’âlâ reward you profusely (for having always been by his side in all situations and under all conditions), for, at a time when others accused him of lying you would confirm him saying, “I believe you. You are telling the truth.” You were like his ears and eyes. Allâhu ta’âlâ honoured you with ‘sidq’ (=faithfulness) in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. You supported the Messenger of Allah at his hardest times. In times of peace you were in his presence, and in wartime you were at his side. You were the Khalîfa of his Ummat, and the protector of his religion. As the ignorant renounced his religion you gave new energy to Islam. As others were totally bemused, you came forward like a lion roaring. As others all dispersed, you abode by the path guided by Muhammad Mustafâ. You were the least talking, the most eloquent and the most literary of the Sahâba. Every statement you made, everything you found and everything you did were pure. Your heart was stronger than all ours, and your yaqîn (definite belief) was firmer. You would see the aftermath of everything in advance, and you would enlighten the (spiritually) retarded by guiding them into Islam. You were compassionate, forgiving and fatherly with the Muslims. You carried the heavy load of Islam. As others all failed to hold the right of Islam, you observed it perfectly. You were like a mountain that winds could not move. Your deeds were truth and knowledge. Your words were manly statements of truth. You extirpated all bigotries and heresies. You planted the tree of true religion. You made hardships easy for the Muslims. You extinguished the fire of apostasy. You restored the religion of Rahmân (Allâhu ta’âlâ, the Compassionate). You were energy for Islam and îmân. You occupy a very high position in heavens, among angels. Separation from you is a source of profound grievance for the Muhâjirîn and for the Ansâr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’.” He wept so bitterly that his blessed eyes shed blood. Then he went on:

“We welcome Allâhu ta’âlâ’s qadâ and qadar. We accept the sufferings He has inflicted on us. Yâ Abâ Bakr! After the painful bereavement of the Messenger of Allah, no other disaster that befell on us has been more grievous than your death to us. You were a shelter, a support, a shade for the Believers. You were very harsh and fervent against the hypocrites. May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless you with the presence of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’! May He bless us with patience and rewards for the grievance of parting with you! May He protect us against eccentricities and heresies in your absence.” All the Ashâb-i-kirâm listened to Hadrat Alî’s words quietly ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’. At the end they all sobbed bitterly.

These words of Hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ provide positive proof for the purport of the latter part of the final âyat of Tawba sûra. This fact exposes the shameless casuistry in the machinations wrought out all through the book entitled Husniyya and uncloaks the scheme for demolishing Islam from within disguised under the blessed appellation of Ahl-i-Bayt. It is incumbent upon every individual Believer to tear that book to pieces and thereby to eliminate a virus that may bring ruination to young Muslim Alawîs and Shiites.

14– He says, “When the Messenger asked for a pen and paper to write a booklet for the Sahâba during his death agony, ’Umar prevented the others from doing the commandment of the Messenger of Allah. On the other hand, it is a fact written in the Qur’ân al-kerîm that all his utterances are Wah-y.” Please read the twenty-eighth (28) chapter of the third fascicle of Endless Bliss for detailed information about the event the impostor is trying to garble, and for the elucidations presented!

15– He asserts, “On the day when the Messenger of Allah passed away, the munâfiqs (hypocrites) among the Sahâba sat together at a place called ‘Saqîfa-i-banî Sa’îda’, and began to discuss the caliphate. A few of them were suggested that they should take the office. When one of them, namely Sa’d bin Ubâda, accepted the suggestion, his son drew his sword and said to his father, ‘How will you explain this to Alî? At ‘Ghadir Hum’ the Messenger held him by the hand and told you that he made him (Alî) your Khalîfa and Imâm. And you paid homage to him. How come you give up now?’ Then ’Umar drew his sword in homage to Abû Bakr, whereupon Abû Ubayda and twenty other miscreants paid homage to him (Abû Bakr). None of them performed the (prayer termed) Salât of Janâza (for the Prophet). Three days later Alî joined them and they assembled in the mosque. ’Umar walked up to Alî and said, ‘Most of the people paid homage to Abû Bakr. You and the other Hâshimites should do so, too.’ Zubayr drew his sword and began to make for ’Umar. Yet Alî stopped him. Alî turned to Abû Bakr and ’Umar and said, ‘O Sahâbîs, you have disobeyed the Prophet and Allah. Caliphate is my right. Give me my right.’ When ’Umar answered that they would not pay homage to him, Alî said, ‘I would kill hypocrites and enemies of religion like you if the Messenger had not told me not to do so in his will.’ Abû Bakr and Abû Ubayda said, ‘O Alî, you are young. You are thirty-three years old. Abû Bakr is old. You will get the caliphate anyway finally. Do not rekindle the fire that has just gone out!’ Alî said, ‘Caliphate belongs to us. It’s no one else’s right.’ Bashîr bin Sa’d Ansârî said, ‘O Alî. No one would have paid homage to Abû Bakr if you had said these words earlier.’ ’Umar discontinued the meeting for fear of Alî’s being paid homage to. The following day Salmân, Abû Zer, Mikdâd, Ammâr bin Yâser, Burayda-i-Eslemî, Sahl bin Hanîf, Huzayfat-ibni Thâbit, and Abâ Ayyûb al-Ansârî suggested to kill Abû Bakr. Alî did not agree with them and said, ‘The Messenger told me this: O Alî. You and I are like Hârûn (Aaron) and Mûsâ (Moses). The Israelites abandoned Hârûn and worshipped an ox. Likewise, my Ummat will abandon you and choose others.’ On Friday the Sahâba came to the mosque and tried to dissuade him from that offensive arrogation. Negotiations tended towards a stalemate. Three days later a crowded army recruited by Khâlid bin Walîd and led by ’Umar assembled before the mosque and marched against Alî. Salmân stood up and said to them, ‘The Messenger informed that you were dogs of Hell. Alî went to his home. ’Umar forced everyone out in the street to pay homage (to Abû Bakr). The tribe called Hazrajj and Abû Ubâda and nine thousand other people refused to pay homage. Another group that would not pay homage included ten thousand people with Mâlik bin Nuwayra in the lead. This unitarian Believer was slain during salât by Khâlid bin Walîd, sent forth by ’Umar. How could one ever call this ‘Ijmâ-i-Ummat’?”

Leaving the book alone with its whimsical improvisations, let us direct our attention to historical documents.

Tabarî, a tome of history, was written by Muhammad bin Jarîr (Tabarî) ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’. The first page of the third volume of its Turkish version begins as follows:

Since the beginning of Rasûlullah’s illness (of death) Abû Bakr as-Siddîq would never go to his home. He would stay in the Masjîd-i-sa’âdat and steadily attend to Rasûlullah’s needs. Rasûlullah yielded his blessed soul on the twelfth of Rabî’ul-awwal, Monday, in the eleventh year of the Hegira. His blessed head was on the breast of Hadrat Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’. Hadrat Alî went out sobbing. Hadrat Abû Bakr entered and saw Hadrat Âisha sobbing and slapping her own face with her hand. Rasûl ‘alaihis-salâm’ lay there, his face covered with a cloak. He removed the cloak and saw that the blessed Prophet was dead. Replacing the cloak, he walked into the mosque, made khutba and said, “O Sahâba! The Messenger of Allah has passed away. Allâhu ta’âlâ has blessed him with death. Should there be anyone (among you) worshipping Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, let him know that he is dead. And those who worship Allâhu ta’âlâ; let them know that Allâhu ta’âlâ is never dead.” Then he recited the hundred and forty-fourth âyat of Âl-i-’Imrân sûra, which purports: “Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ is no more than an Apostle: many were the Apostles that passed away before him. (He, too, will pass away.) If he died or were slain, will ye then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allâhu ta’âlâ; on the other hand, Allâhu ta’âlâ will swiftly reward those who abide by (their slavery to Him) with gratitude.”

Mughîra-t-abni-Shu’ba came in with the news that the Ansâr had assembled and elected Sa’d bin Ubâda Khalîfa. Hadrat Abû Bakr held Hadrat ’Umar by the hand and they went out together. On the way they met Hadrat Abû Ubayda bin Jerrâh. [Abû Ubayda ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was one of the ten people who are called Ashara-i-mubashshara because they had been blessed with the Glad Tidings that they would go to Paradise (after death). He took part in all the Holy Wars. He was a man of great valour. He was commander-in-chief of the army that marched into Damascus. According to a report in Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ, the Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ had commended him as follows: “This is the trustworthy of my Ummat.” He was fifty-eight [58] years old when he passed away in the eighteenth year (of the Hegira). Genies were heard to mourn over his death. So, he was a blessed person who had been blessed with the Glad Tidings of Paradise and praised with the commendation “the trustworthy of my Ummat” by the Messenger of Allah and who spent his life attacking the enemies of religion before the Messenger of Allah. It is a fact as manifest as the sun that a Jewish book that shamelessly labels such a high person as a ‘miscreant’ must have been written for the purpose of shattering Islam.] Hadrat Abû Ubayda also told them that the Ansâr had come together in Banî Sa’îda’s house and made Sa’d bin Ubâda Khalîfa. The three people went to the place. They saw that the tribes of Aws and Hazraj had assembled and were willing to pay homage to Sa’d bin Ubâda ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, who lay ill. There was a large crowd. They suggested to Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’: “Let us have two Khalîfas; one to represent you, and one from amongst us!” Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ made a long admonitory speech, in which he quoted âyat-i-kerîmas and lavished compliments on the Ansâr. Then, quoting the hadîth-i-sherîf, “The Imâm (Leader, Khalîfa) must be of Qoureishi origin,” he concluded, “Let us choose our Khalîfa from among the Qoureishi people. In his view you will be as honourable as you were in the view of the Messenger. I have two candidates from the Sahâba. Both of them are Qoureishi notables. They are ’Umar and Alî.” The Ansâr were inclined to pay homage to Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. ’Umar was fearful of another chaotic situation and suggested, “O Abâ Bakr! You are of Qoureishi origin! Hold out your hand, and we’ll pay homage to you.” “You hold out your hand, and let’s pay homage to you,” was Abû Bakr’s answer. ’Umar pulled Abû Bakr’s hand and paid homage to him. When the Ansâr saw this, they followed ’Umar’s example and unanimously paid homage to Abû Bakr. However, the rumour that the Ansâr were going to pay homage to Sa’d bin Ubâda had spread throughout Medîna. All the Sahâba came together and marched to prevent the nomination. ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ met them and shouted: “O people! Come and pay homage to the Prophet’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ Khalîfa!” That day all the inhabitants of Medîna paid homage to Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. Thus a very grave conflict was avoided. Hadrat Alî, Hasan and Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ were busy consoling the Ahl-i-Bayt. Therefore, they were the only three people who paid homage (to Abû Bakr) later.

The following day, Tuesday, the Sahâba came together in the mosque. ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ mounted the minbar and said, “O Ashâb-i-kirâm! You must be grateful to Allâhu ta’âlâ for having gathered you around Abû Bakr, who is the best of you. If there is anyone who has not paid homage yet, let him do so!” Then Abû Bakr as-Siddîq said, “O people! I would like you to know that I accept the office only lest there should be discord and bloodshed among the Sahâba. I am human, like any one of you. It is human nature to make mistakes. When I do not make mistakes, pay gratitude to Allâhu ta’âlâ. And when I am wrong, show me the right course! Obey me as long as I obey Allâhu ta’âlâ. Yet if I am disobedient (to His commandments), pay me back with your disobedience to me! Now, let us offer our service to our Prophet ‘alaihis-salâm’. Let us pay him his due. Let us wash him, perform the salât (termed salât of janâza) for him, and place him into his blessed grave.” He dismounted the minbar and went to the Messenger’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ house. He lifted the cloak covering the most beloved Prophet’s face and smelled the blessed face, relishing the most delicate musky odour that emanated from his blessed face and hair. He put his face on the Messenger’s blessed face and said, “I would sacrifice my mother and father for your sake; how beautiful you smell, both alive and dead!” Then quoting a hadîth-i-sherîf that read, “My Ahl-i-Bayt should wash me (when I am dead),” and which he had heard from the Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’, he ordered, “Let Abbâs and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ wash him.” Abbâs and his son Fadl came to the place. Hadrat Alî joined them. The (new) Khalîfa, (i.e. Hadrat Abû Bakr,) said, “O Alî! Wash the Messenger of Allah.” Then he turned to Rasûlullah’s servant Usâma and told him to assist with the washing. He and the other Sahâbîs waited at the door. He ordered Aws bin Hawlî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, one of the Ansâr, to go in and help the others. They washed the blessed Prophet with his garment on, wrapped him in three white shrouds and fumigated him with incense. Abû Talha dug a grave. They could not reach an agreement concerning the place of the grave. Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ quoted the following hadîth, which he had heard from Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’: “Prophets are buried whereever they pass away.” His bed was removed and a grave was dug at its place. The Messenger of Allah was placed beside the blessed grave and his Sahâba came in groups and performed the salât (of janâza) for him without an imâm to conduct the salât. The (prayers of) salât continued till midnight. He was placed in the blessed grave at midnight. It was Wednesday night, (i.e. the night between Tuesday and Wednesday). Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ passed away on Monday. It was Monday also when he honoured the world with his presence. It was Monday, again, when he placed the (sacred stone called) Hajar-ul-aswad on the wall of Kâ’ba when he was sixteen years old. On another Monday he left Mekka for the Hijrat (Hegira). And it was another Monday when he arrived in Medîna.

Three days after the burial Hadrat Abû Bakr gave the following order: “The Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ sent you out for Holy War under the command of Usâma. Yet the Prophet’s illness intervened and the task could not be fulfilled. We must execute the commandment before doing anything else! Do not be remiss in this duty! Be ready for the Holy War.” He prepared and motivated the Sahâba for the Holy War. Usâma was twenty-two years old then. A report of insurrection in the Arabian deserts was received. The Sahâba were of the opinion that they should not leave Medîna under Usâma’s command and that otherwise the rebels would enter the town and slay the Khalîfa. Yet their objections and insistent discouragements proved futile when Hadrat Abû Bakr persevered, “We shall do Rasûlullah’s commandment at all costs. I cannot replace a commander liked by Rasûlullah.” So the army left Medîna, Usâma on horse and the others on foot. The Khalîfa began his short farewell speech to the Sahâba as follows: “My first piece of advice is that you should obey Usâma.” Then, turning to Usâma, he ordered, “Go to the place commanded by the Messenger of Allah! Then go to Damascus.” It took Usâma forty days to go to the tribe of Huzâ’a, slaughter the apostates, carry out the task, and come back with victory to Medîna.

The people of Arabia had abandoned Islam; they had become apostates. The Khalîfa sent Khâlid bin Walîd for the chastisement of the apostates. Khâlid routed the ringleaders of the apostates. Those who survived the slaughter returned to Islam. The Khalîfa sent the officials of zakât for the collection of zakât. Mâlik bin Nuwayra, one of the notables of the tribe of Banî Tamîm, had been authorized by Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ to collect the zakâts of his tribe. Mâlik’s tribe paid tribune to Abû Bakr and sent their zakâts. A Christian woman named Sijâh bin Hâris of Mosul came to Hidjâz (Hejaz) with pretensions to being a prophet. She invited Mâlik (bin Nuwayra) to her religion. Mâlik’s answer was: “I will fight for you. But let me have time to think over converting to your religion.” The following morning Sijâh said to him, “I have received wah-y from my Rabb (Allah). You shall fight the members of Banî Tamîm who deny me.” Mâlik fought and won. He slaughtered numerous Muslims and caused many others to lapse into Sijâh’s iconoclasm. When Sijâh improved in power, she went to Yemen to support Musaylama-t-ul-kazzâb[49]. Khâlid (bin Walîd) marched against Mâlik although he had not been ordered to do so by the Khalîfa. Mâlik sent the zakâts that he had collected to Khâlid, who accepted them and reported the event to the Khalîfa. Upon this the Khalîfa sent an order to Khâlid telling him not to inflict any punishment on villages whence he heard voices calling the azân (adhân). A cavalry detachment caught Mâlik, took him to Khâlid, and said that they had not heard any voices calling the azân. Abû Qatâda ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, (who was in the detachment, too,) said he had (heard voices of azân). When Khâlid asked Mâlik why he had become a follower of Sijâh, he replied, “I am not her follower. I only made peace with her. I did not join her religion.” Yet when he accidentally blurted out the expression, “your master said so,” Khâlid ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ became angry and exclaimed, “You dirty dog, you mean he is our Prophet and not yours? You are a hypocrite. You became a follower of Sijâh! You killed so many Muslims for her sake.” He had him decapitated. Abû Qatâda did not like it, went back to Medîna and related the events to Hadrat ’Umar. Upon this ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ went to the Khalîfa (Hadrat Abû Bakr) and said, “Khâlid killed Muslims cruelly. Call Khâlid back and punish him!” The Khalîfa replied, “O ’Umar! Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, ‘Khâlid is the sword of Allah.’ How can I even chide him despite this commendation about him?” Mâlik’s brother came and said, “My brother was a Muslim who had paid homage to you. I demand my brother’s blood from Khâlid.” The Khalîfa sent for Khâlid. When ’Umar saw Khâlid he collared him, took his arrows and broke them to pieces, and castigated him, saying, “Don’t you ever fear Allah? You killed a Muslim.” When the Khalîfa asked Khâlid to explain himself, he said, “O Khalîfa! Didn’t you hear the Messenger of Allah say, “Khalîd is the sword of Allah’?” “I swear in the name of Allah that I did,” replied the Khalîfa. Khâlid concluded presently, “The sword of Allah would behead only unbelievers and hypocrites.” “You are telling the truth. Go back to your office now,” ordered the Khalîfa, fully appeased. When ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ heard about this, he regretted Khâlid’s having escaped punishment. This is the end of the passage we have translated from Tabarî.

Abdulqâdir-i-Geilânî ‘qaddas-Allâhu sirrah-ul-’azîz’, one of the descendants of Ahl-i-Bayt, quotes, in his book Ghunya, the statements made by his ancestor Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ on the very day when Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ were to be elected Khalîfa.

According to a narration in the hundred and fifty-fifth page of the second volume of the (Turkish) translation of Mawâhib-i-ladunniyya, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ said to Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, “Whatever Hârûn (Aaron) was in relation to Mûsâ (Moses) ‘alaihim-as-salâm’, you are the same with relation to me. Only, no prophet shall come after me.” Hence, the proximity implied is not in prophethood but in subordination. “As Hârûn represented Mûsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ (in his absence) before death (of the latter), you are my proxy in my absence as long as I live,” is the meaning that should be derived from the hadîth-i-sherîf. In fact, Sherefeddîn Husayn bin Muhammad Tayyibî interprets it identically. It is a very well known fact that Hârûn’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ death was previous to Mûsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’. Then, not only the hadîth-i-sherîf should not be construed as an implication that Imâm Alî were to be Khalîfa immediately after the Messenger of Allah, but it also presupposed that he was not going to be (the first) Khalîfa.

According to a narration in the fifth episode of the book Manâqib-i-chihâr yâr-i-ghuzîn, Abdullah ibn ’Umar is quoted, in Bukhârî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’, as having related, “In the time of the Messenger of Allah we used to talk on the virtues of the Sahâba. We would hold Abû Bakr the highest, then ’Umar, then ’Uthmân, and then Alî.” And ibn Munzir quotes Imâm Alî as having stated, “The highest member of this Ummat (Muslims) is Abû Bakr.”

It is stated as follows in the thirty-fourth episode of Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’: A huge amount of ghanîma was won and brought home after a Holy War. As ’Umar, the time’s Khalîfa, was distributing the shares of those who canonically had a right from one-fifth of the ghanîma, Imâm Hasan (Hadrat Alî’s elder son and at the same time our Prophet’s grandson) came. The Khalîfa gave him a thousand dirhams (3.365 kg ~ 7.411 pounds ~ 0.529 st) of silver. Then Hadrat Husayn came, and another thousand dirhams was given to him. A while later the Khalîfa’s own son, Abdullah came. The Khalîfa gave him five hundred dirhams (of silver). Abdullah was offended. He said, “You have given Hasan and Husayn more than you have given me although they are only small children and I am a grown up wrestler. I have taken part in many Holy Wars, attacked the enemy and slain many an unbeliever before Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. Is it fair to give me less than the amount you have given them?” “O my son! So you hold yourself equal to them? They have a father named Alî and a mother named Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’. And their grandfather is Fakhr-i-’âlam (the Master of Worlds) ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’.” When Imâm Alî heard about these words, he said, “I heard Rasûlullah state, ‘’Umar is the light of the people of Paradise and the nûr (haloe, light) of Islam.’ ” Hasan and Husayn informed ’Umar with the Glad Tidings.

Abu-l-mu’în Meymûn bin Muhammad Nasafî makes the following observations in his book Tamhîd: It was not stated (beforehand) who the (first) Khalîfa would be. If it had been stated that caliphate belonged to Alî and his offspring, the Sahâba would have acknowledged it and the report would have reached us. It would be a very grave slander against the Ashâb-i-kirâm to assert that those great people withheld a clearly stated commandment. The Ashâb-i-kirâm conveyed to us all the pieces of religious information, including how to wash ourselves in the lavatory. If there had been a clear statement, or even an implication concerning caliphate, it would definitely have been conveyed to us by Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, by his children, and by the Sahâba. When Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ passed away, The Sahâba came together in the hall of Banî Sa’îda and recited the hadîth-i-sherîf, “If a person does not know the Khalîfa of his time, his death happens like that of an irreligious person.” They concluded that it would not be permissible to spend one day without a Khalîfa. Therefore, it is disbelief not to know the Khalîfa. For the Khalîfa is indispensable for the performance of some Islamic commandments. For instance, some religious practices and social activities, such as the performance of Friday and ’Iyd prayers and (provision of conditions for) orphans’ marriage, are dependent upon the Khalîfa. To deny the Khalîfa is, therefore, to deny the (Islamic commandments termed) farz, which, in its turn, means disbelief (in Islam itself). When one of the Ansâr suggested that there could be two Khalîfas, “one from amongst us and one from your group,” Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ stood up and said, “I think caliphate goes (best) with Alî. I want him to be Khalîfa.” Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ presently stood up, drew his sword, and said, “O Abâ Bakr! You are the Khalîfa of Allah and His Messenger! The Rasûl-i-Ekrem ‘sal-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ put you before us all. No one can go before you. The Messenger of Allah ordered me, ‘Go and order Abû Bakr to be imâm for my Ummat!’ A person authorized by the Messenger of Allah to conduct our religious practices is welcome to conduct our worldly practices.” Since the Rasûl-i-ekrem had made him his Khalîfa to conduct the public worship (termed salât jamâ’at) for his place, he was nicknamed ‘Khalîfa-i-Rasûl (The Messenger’s Khalîfa)’. All the Sahâba liked Hadrat Alî’s statements and reached consensus on the caliphate of Hadrat Abû Bakr. Then they ran back to perform their (final) service to the Messenger of Allah. After the interment, the Khalîfa made (a speech termed) Khutba and concluded, “You have brought me to the commanding post although I am not the best among you. Accept me (as your Khalîfa).” Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ stood up again and said, “We are not to refuse or accept you. Who could ever draw you back from the position to exercise command over us where you have been appointed by the Messenger of Allah?” Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ grew thinner and thinner during his caliphate, so much so that he dwindled to a pitiable appearance at last. When his blessed daughter Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ asked him what the matter was with him, he said, “O my dearest child, the light of my eyes. The fire of separation from Muhammad Mustafâ ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ has been melting me away.”

Abdullah ibn Abbâs related: When the Izâ jâ-a (Nasr) sûra[50] was revealed, my father Abbâs said to Alî, “This sûra informs (us) that Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ’ ’alaihi wa sallam’ is to pass away soon. Who do you think he will appoint (as) Khalîfa (after him)?” Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ requested, “O my uncle. Please do go and ask Rasûlullah. If he gives the office to us, this will prevent contensions between us and the Qoureish. If he is to give it to someone else, then beg him to command that person to protect our rights.” When Abbâs found the Messenger of Allah alone and asked him, the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “O my uncle! Allâhu ta’âlâ has given the caliphate to Abû Bakr. Acquiesce in whatever he says so that you will attain salvation and happiness. He who obeys him will find the right path.” If a person believes the fact that Hadrat Abû Bakr was a rightly-guided Khalîfa and loves all the Ashâb-i-kirâm, he has found the right path.

Salmân-i-Fârisî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was one of the greatest Sahâbîs. He was praised in a number of hadîth-i-sherîfs. Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ appointed him governor of Medayn. He passed away there in the thirty-fifth year (of the Hegira). That a person of his greatness could have said, “dogs of Hell,” about Imâm ’Umar and a great host of Sahâbîs, and ascribed this extremely abominable slander to the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, is not something that a Muslim could ever be expected to believe. For there are various hadîth-i-sherîfs that prohibit maligning any one of the Ashâb-i-kirâm. A Jew only would venture the effrontery to write the slander that Salmân-i-Fârisî not only disignored all those hadîth-i-sherîfs but also concocted false hadîths. Indeed, a hadîth-i-sherîf which is quoted on the authority of Bukhârî and Muslim in Manâwî reads, “Holders of bid’at[51] are dogs of Hell.” The dogs of Hell censured in this hadîth-i-sherîf are people who have deviated from the true path of Ahl as-sunnat and who traduce the Ashâb-i-kirâm. The book Husniyya reverses the fact.

16– The Persian Jew named Murtadâ fibs as follows in his book entitled Husniyya: “The élite as well as the rank and file among the Ummat sent letters to various Muslim cities and provided a consensus on slaying ’Uthmân. In fact, some thirty thousand Muslims from Egypt arrived in Medîna to voice a complaint about ’Uthmân’s cruelties. These people joined the ijmâ-i-ummat and together they killed ’Uthmân in an unsightly manner, tied his feet with ropes, and dragged him around all day long. Muslims came in groups and kicked his corpse, saying, ‘What made you deem it permissible to perpetrate all those cruelties on Muslims?’ ”

On the other hand, the event is related with unanimous exactitude in all the literature on the Islamic history. The Turkish version of the grand work of history entitled Tabarî, for instance, provides the following account in the hundred and seventy-fifth page of its third book:

During the caliphate of Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ there lived a Jew named Abdullah bin Saba’ in Yemen. He had perused quite a number of books on antiquity and was awaiting an opportunity to ingratiate himself with the Khalîfa by simulating a dramatic conversion to Islam in his presence. With this ruse in mind he came to Medîna and, so to speak, became a Muslim. The Khalîfa, however, did not even pay attention to his soi-disant devotion. Thwarted, he launched a nationwide smear campaign against the Khalîfa. No sooner had the Khalîfa been notified of the Jewish convert’s libellous activities against him than he had the villain deported from Medîna. Yet the Jew was too dogged to give up; he went to Egypt and resumed his character assassination against the Khalîfa. Owing to his very adroitly exploited scholarship, he did not have to take pains to lure the ignorant and soon made a ring of sensation-fanciers around himself. The slogans which he most frequently insinuated were, “Every Prophet had a vizier for himself. Our Prophet’s vizier is Alî. Caliphate was his right. ’Uthmân appropriated his right.” He enticed the fellahs (Egyptian peasants) into saying that ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was a disbeliever and had Abdullah bin Sa’d, the governor of Egypt, write complaints about the Khalîfa. Four thousand Egyptians came to Medîna and told the Khalîfa their complaints about him. The Khalîfa answered all their interrogations and proved in the light of âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs that he was right. So the army of Egyptians went back home. A year later, another huge crowd arrived, four thousand people from Egypt and four thousand from Iraq. When the people of Medîna took up arms and asked why they were there, they stated their intentions to make hajj (pilgrimage). So the people laid down their weapons. However, they were there for the purpose of deposing Hadrat ’Uthmân. The Egyptians’ candidate for caliphate was Hadrat Alî, while the Iraqi group preferred Hadrat Talha. When the Egyptians told Hadrat Alî their intentions to make him Khalîfa, he reproved them, saying, “Our Prophet ‘alaihis-salâm’ foretold that an accursed army would be encamped at the very site you have been stationed at the moment.” That night the Khalîfa ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ visited Hadrat Alî and told him to persuade the army to go back. Hadrat Alî obeyed the Khalîfa’s order and the following morning he counselled the army (to go back). The army was leaving, when Hadrat Alî came to the Khalîfa with the suggestion to replace the governor of Egypt and appoint the Egyptians’ candidate as the new governor. So the Khalîfa appointed Muhammad bin Abî Bakr as the new governor. The Egyptians and the new governor set out for Egypt. Yet on the way they found a letter written by the Khalîfa on one of the heralds. It contained a commandment from the Khalîfa to the replaced governor and said, “Accept the people who will be there soon.” At that time handwritings did not have any diacritical marks, which have phonemic functions in some contemporary languages as well as in Arabic today and which diversify the meanings of morphological entities which are otherwise identical, -the same written form, for instance, means ‘accept’ or ‘kill’, depending on the number and the place of the diacritical dots. It was the latter sense wherein the Egyptians happened to construe the word used in the letter. Terribly indignant, they turned back, making the Iraqi group turn back with them, and besieged the Khalîfa’s house. Twenty days later, on a Friday night, (which is the night previous to Friday,) Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ manifested himself to Hadrat ’Uthmân in a dream and blessed him with the Glad Tidings, “Yâ ’Uthmân (O ’Uthmân)! Tonight you will have iftâr[52] with us!” The soldiers burned the gate and entered the yard. Merwan (bin Hakem) was in the yard with five hundred guards under his command. They fought. Blood flowed like a stream. The five hundred guards fought to death. Merwan collapsed with a deep wound. Muhammad bin Abî Bakr was first to enter the house. Yet, moved by the Khalîfa’s words, he went back out. Then Kinâna bin Beshîr, one of the Egyptians, martyred the Khalîfa as he was reading the Qur’ân al-kerîm. They plundered the palace. Alî, Talha, Sa’îd and Sa’d ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’, four of the ten blessed people called Ashara-i-mubashshara, did not even go out of their homes. All the people grieved. It was the eighteenth day, Friday, of the month of Zilhijja in the thirty-fifth year of the Hegira. The troops coming for help from Kûfa and Egypt were too late. The Khalîfa was eighty-two years old. The time was late afternoon. Three days later, three of his relatives carried him out of the house and buried him in the cemetery of Bakî’. So badly terror-stricken were the people that nobody dared attend the interment. Thus Abdullah bin Saba’ attained his wish and reaped the fruits of his labour. He started the first fire of anarchy in the Islamic world and inflicted the first wound on Islam.

And now this book is trying to rekindle the fire of anarchy and discord, to divide Muslims into groups and to confuse people’s minds by disintering the subversive and seditious sophisms invented by the notorious Jew (named Abdullah bin Saba’). Hadrat ’Uthmân’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ house was under siege, when the muadhdhin[53] called him to the mosque. He said, “I will not be able to come to the mosque for salât. Tell Alî to conduct the prayers.” So Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ conducted only the Friday prayer, appointing Abû Ayyûb al-Ansârî as his deputy to conduct the other prayers. During the siege the Khalîfa (Hadrat ’Uthmân) sent Abdullah bin Abbâs as his deputy on hajj. A couple of days later (after the Khalîfa’s martyrdom) the Egyptians went near Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ and said to him, “We have appointed you Khalîfa.” He refused it, saying, “Appoint someone else! I will pay homage to him.” Then they went to Talha, only to be refused once again. Five days later they sent the people of Medîna to Alî. He would not accept it despite all their earnest and insistent requests. The Egyptians were of the opinion that if they should go back without (having elected) the Khalîfa a number of tumults would arise and there would not be anyone to suppress them.

To avoid another possible fitna, Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ suggested that Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ Sahâba should pay homage first. They brought Talha and Zubayr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’. Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ said, “I am not disposed to accept the office. But the Muslims are without an Imâm now. If any one of you accept it I will pay homage to him.” Then, looking at Talha he added, “You are worthy to accept the honour more than anybody else is. Hold out your hand and I will pay homage to you.” “It would not devolve on me in your presence,” was the latter’s answer, which he complemented with a gesture of homage. Zubayr was the second to pay homage. Then the people followed their example and paid homage. It was the twenty-fifth day of Zilhijja. The (new) Khalîfa performed (the speech termed) Khutba. Then they performed the Friday prayer. The Khalîfa’s first operation was to dismiss Hadrat Mu’âwiya from (governorship of) Damascus and appoint Abdullah ibn Abbâs for his place. However, Abdullah ibn Abbâs would not accept it. His explanation for the refusal was, “Do not dismiss him. He has been governor there for a long time. The dismissal may cause fitna.” So the Khalîfa suspended the dismissal and Hadrat Abbâs did not go to Damascus. Yet a year later he reactivated the dismissal and replaced several other governors as well. Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ sent an army against the new governor, forcing him to return to Medîna. A herald from Damascus came with the report, “More than a hundred thousand Damascenes demand that you should retaliate for the blood of ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. Every day they come to the mosque and weep for ’Uthmân.”

As is seen, a Jewish convert was the instigator of the earliest fitna in Islam. He was the first sower of discord among Muslims. That today’s lâ-madhhabî people are his followers is manifest in their book.

A hadîth-i-sherîf quoted on the authority of Talha bin Abdullah ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ in the book Masâbîh reads as follows: “Every prophet has a companion. ’Uthmân is my companion in Paradise.”

Enes bin Mâlik ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ relates: ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was absent during (the oath of allegiance called) Bî’at-ur-ridwân. He had been sent to Mekka on a mission. The Messenger of Allah ‘alaihis-salâm’ held one of his blessed hands with the other and stated, “’Uthmân is (away) doing the mission of Allah and His Messenger. So I am making the oath of allegiance on his behalf.” Thereby he made his hand ’Uthmân’s hand.

Murra bin Kâ’b ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is quoted to have related the following event in Masâbîh: Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ was foretelling the imminent fitnas, when someone walked past. The Messenger pointed to him with his blessed hand and said, “On the day of fitna this person will be on hidâyat (guidance, the right path).” When I stood up and looked at the person, I saw that he was ’Uthmân.

The great scholar Mawlânâ Nûraddîn Abdurrahmân Jâmî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ relates the following event on the authority of Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ in his book Shawâhid-un-nubuwwa: (One day) Rasûlullah ‘alaihis-salâm’ said, “Yâ Âisha (O Âisha)! Send for one of my Sahâba.” When I asked, “Shall I send for Abû Bakr?” he did not answer. So I knew that Abû Bakr was not the person he wanted. Then I asked if I should send for ’Umar. There was no answer. I asked once again, “Shall I send for Alî, the son of your paternal uncle?” And his answer was silence once again. When I asked if I should ask for ’Uthmân, he stated, “Send for him. Let him come here.” When the Messenger of Allah ‘alaihis-salâm’ told him something he turned pale. During his caliphate (years later) his house was besieged. When he was asked why he would not resist, he said, “The Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ told me many things. I promised him. So I am being patient.” Hadrat Âisha concludes as follows: “Then I realized that that day the Messenger of Allah ‘alaihis-salâm’ had forewarned him about the event.”

Abdullah ibn Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ relates: On the day of Hunayn,[54] after the dispersal of the unbelievers Rasûlullah ‘alaihis-salâm’ and I were walking past someone, when the blessed Messenger of Allah said to the person, “O you the enemy of Allah! Allâhu ta’âlâ does not like you.” When I attempted to remind that that person disliked the Qoureishis, the Best of Mankind stated, “Yes, he dislikes ’Uthmân.”

Abdullah ibn Abbâs quotes Rasûlullah as having stated, “I swear (in the name of Allah) that ’Uthmân will save seventy thousand people of my Ummat (Muslims) from going to Hell by doing shafâ’at (intercession) for them.”

Some time after giving his daughter Ruqayya in marriage to ’Uthmân, Rasûlullah asked his daughter, “How do you find ’Uthmân bin Affân?” When the blessed lady replied that she found him virtuous and good, the best of fathers observed, “O my dearest daughter! Show extra deference to ’Uthmân. For, of all my Sahâba he bears the closest moral and behavioural resemblance to me!”

Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was planning to enter into another marriage in addition to his married life with Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’. Rasûl’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ blessed heart was hurt when he heard about his son-in-law’s intention. He would not forgive him despite his apology and renunciation. Abû Bakr tried to intercede, yet the blessed Prophet would still not forgive him. ’Umar’s intercession was futile, too. Finally ’Uthmân offered his intercession, and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was forgiven this time. When the blessed Prophet was asked why (he had forgiven his son-in-law upon ’Uthmân’s intercession), he explained, “So virtuous is the person whose shafâ’at (intercession) I have accepted that Allâhu ta’âlâ would replace the earth and the sky with each other if he asked Him to. Or, if he invoked, ‘Yâ Rabbî (O Allah)! Please forgive all the sins of all the Ummat of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’,’ He would forgive all Muslims.”

Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ did not have the money he needed for his forthcoming wedding with Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhâ’. He put his suit of armour up for sale. ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ saw the suit of armour as he was walking by the market place, and recognized it at first sight. He beckoned to the salesman, asked him how much the owner charged for the suit of armour, paid the priced four hundred dirhams of silver, took the suit home, and sent it to Alî along with another present, i.e. four hundred dirhams of silver. His brief message said: “This suit of armour is an honour which would weigh too heavy on anyone except you. And please do use the silver for incidental wedding expenditures. We would be so happy to know that you accept our apology.”

The great scholar Imâm Muhammad Pârisâ ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of the greatest Awliyâ, provides the following information in his book Fasl-ul-khitâb: Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ preached the following admonitions: “I have heard that some people hold me superior to Abû Bakr and ’Umar and ’Uthmân. Those people are hypocrites. They do so in order to sow discord among Muslims and to separate brothers from one another. The Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ forewarned me against them and told me to kill them at sight of them. They pretend to be Muslims although they are unbelievers and enemies of Islam. Being dirty inwardly, they boast of their mendacities. They defile the Qur’ân al-kerîm. They agree on irreligiousness. They malign the greatest Sahâbîs and even the Rasûl-i-ekrem. They dwell on the differences among the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Allâhu ta’âlâ will not forgive them. Their seniors tutor the juniors in heresy and discipline them as chronic heretics. They undermine Islam and spread bid’ats. A person who holds fast to the Sunnat (the true path guided by the Prophet) at that time will be superior to martyrs and devout worshippers, and sa’âdat (salvation and happiness) will be with him. (As for those separatists;) no one on the earth is baser than they are. The earth is cross with them. The sky shades them with condemnation. They are the worst people on the earth. They secrete fitna. They are known with the appellation ‘enjâs’ = (dirty beings) in the world of angels. They curse the Sahâba in their mosques, coffee-houses and schools, and they do it in the name of worship. Their hearts do not accomodate any human feelings. Allâhu ta’âlâ strips them of human appearance.” When the Sahâba heard these statements, they asked, “O Amîr-al-mu’minîn! What must we do if we live long enough to see that time?” He replied, “Be like the Hawârîs (Disciples) of Îsâ (Jesûs) ‘alaihis-salâm’! Learn our path. Do your best to adhere to the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ, to obey His Messenger, to love all his Sahâba, and to avoid the words and writings of those aberrant people! Abiding by the true path of Sunnat is better than deviation and heresy.”

Imâm Refî’uddîn, Tâj-ul-islâm ’Uthmân bin Alî Merendî quoted the following hadîth-i-sherîf on the authority of Abdullah bin ’Umar: Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “Allâhu ta’âlâ has made it farz (incumbent) upon you to perform (acts of worship such as) namâz (or salât), fast, hajj (pilgrimage) and zakât; and likewise He has made it farz upon you to love Abû Bakr as-Siddîq and ’Umar-ul-Fârûq and ’Uthmân Zin-nûrayn and Alî Murtadâ. If a person dislikes any one of these four people, none of his (acts of worship such as) namâz, fast, hajj and zakât will be accepted. On the Rising Day people with such hapless dislike will be driven to fire [of Hell].”

17– The heretic goes on as follows in the book Husniyya: “Imâm Ja’far Sadîq used to command (the temporary marriage contract termed) mut’a nikâh. For Allâhu ta’âlâ has canonically legitimized the nikâh termed mut’a in His âyat-i-jelîl which purports, ‘Pay the women whom you sexually utilize.’ (Mut’a nikâh means a temporary marriage contract made between a man and a woman. To realize it the man proposes to the woman to lend herself to him for a certain length of time in return for a certain sum of money and the woman accepts it (if she likes to) without any witnesses.) Scholars of Tafsîr and Fiqh agree on the fact that the âyat (we have quoted above) implies the mut’a nikâh. There is not another âyat or a hadîth-i-sherîf to invalidate this âyat. ’Umar, the time’s Khalîfa, took the liberty of banning this temporary marriage on the pretext that its practice had been causing fitna without being based on an âyat or hadîth. ’Umar bin Hasîn stated, ‘We practised the mut’a nikâh. It was never proscribed in âyats or hadîths.’ And Abdullah bin ’Umar observes, ‘My father’s word could not abrogate Rasûlullah’s sunnat.’ Everything is canonically permissible unless it is prohibited in âyats or hadîths.”

It is written in all the books of Tafsîr and Fiqh that the twenty-fourth âyat-i-kerîma of Nisâ sûra, which purports, “... Seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers as prescribed;...” does not imply mut’a nikâh. It implies the mahr, i.e. the money (which the bridegroom has to pay the bride during the Islamic contract of marriage called) nikâh. For instance, the âyat-i-kerîma quoted above is explicated as follows in the twenty-sixth page of the Tafsîr-i-Baydâwî, and in its annotation entitled Tafsîr-i-Shaikhzâda: “This âyat-i-kerîma is about nikâh, which is canonically legal (in the Islamic religion). It does not legitimize mut’a nikâh. As a matter of fact, it commands the payment of mahr. The kind of nikâh termed mut’a was canonically legal formerly. Later, it was prohibited. Islam does not approve of a temporary contract performed in the name of nikâh.”

Mawlânâ Ekmeluddîn [Muhammad bin Mahmûd Bâbertî] provides the following explanation in the two hundred and thirty-first page of the book Inâya, which is a commentary of the book Hidâya, which was written by the great scholar Burhânaddîn Merghinânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’:

The nikâh termed mut’a is null and void. Yes, it was formerly legal in Islam, as is reported by Abdullah ibn Abbâs. Yet the Ashâb-i-kirâm declare unanimously that later it was proscribed in hadîth-i-sherîfs. In fact, they quote the hadîth-i-sherîfs in which it is proscribed. For instance, Muhammad ibn Hanafiyya narrates as follows: “My father, Imâm Alî, ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ related: On the very day when the fortress of Hayber was conquered [in the seventh year of the Hegira], Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ proscribed the mut’a nikâh.” In the face of this report on the authority of Imâm Alî, could Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq, who was a most beloved member of the Ahl-i-Bayt, ever be imagined to have commanded the mut’a nikâh? Absolutely not. Indeed, the author of the book entitled Husniyya, a Jewish convert under the nom de plume Murtadâ, is a shameless liar who not only misinterprets âyat-i-kerîmas and denies hadîth-i-sherîfs for the purpose of making others believe his lies and slanders, but also has made a habit of monopolizing the advocacy of the path of Ahl-i-Bayt. He represents his concoctions in the name of hadîth-i-sherîfs and then, so to speak, favours them as if they were the commandments of the Ahl-i-Bayt. This duplicity takes effect with the ignorant, although a person who knows his faith Islam well will not believe his lies. Our scholars have answered lies of this sort in the light of âyats and hadîths and proved that the followers and the true lovers of the Ahl-i-Bayt are the Sunnî Muslims.

Rebi’ bin Maysara ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ relates: On the day we conquered Hayber, the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ made the mut’a nikâh halâl (permissible) for three days. My paternal uncle and I went to a house where a woman lived. Both of us wore overcoats made from thin cloth. My uncle’s overcoat was of a better quality. The woman, a non-Muslim (ahl-i-kitâb), came to the door. She looked at my coat and noticed that I was younger. “This man’s coat is not like the other one’s; nor is his youth, though,” she said, and ushered me in, thus forgoing the coat for the sake of the youth. I spent the night there. In the morning I heard Rasûlullah’s town-crier announce in the streets: “O Muslims! The Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ has forbidden the mut’a nikâh.” So we all ceased from the mut’a nikâh.

That the Messenger of Allah prohibited the mut’a nikâh as he was alive is a fact unanimously acknowledged by the Sahâba. This unanimity, (which is termed Ijmâ’,) does not make changes or amendments in the religious principles, but it discovers and announces the changes and amendments that are made by the âyats or hadîth-i-sherîfs which cancel the religious principles put by other âyats or hadîth-i-sherîfs previous to themselves.

Question: How could there have been such unanimity despite the fact that Abdullah ibn Abbâs used to say that the mut’a nikâh was halâl?

Answer: He was among those who said, afterwards, that it had been prohibited. As a matter of fact, Jâbir bin Zayd reports that ibn Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ said before his death that the mut’a nikâh had been prohibited, and that his contribution finalized the unanimity.

They assert that the mut’a nikâh is permissible in the Mâlikî Madhhab. This assertion is inane, especially with the hadîth-i-sherîf quoted on the authority of Alî ibn Abî Tâlib by Imâm Mâlik bin Enes in Muwattâ, [the first book written on Hadîth]. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is reported (in the book) to have said, “On the day we conquered the fortress of Hayber, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ prohibited consumption of domestic donkey meat and practice of mut’a nikâh.” This is the end of the passage we have borrowed from the book Inâya.

Mîzân-ul-kubrâ is another book in which it is written that the mut’a nikâh is null and void in all four Madhhabs.

In all the Turkish as well as the Arabic literature on the subject, e.g. in the thirteen hundred and twenty-eighth (1328) page of the book of Tafsîr written by Hamdi Efendi ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ of Elmalı, the twenty-ninth âyat of Baqara sûra is quoted, which purports, “It is He (Allâhu ta’âlâ) Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; ...” (2-29) Hence, all kinds of food and drink and apparel are halâl for you unless they are made harâm through âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs. This âyat-i-kerîma indicates that it is harâm to violate people’s right of chastity and sexual safety. This prohibition borders only on Islam’s dictated area of permissions, (called halâl,) such as the conjugal rights realized by way of (the canonically prescribed marriage contract termed) nikâh. As is seen, the maxim, “Everything is canonically permissible unless it is prohibited in âyats or hadîths,” which the heretics attempt to exploit as a proof to attest that the mut’a nikâh is halâl, has nothing to do with nikâh. Nor does it fulfill the requirements of a scientific or religious argumentation. The Khalîfa ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ did not consider it necessary to authenticate his interdiction of the mut’a nikâh with a hadîth, nor did his interjection meet any objections on the part of the people around him. This shows that everybody knew that the mut’a nikâh had been prohibited (by the Prophet) beforehand.

18– He asserts, “After Rasûlullah’s death, Abû Bakr and ’Umar quoted the hadîth, ‘We prophets do not leave an inheritance behind us. Whatsoever we leave behind is alms,’ and expropriated the date orchard called (Fadak) from Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ, giving it to the Bayt-ul-mâl. Fâtima was offended with Abû Bakr and pronounced a malediction over him. Indeed the Messenger of Allah had given it to her as a present before his death, and dates from the orchard had been brought to her for three years. Fâtima proved this fact with the testimony of witnesses such as Alî and Hasan and Husayn and Qanber. Yet Abû Bakr rejected their testimony. Indeed, the so-called hadîth was a concoction of that cruel person. His daughter Âisha was the only other person who quoted the so-called hadîth. If there really had been such a hadîth, it would have been in Fâtima’s repertoire of hadîths and she would not have made a demand that was harâm. The Sunnîs are trying to exculpate Abû Bakr from blame at the cost of slandering the Ashraf-i-kâinât (the Prophet). You assert that he (the Prophet) did not communicate Allah’s commandment to Fâtima. If he did communicate it to her, in this case she disobeyed it, which, in its turn, is an act of disbelief. (Since this case is out of the question,) he who concocted this hadîth is a disbeliever. Besides, Abû Bakr should have produced a witness. It was cruel of him also to demand witnesses. Furthermore, it is written at various places of the Qur’ân al-kerîm that prophets do leave an inheritance behind them.”

However, Ahmad Jawdat Pâsha ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ provides the following historical information in the three hundred and sixty-ninth (369) page of his book Qisâs-i-Anbiyâ (History of Prophets):

Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, the Khalîfa, gave the weapons and the white mule, which had been the personal belongings of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, to Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. He left the (Prophet’s) other belongings to the Bayt-ul-mâl. As for the date orchard called Fadak and the orchards in Haybar; Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had devoted them as property for pious services before passing away, enjoining how to dispense them. He used to dispense his personal property to envoys who came and left, to guests and visitors, and to travellers and transients. Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ maintained the tradition without any alterations. When Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ asked for the property she believed to have inherited from her blessed father, he quoted the Messenger of Allah as having stated, “No one can inherit (any) property from us, Prophets. The property that we leave behind is alms,” and added, “I cannot change Rasûlullah’s principles. I am afraid to take a wrong course.” Upon this, Fâtima asked, “Who will inherit from you?” “My offspring and my wives will.” “Then, why should I not inherit from my father?” “I heard the Rasûl-i-akram, your father, say, ‘No one can inherit property from us.’ Accordingly, you cannot inherit (property) from him. However, I am his Khalîfa. I give the same people the same alms as he used to give. It is my duty to defray your expenses.” Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ was silent. Never again did she make any mention of the subject.

Ahmad bin Muhammad Shihâbuddîn Qastalânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a great scholar of Egypt, presents the following information in the four hundred and ninety-first (491) page of the first volume of the translation of the book Mawâhib-i-ladunniyya: The six books of Hadîth authenticated by all the Islamic scholars are called Kutub-i-sitta (the Six Books). One of them was written by Ahmad bin Alî Nasâî. That great scholar quotes the hadîth-i-sherîf, “We prophets do not leave inheritance (after death).” The word ‘inherit’ used in the âyat-i-kerîmas, “Sulaymân (Solomon) inherited from Dâwûd (David),” and “Yâ Rabbî! Give me children that will inherit from me,” should not be construed as ‘inherit property’. It means ‘inherit knowledge and prophethood’. The hadîth-i-sherîf that we have quoted above is quoted also by Imâm Abd-ur-Ra’ûf Manâwî, who adds that he has borrowed it from Imâm Ahmad’s book Musnad.

Abdulhaqq Dahlawî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a scholar of Hadîth, states as follows in the five hundred and seventy-second (572) page of the second volume of his book Madârij-un-nubuwwa, which he wrote in Persian:

Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “We, prophets, do not inherit (property), nor do our relatives inherit (property) from us. What we leave behind is to be dispensed as alms.” When he passed away, the personal property he left behind consisted of household effects, weapons and beasts, and a date orchard called Fadak. He used to give the dates from the orchard to his family and to the poor. After his death, his daughter Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ asked the Khalîfa Abû Bakr to give her (her share of the) inheritance. The Khalîfa quoted the hadîth-i-sherîf (we have written above) and refused to give her any property. Hadrat Fâtima asked, “Who will inherit your property when you die?” “My family and my children will,” was the Khalîfa’s answer. Fâtima pursued, “Then, why do I not inherit property from my father?” Upon this, Abû Bakr as-Siddîq explained, “I heard your father the Messenger of Allah say, ‘We prophets do not leave (property as) inheritance behind us.’ However, I am his Khalîfa. I shall give the same people the same things he would give, and dispense the property he has left in the same manner he would spend it.” Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had promised several people that he would give them property. After his passing away, the people concerned came and demanded the property promised. The Khalîfa satisfied all such demands. Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ was not the only person whom Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ refused to give any inheritance. Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’, and likewise the other blessed wives of the Best of Mankind were all turned down and reminded of the hadîth-i-sherîf stating that prophets did not have worldly inheritors. Whenever the Khalîfa quoted the hadîth-i-sherîf, all the Sahâbîs who heard him acknowledged that they remembered the hadîth-i-sherîf and not a single objection was raised. The Khalîfa did not meet any of the demands for inheritance, although he gave the relatives of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ whatever the blessed Prophet himself had been giving them before; he said that he would not change the principles of the Messenger of Allah, and swore that he loved Rasûlullah’s relatives more than he did his own relatives. It is incredibly astonishing to know that there are people who assert that Hadrat Fâtima was offended with Hadrat Abû Bakr on account of inheritance and felt lifelong hatred against him. Could Fâtima ever be imagined to have rejected a hadîth-i-sherîf unanimously quoted by the Ashâb-i-kirâm? It would be justifiable, to some extent, to claim that she was hurt, which would have been natural for her as a human being, but how could she ever be alleged to have held a grudge throughout her life? It is an established fact that Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’, as she was about to pass away, stated that she was pleased with Abû Bakr and they mutually forgave each other for all the offences and unfair acts that they could have committed towards each other. For instance, according to a narration which the great scholar of Hadîth Imâm Bayhakî reports on the authority of Imâm Sha’bî, during Fâtima’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ illness, Abû Bakr as-Siddîq came to the door. Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ told Fâtima that Abû Bakr was at the door. Hadrat Fâtima asked Alî if he would like her to admit Abû Bakr. “Yes, please do,” replied Alî. Admitted, the Khalîfa entered and he and Fâtima mutually forgave each other for any injustice they could have done to each other. Hence, Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ was pleased with Abû Bakr. It is written in the book Kitâb-ul-wafâ, by Imâm Mustaghfirî, as well as in Riyâd-un-nadara, [by Ahmad bin Muhammad Tabarî-d. 694 (1294 A.D.)]: Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ entered the presence of Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ and they mutually forgave each other (for any mistakes they could have made against each other. Thus Fâtima forgave him. Imâm Awzâî relates: Abû Bakr went to the door of Fâtima and said, “I shall not leave this door unless (I know that) the daughter of the Messenger of Allah has forgiven me.” Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, (who had come to the door to meet Abû Bakr,) went back in and pleaded with Fâtima to forgive Abû Bakr. So she forgave him. Hâfiz Abû Sa’d provides identical information in his book Kitâb-ul-muwâfaqa. Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ was interred at night. Therefore, Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was unable to let the Khalîfa know of the interment. According to some other reports, Abû Bakr attended the funeral and performed the (special prayer called janâza) salât. According to a narration presented in the book entitled Fasl-ul-khitâb, during Fâtima’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhâ’ illness, Abû Bakr came and asked for permission to enter. When Hadrat Alî (went in and) told his blessed wife (Fâtima) the advent of the Khalîfa, she said, “I will give him permission to enter if you give me permission to do so.” “I do,” replied her blessed spouse. Upon Hadrat Fâtima’s permission, Hadrat Abû Bakr entered and talked with her, asking for forgiveness and saying that he had forgiven her for any unjust behaviour she thought she could have committed towards him. So Hadrat Fâtima told the Khalîfa that she had forgiven him. It was sometime between evening and night prayers when Hadrat Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ passed away [in the eleventh year of the Hegira]. Hadrat Abû Bakr, ’Uthmân, Abd-ur-Rahmân bin Awf, and Zubayr bin Awwâm were present. They suggested that Abû Bakr should conduct the salât of janâza. So Abû Bakr conducted the prayer. The burial took place at night.

When ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ became Khalîfa, he dispensed the dates from (the orchard called) Fadak exactly as they would have been dispensed in the time of the Messenger of Allah. Two years later he transferred the management of the job to Alî and Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’. Sometime later the two blessed people went to the Khalîfa with the application to divide the orchard between them. Upon this ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ convened the Sahâba and appealed to them to answer his following question in the name of Allah: “Did the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ say, ‘We, prophets, do not inherit property or leave property to be inherited after us. Whatever we leave behind us is alms.’?” “Yes, he did. We heard him say so,” was their reply with one accord, which they emphasized with an oath. Upon this, ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ did not divide the orchard between the two blessed people and told them to resume their former duty and continue to dispense the crops as they had been doing. Later, the orchard was left under Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ charge. Then it was passed down to his children and grandchildren, finally ending up in the possession of Amîr Merwan. When ’Umar bin Abd-ul-’Azîz became Khalîfa, he said, “I will not even touch the property which the Messenger of Allah would not give his own daughter Fâtima.” It is understood from this statement that Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ asked Rasûlullah to give her the orchard and that her blessed father refused to do so. The hadîth-i-sherîfs on this subject are written in Bukhârî. This is the end of the passage borrowed from Abdulhaqq Dahlawî’s book.

It is stated as follows in the two hundred and ninety-second page of the book Mir’ât-i-kâinât: “The wives and daughters of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ are higher than all the other women in the world ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhunna’. According to Abdullah ibn Abbâs, if a person slanders or maligns Rasûlullah’s wives, his tawba will not be accepted (by Allâhu ta’âlâ). If a person swears at Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu anhâ’, he must be killed (according to Islam’s penal code). For, to swear at her means to deny the Qur’ân al-kerîm, which in turn is an act of disbelief according to a consensus (of Islamic authorities).”

As for the âyat-i-kerîmas that attribute inheritors to prophets: Allâhu ta’âlâ quotes Zakariyyâ’s (Zachariah) ‘alaihis-salâm’ invocation in the fifth and sixth âyats of Maryam sûra. The sublime meaning of the âyat-i-kerîmas is: “Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me: But my wife is barren: So give me an heir as from Thyself,-” “(One that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the posterity of Ya’qûb (Jacob); ...” (19-5, 6) These âyat-i-kerîmas are explicated as follows in the Tafsîr of Baydâwî: “The word ‘heir’ in the âyat-i-kerîma means ‘heir to our religion and knowledge’. For, prophets ‘alaihim-us-salâm’ do not leave property to be inherited after them.” It is stated as follows in the annotation of Shaikhzâda: “To be an heir to prophets ‘alaihim-us-salâm’ means to promote and serve one’s religion, which in turn is possible only by being a prophet or by having knowledge and a beautiful moral quality or by occupying a high position that will be useful to the religion or by possessing tayyib (unblemished and lawfully earned) property.” Zakariyyâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ first cousins (the sons of his paternal uncle were the worst people among the Israelites. He was afraid that after his death they could interpolate the true religion he had preached. The word ‘inherit’ in the sixteenth âyat of Naml sûra, which purports, “... and Sulaymân (Solomon) inherited from Dâwûd (David),” is explained as ‘inherit his prophethood or knowledge or position from him,’ in the Tafsîr of Baydâwî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’.

As is seen, Hadrat Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ did not expropriate the date orchard from Hadrat Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’, but he left it in its former status, giving her whatever she needed from the Bayt-ul-mâl. The goods that he gave Hadrat Alî were not in the status of inheritance; they had already been transferred to the Bayt-ul-mâl; so he used his authority as Khalîfa and gave them to him as gifts. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had not gifted the date orchard to anyone. Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ did not claim that the orchard had been gifted to her. Nor did she produce any witnesses to that effect. There is not a single book where the matter is approached from that viewpoint. The utterly clumsy falsification must be unique to the Persian booklet. There are hadîth-i-sherîfs, and even âyat-i-kerîmas that lavish praises on Hadrat Alî, on Hadrat Fâtima and on Hadrat Hasan and Hadrat Husayn. Hadrat Abû Bakr as-Siddîq sacrificed all his commercial goods, his property, his homeland and his children for the sake of the Messenger of Allah; how could the ignoble deed of disignoring all those hadîth-i-sherîfs ever be imagined to go with such a high personality? Moreover, hundreds of hadîth-i-sherîfs and the Qur’ân al-kerîm praise him and state his merits. It was not necessary for Hadrat Fâtima to have been informed of the hadîth-i-sherîf concerning the matter of inheritance. The Ashâb-i-kirâm let her know when the time came. Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ demanded the date orchard because she thought it was halâl for her. When she knew that it was not, she did not insist on her demand. It is not farz to let a person know the acts of worship before their time comes. Furthermore, something donated to a pious foundation cannot be inherited by anyone. Fâtima ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ admitted the Khalîfa’s statement immediately and willingly. Since none of the Sahâbîs objected to (the genuineness of) the hadîth-i-sherîf, (which states that prophets do not leave any property to be inherited after them,) a person who denies it becomes a disbeliever. There is detailed information about the orchard called Fadak in the fifth part of the book Documents of the Right Word. Please read that part for information!

The following episode is presented in the four hundred and ninetieth page of the book Manâqib-i-chihâr yâr-i-ghuzîn:

One day Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ came to Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ place. He was about to enter, when Alî bin Abî Tâlib ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ arrived, too. Abû Bakr stepped backwards and said, “After you, Yâ Alî.” The latter replied and the following long dialogue took place between them:

Alî – Yâ Abâ Bakr, you go in first for you are ahead of us all in all goodnesses and acts of charity.

Abû Bakr – You go in first, Yâ Alî, for you are closer to the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’.

Alî – How could I go ahead of you? I heard the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ say, “The sun has not risen on any one of my Ummat higher than Abû Bakr.”

Abû Bakr – How could I go ahead of you? On the day when Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ gave his daughter Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhâ’ in marriage to you, he stated, “I have given the best of women to the best of men.”

Alî – I cannot go ahead of you, for Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “Let him who wants to see Ibrâhîm (Abraham) ‘alaihis-salâm’ look at Abû Bakr’s face.”

Abû Bakr – I can not go ahead of you, for Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “Let him who wants to see Âdam’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ tenderness and Yûsuf’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ beautiful moral qualities look at Alî!”

Alî – I can not enter before you. For, the Messenger of Allah ‘alaihis-salâm’ asked, “Yâ Rabbî! Who loves me most, and who is the best of my Sahâba?” Jenâb-i-Haqq answered, “Yâ Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’! He is Abû Bakr as-Siddîq.”

Abû Bakr – I can not go ahead of you. For, the Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “So (good) is the person whom I give knowledge that Allâhu ta’âlâ loves him, and so do I; I love him very much.” You have been the gate to the town of knowledge.

Alî – I can not go before you, for the Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “There is a sign that says, ‘Abû Bakr, the Habîbullah (the Darling of Allah),’ on the gates of Paradise.”

Abû Bakr – I cannot go before you. For, during the Holy War of Hayber the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ handed the flag to you and stated, “This flag is a gift from the Melîk-i-ghâlib to Alî bin Abî Tâlib.”

Alî – How can I go before you? The Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ said to you, “Yâ Abâ Bakr! You stand for my sight, which sees, and for my heart, which knows.”

Abû Bakr – I can not go ahead of you. For, the Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “On the Rising Day Alî will come (to the place of assembly) on the back of an animal of Paradise. Jenâb-i-Haqq will say, ‘Yâ Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’! How beautiful a father your father Ibrâhîm Halîl is; and how beautiful a brother your brother Alî bin Abî Tâlib is.’ ”

Alî – I can not go before you. For, the Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “On the Rising Day the angel named Ridwân, who is the chief of the angels of Paradise, will enter Paradise, coming back with the keys of Paradise. He will give them to me. Then Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ will come and say, ‘Yâ Muhammad, give the keys of Paradise and those of Hell to Abû Bakr. Let Abû Bakr send anyone he chooses to Paradise and others to Hell.’ ”

Abû Bakr – I can not go ahead of you, for the Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “Alî will be by my side on the Rising Day. He will be with me near the Hawz and Kawthar. He will be with me on the Sirât. He will be with me in Paradise. And he will be with me (at the happiest moment) as I see Allâhu ta’âlâ.’ ”

Alî – I can not enter before you do, for the Messenger of Allah ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “If the îmân held by Abû Bakr were weighed against the total sum of the îmân held by all the other Believers, his îmân would weigh heavier.”

Abû Bakr – How can I go before you? For, the Rasûl ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “I am the city of knowledge. And Alî is the gate?”

Alî – How can I ever walk ahead of you? For, the Rasûl ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “I am the city of faithfulness. And Abû Bakr is its gate.”

Abû Bakr – I can not go before you, for the Rasûl ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “On the Rising Day Alî will be made to mount a beautiful horse. Those who see him will wonder: What prophet is that person? Allâhu ta’âlâ will say: This is Alî bin Abî Tâlib.”

Alî – I can not go ahead of you, for the Rasûl ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “I and Abû Bakr are from the same soil. We shall be one again.”

Abû Bakr – I can not go before you, for the Rasûl ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “Allâhu ta’âlâ will say: O you, Paradise! I shall adorn your four corners with four people. One of them is Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, the highest of prophets. Another one is Alî, the highest of those who fear Allâhu ta’âlâ. The third one is Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ, the highest of women. And the fourth corner will be occupied by Hasan and Husayn, the highest of pure people.”

Alî – How can I go ahead of you? The Rasûl ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “A voice from the eight Gardens of Paradise calls as follows: O Abâ Bakr, come with those whom you love; and you all, enter Paradise!”

Abû Bakr – I cannot go before you, for the Rasûl ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “I am like a tree. Fâtima is the trunk. Alî is the branches. Hasan and Husayn are the fruits.”

Alî – I can not go before you, for the Rasûl ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “May Allâhu ta’âlâ forgive all the faults of Abû Bakr. For, he gave his daughter Âisha to me; he helped me during the Hijrat (Hegira, Migration to Medina); he bought Bilâl-i-Habashî, (who was a slave formerly,) and emancipated him for me.” ... .

As the two darlings of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ were talking like this before the door, the Best of Mankind was inside, listening. He interrupted Alî as he was talking and stated from inside:

“O my brothers Abû Bakr and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’! Please do come in! Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ has been here; he says that the angels on the earth and in the seven skies have been listening to you and that you could not describe your value in the view of Allâhu ta’âlâ were you to praise each other till the end of the world.” The two beloved companions gave an affectionate hug to each other, and together they entered the presence of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. The Messenger ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless both of you with his Rahma (Compassion) hundreds of times. May He bless your lovers also with His Rahma hundreds of times; and may your enemies be accursed hundreds of times.” Hadrat Abû Bakr as-Siddîq said, “Yâ Rasûlallah (O Messenger of Allah)! I shall not do shafâ’at (intercede) for the enemies of my brother Alî.” Hadrat Alî said, “Yâ Rasûlallah! I shall not intercede for the enemies of my brother Abû Bakr; and I shall behead them with my sword.” Abû Bakr stated, “I shall not let your enemies pass the Sirât Bridge.”

19– The liar goes on, “The Sunnîs are hostile to the Ahl-i-Bayt. For, you call the Shiites ‘Râfidî’ for flagellating themselves in mourning for Hasan’s and Husayn’s martyrdoms on the Ashûra Day, the tenth of Muharram, in the face of your own hullabaloos, which you all join regardless of your educational backgrounds, as the khatîb recites about the (prophet Ibrâhîm’s) attempt to sacrifice (his own son) Ismâ’îl, on the (pulpit called) minbar (in a mosque) on the ’Iyd of Qurbân[55].”

We celebrate the ’Iyd of Qurbân and perform the Khutba, –which is performed on the ’Iyd of Qurbân as well as on Fridays-, because it is a commandment of the Messenger of Allah. The (recital performed during the) Khutba must be listened to silently. No one makes a hullabaloo or flagellates himself during the performance. In Islam, to wail or to flagellate oneself in mourning for catastrophes is an act of protest against the qadâ and qadar foreordained by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Yes, it is permissible (in Islam) to weep over the loss of one’s darlings. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ grieved very deeply over the loss of his honorable and cherished wife Hadîja-t-ul-kubrâ ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ and over the death of his very much beloved son Ibrâhîm, as well as when, during the battle of Uhud, he saw his martyred uncle Hamza ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, whom he had always praised. So deep and burning was the grief he felt that he wept bitterly for a while before his Sahâba. Yet he never cried or wailed. Nor did he ever go into mourning. In the time of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ special importance was attached to the tenth day of the blessed month of Muharram; Muslims would fast and perform much worship on that day. However, that day was never held as a day of mourning, nor any of the other days whereon the Muslims experienced much worse misfortunes. Mourning exists in the Christian cult. Disbelievers practise it. The Sunnî Muslims grieve and weep over (the prophet) Ismâ’îl ‘alaihis-salâm’ as well as over (the catastrophies that befell) our masters Hasan and Husayn all the year round, not only once in a long year. Every Friday, whenever the Sunnî Muslims hear the names of Hasan and Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’, they feel profound grief and their eyes shed blood. Yet, since mourning is something prohibited by the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, they do not go into mourning or exceed their religious instructions.

Those who assert that the Sunnî Muslims are hostile to the Ahl-i-Bayt have evil tongues that deserve to be withered. Farîdaddîn Attâr ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a Sunnî scholar, wrote as follows about Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, (one of the Ahl-i-Bayt,) in his book Tadhkira-t-ul-Awliyâ:

Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq was a paragon in the Islamic world and a testimony incarnate to the factuality of prophethood. He was steadfast in all his deeds, and well-versed in all the branches of knowledge. He was the fruit of the hearts of Awliyâ, and a beloved child of the Master of Prophets. He was an assayer for Imâm Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, and an heir to the Rasûl ‘alaihis-salâm’. Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq, a lover of Allâhu ta’âlâ and an ’ârif, (i.e. person gifted with profound knowledge of Allâhu ta’âlâ,) was one of the Ahl-i-Bayt. All the members of the Ahl-i-Bayt are the same. A statement that belongs to one of them, belongs to all of them, too. His path is the very path followed and guided by the Twelve Imâms ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’. My tongue and my pen would fall quite short of praising him. For, he was a master of all sciences, disciplines and techniques. He was the chief of all the Awliyâ. All of them depended on him. People of other religions also would run to him, and the Muslims would follow him. People of dhawk would be after him and lovers of Allâhu ta’âlâ would be in his path. He was ahead of all the âbids, (i.e. dedicated worshippers), and the most blessed of all the zâhids, (i.e. people who have freed their hearts from all sorts of worldly concerns). He was a writer of facts, and a decoder of the secrets in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. There are some people who assert that the Muslims of Ahl as-Sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at, (i.e. the Sunnî Muslims,) dislike the Ahl-i-Bayt ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. It dismays me to see the crass ignorance that such people display. For, Ahl as-Sunnat and Ahl-i-Bayt are synonymous. Ahl as-Sunnat means the path guided by the Ahl-i-Bayt. So unsound a delusion those people have clung to! Wouldn’t people who loved Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ love his children as well? As a matter of fact, Muhammad bin Idris Shâfi’î, an Imâm of the Ahl as-Sunnat, (and the leader of the Shâfi’î Madhhab, which is one of the four authentic Madhhabs in matters pertaining to Islamic practices and deeds of worship,) was rumoured to have been a Shiite on account of his legendary love of the Ahl-i-Bayt. So widespread was the canard that the authorities, convinced of his delinquency, had to imprison him. He versified his plea, which can be paraphrased as follows: “If being a Shiite means to love the offspring of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, let all people and genies be witnesses to my acknowledgement that I am a Shiite herein. For I love the Ahl-i-Bayt-i-Nabawî very much.”

Naturally, it is something commendable to love the Ahl-i-Bayt. Yet it is a terribly sordid attempt of manipulation to assert that love of the Ahl-i-Bayt should entail animosity against a group of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. It is declared in hadîth-i-sherîfs that people who make that assertion are bound for Hell.

Ahl as-Sunnat means (the path adhered to by) Muslims who love and follow the Ahl-i-Bayt and all the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. For there is only one path followed commonly by the Ahl-i-Bayt and by the Ashâb-i-kirâm: the path guided by the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. Some people have been following a wrong path invented by the enemies for the purpose of demolishing Islam from within. They have been carrying on an animosity campaign against a great majority of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. In order to deceive the Muslims, they say that they are lovers of the Ahl-i-Bayt and that they have been following the path guided by the Ahl-i-Bayt. Thus they sully those great people of Islam and the most beloved guides of the Sunnî Muslims with their irreligiousness and heresy. May Allâhu ta’âlâ guide them back to the right course! May He protect all Muslims from lapsing into that heresy that leads to perdition! Âmîn.

The highest of Awliyâ is Siddîq-i-ekber[56], next comes Fârûq[57],
And next after Zi-n-nûrayn[58] is Alî Walîyullah.

The other Sahâba, may all be auspicious to mention;
All the Ashâb-i-kirâm, I love for the sake of Allah.

’Ashara-i-mubashshara[59], Fâtima, Hasan and Husayn,
Were blessed with the good news of ‘Paradise’ by Allah.

None else can be guaranteed Paradise; otherwise,
It’d be a claim to the unknown, which none knows but Allah.

And next after all the Sahâba, of the entire Ummat,
All the Tâbi’în are most virtuous Awliyâillah.

Multifarious dissonant stories roam the literature assigned to the history of the event of Kerbelâ. Exploiting this turbidity, some books fabricate and present tragic tales, whereby to mislead their readers, to confuse their minds and to undermine their beliefs. With those mendacious and concocted tales they try to coax their readers into their own aberrant credo. This muddy-waters tactics has given rise to a state of affairs wherein different people hold different opinions concerning the event of Kerbelâ and everyone believes that their opinion is the only true knowledge. Muhammad Abd-ush-shekûr Mirzâpûrî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a great Indian scholar of history, dedicated long years of his life to research on the subject, learned the facts, and wrote a book entirely allotted to the subject, entitling it Shahâdat-i-Husayn (Martyrdom of Husayn). Ghulâm Haydar Fârûqî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of Mirzâpûrî’s disciples in the Madrasa-i-islâmiyya in Karachi, Pakistan, translated the book from Urdu into Persian and the new Persian version, entitled Rafâqat-i-Husayn, was printed in Karachi. A passage from the introduction to the book reads as follows:

Islam suffered the first disruptive blow from a fitna, which inflicted irreparable damage on the religion and caused millions of Muslims to deviate from the true course of Islam, and which gave birth to superstitions and whimsical speculations quite contrary to Islam and concocted for special purposes. The fitna was on the verge of extinction, when it was rekindled by Ya’qûb Kulaynî’s son, one of the unfortunate boys who had fallen victim to the misguidance invented by the Jew named Abdullah bin Saba’. In order to demolish the Islamic religion from the interior and to mislead Muslims, the wretched miscreant fibbed quite a number of lies and compiled his lies in a book which he entitled Kâfî. Ferocious heretics such as TÛSÎ and MEJLÎSÎ, who appeared later, fanned the fire of sedition and discord among Muslims by trying to spread the principles in the book Kâfî. They based their religion on a double-faced policy which they called Taqiyya, and used it as a cloak under which to carry on all their subversive and inimical activities. Simulated love of the Ahl-i-Bayt is their most widely known taqiyya. With this simulation they have caused millions of Muslims to deviate from the right course and led them to perdition. The first thing to do to protect Muslims from falling into their trap, therefore, is to reveal the inner nature of the Muhabbat-i-Ahl-i-Bayt (love of Ahl-i-Bayt).

True Muslims who adhere to the path guided by Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ and who follow in the footsteps of the Sahâba are called Ahl as-Sunnat (Sunnî Muslims). Not only have the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat explained the meaning of Muhabbat-i-Ahl-i-Bayt as something good, but they have also stated that love of Ahl-i-Bayt is a component part of îmân. The heretics, on the other hand, reiterate that love of Ahl-i-Bayt is the basis of their religion, although all their actions and attitudes betray their hostility against the Ahl-i-Bayt. A thorough probe into the historical facts to elucidate the matter whether Hadrat Husayn was martyred by the Sunnî Muslims or by the heretics will incidentally clarify what we mean in the final part of our statement. A reasonable person who reads their books is quite unlikely to believe that the martyrdom was perpetrated by the Sunnî Muslims. They adroitly interpose the names of Hadrat Mu’âwiya and Yazîd in a manner as to misinform the ignorant. However, none of the books relating the tragic event contains a single expression clearly stating that those two Khalîfas were smeared with the blessed blood of Hadrat Husayn. Not even the vaguest implication that Hadrat Mu’âwiya might have had to do with the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn has been witnessed throughout the literature assigned to the event, let alone a clear statement that it was done by his order. What is unanimously stated (by all books and scholars) is that the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn did not take place during the caliphate of Hadrat Mu’âwiya. Molla Bâqir Mejlîsî, whose name is mentioned above, relates Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s last advice to his son Yazîd as he was dying, as follows:

“You know what relation Imâm Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is to the Messenger of Allah. He is a part from the beloved Prophet’s blessed body. He is an offspring from the flesh and blood of that most honourable person. I understand that the inhabitants of Iraq invite him to go there and be with them. But they will not help him; they will leave him alone. If he should fall into your hands, behave in appreciation of his value! Remember the closeness and affection of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ to him! Do not get back at him for his behaviour! Mind you don’t break the substantial ties I have established between him and us! Be extra careful lest you should hurt or offend him!” This advice of Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s to (his son) Yazîd is written in the three hundred and twenty-first (321) page of the book Jilâ-ul’uyûn, which was written by Muhammad Bâqir bin Murtadâ Fayzî Khorasânî, a Shiite leader, who is better known with his nickname Molla Muhsin. He died in 1091 [1679 A.D.]. According to a book entitled Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh, written by a Shiite theologian named Muhammad Taqî Khân, Mu’âwiya also wrote the following will for his son Yazîd: “My son, do not succumb to your sensuous indulgences or temptations! Protect yourself from the slightest wrongful behaviour towards Husayn! Be extra careful not to have the blood of Husayn bin Alî around your neck when you stand (for the last judgement) before Haqq ta’âlâ on the morrow! Otherwise, you will never attain comfort and peace on that day; you will suffer endless torments!” Moreover, the author quotes a hadîth-i-sherîf, which he ascribes to Abdullah ibn Abbâs, in the hundred and eleventh (111) page of the sixth volume of the book: “Yâ Rabbî! Do not give barakat to a person who is slack in observing the reverence and honour due to Husayn!” Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ always behaved politely and respectfully towards Hadrat Husayn both in speech and in writing and never showed disrespect towards him. Imâm Husayn, in contrast, was rather harsh towards him, especially in the letters that he wrote to him. In fact, when Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s sons Yazîd and Abdullah, told their father to answer in kind when they saw the reproachful language that Hadrat Husayn used in his letters, he placated them, saying, “You two are wrong, saying so. How can I ever blame Husayn bin Alî? A person like me blames another person and tries to convince others to agree with him, and still no one believes him. No. A discreet person wouldn’t do that. How can I ever blame Husayn? I swear in the name of Allah that there is nothing blameworthy about him. I will write to him. Yet I will not write anything that will imply a browbeating air or which will hurt him in the least.” The Shiite author of the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh concludes as follows in the seventy-eighth (78) page of the sixth volume of the book: “In short, he did not do anything to hurt Husayn.”

Hadrat Mu’âwiya not only always behaved kindly and respectfully towards Hadrat Husayn, but also served him. This fact is acknowledged in a smooth language in the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh: “He made a habit of sending Hadrat Husayn thousands of dirhams of silver yearly. That was only additional to other valuable goods and various gifts.” And the insults and annoyances that Hadrat Husayn held out in return for all those kindnesses and services were received with tolerant detachment on the part of the compassionate benefactor.

Goods of kharâj[60] were dispatched to Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ from Yemen. The caravan (carrying the goods) was passing through Medîna en route for Damascus, when it was apprehended by Hadrat Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, who took all the goods and dispensed them to the Ahl-i-Bayt and to other people whom he liked, writing the following message for Hadrat Mu’âwiya: “Camels laden with goods and perfumes were being herded en route from Yemen to Damascus. I knew that the goods that were being taken to you were to be put into the Bayt-ul-mâl. I took them because I needed them. Wa-s-salâm!” Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s acknowledgement of Hadrat Husayn’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ message was appended with the following note: “I would not have withheld your share from the goods that would have been brought to me had you allowed the caravan of camels to get through. However, o my brother, I know that you are not the kind of person to deign to simulation or flattery. In my time, no one shall harm you. For I know your value and your high grade. I shall receive all your behaviour with gratification.” These reciprocations are written in the fifty-seventh (57) page of the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh.

Nor would all the invective addressed to the Amîr Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ by visitors to Damascus bear on his liberality. He would requite their curses with goods and monetary gifts. Here is an example from the aforesaid Shiite book: “Visitors to Damascus from Hadrat Alî’s surroundings would swear at Mu’âwiya and hurt him. He would give them presents from the Bayt-ul-mâl. Thus they would return home without having suffered any harm or annoyance.” (p:38) As is understood from these writings, it is an abominable slander and a blatant lie to blame Hadrat Mu’âwiya for the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn and to malign him on account of a wrongful accusation.

For that matter, it is out of the question to attempt to vilify Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ on account of the allegation that he poisoned Hadrat Hasan ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. As is written in the three hundred and twenty-third (323) page of the Shiite book Jilâ-ul-’uyûn, Hadrat Hasan said, “I swear in the name of Allah that Mu’âwiya is better than these people. These people claim to be Shiites. Yet they have attempted to kill me and they have stolen my property.”

It is written in various forms in Shiite books that Yazîd did not have a hand in the murders, either, and that, contrary to a prevalent opinion, he was not a bad person. He never forgot his father’s advice about Hadrat Husayn. He did not write anything to invite Hadrat Husayn to the city of Kûfa. He did not attempt to kill him. Nor did he give an order to kill him. He did not rejoice at his death. On the contrary, he felt extremely sad and wept bitterly. He declared a period of mourning for him. He castigated those who had martyred him very harshly. He showed deep respect towards the Ahl-i-Bayt (household, family) of Hadrat Husayn, and fulfilled their wish to leave Damascus and go to Medîna, treating them with great honour and kindness and seeing them off under the protection of a detachment of bodyguards. Shiite books enlarge on these facts.

The famous Shiite theologian Molla Bâqir Mejlîsî relates as follows in the four hundred and twenty-fourth (424) page of his book Jilâ-ul ’uyûn: “Yazîd appointed Walîd bin ’Uqba bin Abî Sufyân, who was known for his kindnesses towards the Ahl-i-Bayt, governor of Medîna. He dismissed Merwan bin Hakem, an enemy of Imâm Husayn and his progeny ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’, from duty.” He goes on in the four hundred and thirty-second page: “If Yazîd had been Imâm Husayn’s enemy, he would not have replaced a governor inimical towards him with one friendly with him.” He says in the four hundred and twenty-fourth page: “One night, Walîd sent for Imâm Husayn and showed him a letter that he had received from Yazîd. The letter said that Hadrat Mu’âwiya was dead and Yazîd was the new Khalîfa. Upon this Imâm Husayn recited the âyat, ‘Innâ-lillah...’.” This written statement shows that Hadrat Husayn was not hostile to Hadrat Mu’âwiya and that he knew him as a true Muslim. Otherwise, he would not have recited the âyat, “Innâ-lillâh...,” upon hearing about his death.

When Zajîr bin Qays reported Hadrat Husayn’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ martyrdom to Yazîd, he bowed his head and said nothing. Then, raising his head, he said, “I wanted you to obey him, not to kill him. I would have forgiven Husayn if I had been there.” This fact is written in the two hundred and sixty-ninth (269) page of the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh. It is written as follows in the three hundred and twenty-first (321) page of the Shiite book Nahj-ul-ahzân, which was printed in Iran: “Someone came along with what he considered to be glad tidings and said to Yazîd, ‘Congratulations! Husayn’s head has arrived.’ This exasperated Yazîd. He berated the man angrily, saying, “May you never get glad tidings!’ ” It is stated as follows in the two hundred and twenty-ninth (229) page of the book Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh: “Shimir-zil-jawshan put Imâm Husayn’s blessed head with pride before Yazîd and boasted, ‘Fill the saddle-bags of my camel with gold and silver, for I have killed the best of people with respect to parents.’ ‘Never expect any prize from me,’ was Yazîd’s answer. Terrified and disappointed, the man went back. His share was a mere nothing both in this world and the next.” It is written in the two hundred and seventy-second (272) page of the (same) book that he (Yazîd) pronounced the malediction, “May his murderer be doomed to the wrath of Allah!”

As is clearly stated in Shiite books, not only were Hadrat Mu’âwiya and Yazîd absolutely clear of the blessed blood of Hadrat Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, but also ibn Ziyâd and ibn Sa’d and even Shimir were not among those who martyred the blessed person. It is stated as follows in the Shiite books written in the book Rafâqat-i-Husayn:

1) People who fought against Imâm Husayn were not Damascenes or Hijâzîs (people of Hedjaz). All of them were from Kûfa. (Khulâsa-t-ul-masâib, p. 201)

2) Imâm-i-Husayn was martyred by Irâqîs (people of Iraq). Not a single Damascene was among them. Those who perpetrated the notorious cruelty against the Ahl-i-Bayt were people of Kûfa. (Mas’ûdî)

3) It is an established fact that there were not any Damascenes among the people who martyred Imâm Husayn. (ibid, p. 21)

4) Abî Mahnaf informs that ibn Ziyâd’s army contained an eighty-thousand-strong cavalry, and that the entire number consisted of people from Kûfa. (Nâsikh-ut-tawârîh, v. 6; p. 173)

5) None of the Shiites who lived at places other than Kûfa came to help the Imâm. However, contemporaneously with an answer to the letter that he had received from the people of Kûfa, he had sent a letter to the people of Basra, asking for their support; and the Shiites living in Basra had written back that they would help. (Jilâ-ul ’uyûn)

People who martyred Imâm Husayn at Kerbelâ were the same people who had plotted treason and cruelty against Imâm Alî and Imâm Hasan. Twelve thousand people came together and wrote a letter to Imâm Husayn, inviting him to Kûfa and promising their support. They were the same people, however, who martyred Hadrat Husayn’s paternal first cousin Muslim bin Uqayl, a representative sent by the blessed imâm in acknowledgement of their invitation. The same people, again, disguised themselves as soldiers of Yazîd, anticipated Imâm Husayn’s arrival, and martyred him at Kerbelâ. It is written in the Shiite book Majâlis-ul-mu’minîn that a Shiite named Musayyib bin Nuhba and ’Umar bin Sa’d ibn Abî Waqqâs went to Kerbelâ.

6) Shîs bin Rabi’î, a commander under ’Umar bin Sa’d, and four thousand Shiites under his command attacked the blessed imâm. (Jilâ-ul ’uyûn)

7) Shîs bin Rabi’î was the first abhorrent person to alight from his horse to cut off the blessed head of the imâm. (Khulâsa-t-ul-masâib, p. 37)

8) When Imâm Husayn saw Mujâr bin Hajar and Yazîd bin Hâris among his assailants, he said, “Have you forgotten the letters of invitation you wrote to me?” (ibid, p. 138)

9) When the imâm attained martyrdom, Habîb bin Muzâhir, commander of the right wing of the imâm’s army, laughed and said, “The Ashûra day is the day of rejoicing and celebrating.”

10) Another person who acknowledges that Imâm Husayn was martyred by Shiites is Qâdî Nûrullah Shusterî, an eminent Shiite scholar.

Attention: Scholars of Ahl as-sunnat wrote myriads of books proving the fact that people who refuse Islam’s authentic Madhhabs are preaching heresy and trying to demolish Islam from the interior. Thirty-two of such valuable books, their titles and authors, were appended to the eightieth (80) letter, -written by Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî, whose biography is to follow,- which covers an entire chapter of this book, (immediately after a biography of Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’).

[32] Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ means himself.
[33] There is detailed information about ablution and ghusl in the second and fourth, respectively, chapters of the fourth fascicle of Endless Bliss.
[34] Shifâ-i-sherîf, by Qâdî Iyâd ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’.
[35] (Lexically), orator, speaker; (in this context), performer of a certain sermon, termed khutba, made before Friday prayer and after ’Iyd prayers.
[36] An answer given by an Islamic scholar to Muslims’ questions.,
[37] Please see the thirty-fifth and fortieth chapters of the third fascicle of Endless Bliss.
[38] There is detailed information about Lawh-il-Mahfûz in the thirty-sixth chapter of the third fascicle of Endless Bliss.
[39] Islamic science dealing with the explanation of âyats of the Qur’ân al-kerîm.
[40] May he be accursed.
[41] Mawlânâ Khâlid Baghdâdî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ (1192, Zûr-1242 [1826 A.D.], Damascus).
[42] Written by Sayyid Muhammad As’âd ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ (d. 1264 [1848 A.D.]). The ninth letter in the book was one written to him by Mawlânâ Khâlid Baghdâdî (previous footnote).
[43] Lexically, barakat means abundance, blessing, fruitfullness. When something has barakat, it is somehow more nutricious and more healthful than it would have been otherwise, although barakat does not materially add to its amount.
[44] Reckoned from the blessed Prophet’s migration to Medina.
[45] Solar.
[46] Reckoned from the time supposed to be Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ birth-time.
[47] Literature that deals with facts about our blessed Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, his biography, his beautiful moral qualities, his utterances, which are called hadîth-i-sherîf, etc.
[48] For detailed information about ghusl (ritual washing); namâz (Islam’s prescribed daily prayer); wudû (ablution); and jihâd (serving Islam physically, financially and spiritually), please see Endless Bliss: 4-4; ibid: 4-1; ibid: 4-1, 2, 3, 5; and all the publications of Waqf Ikhlas, respectively.
[49] A renegade who claimed to be a prophet
[50] The hundred and tenth (110) sûra (chapter) of the Qur’ân al-kerîm.
[51] Any sort of addition, deviation, misinterpretation, invention and heresy in Islam’s tenets of belief or practices is termed bid’at. People who practise bid’ats or hold beliefs that are bid’ats are called holders of bid’at (heretics).
[52] The dinner which is eaten after breaking fast after sunset.
[53] Person who recites a certain invitation to the five daily prayers termed namâz or salât. This invitation, called adhân (or azân), is explained in detail in the eleventh chapter of the fourth fascicle of Endless Bliss.
[54] The Holy War fought against the tribes called Hawazin and Saqîf in the eighth year of the Hegira (629 A.D.).
[55] Detailed information on the ’Iyd of Qurbân, as well as how to sacrifice (perform) Qurbân is available in the fourth chapter of the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss.
[56] Hadrat Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’.
[57] ’Umar ul-Fârûq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’.
[58] ’Uthmân Zinnûrayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’.
[59] The ten Sahâbîs who were given the good news that Allâhu ta’âlâ had guaranteed them Paradise. These ten Sahâbîs were Abû Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthmân, Alî, Talha, Zubayr bin Awwâm, Abd-ur-Rahmân bin ’Awf, Sa’d ibn Abî Waqqâs, Sa’îd bin Zayd, Abû ’Ubayda bin Jerrâh ‘ridwânullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’.
[60] A kind of zakât paid by non-Muslims. Detailed information is provided in the first chapter of the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss.