Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Unlawful Matters of Abu Bakr and Umar’s Caliphate

No. 1: According to Al-Milal wan Nihal of Imam Abul Fath Abdul Karim Shahristani, during the days of his terminal illness, the Prophet issued a command to his followers to prepare for the departure of Usamah’s army and invoked curse on one who avoids joining Usamah bin Zaid who was appointed as the commander of the forces by the Prophet.

A group of Muslims said that ‘we are obliged to fulfill the command of the Prophet’, and another group said that ‘the Prophet’s illness is progressing and in such a situation, we cannot stand separation from him.’ And this was the beginning of differences in Islam. Anyway, Usamah left the boundaries of Medina with the Islamic forces.

According to books of biography and history, we come to know that Abu Bakr remained in Medina and did not go out of Medina with Usamah’s army and Umar, Abu Ubaidah, Talha and Zubair returned to Medina from a place called Jarf. Ahlul Sunnat justify the above behavior of these characters saying that Abu Bakr had taken permission from the Prophet to remain in Medina and those who returned to Medina from Jarf, did so because the implementation of the Prophet’s orders was not immediately demanded; and there was a great probability of disturbance from hypocrites of Medina.

It thus happened that later, after being assured of peace, Abu Bakr appointed Usamah as the commander of the forces and sent him on the expedition. Shia reject this by saying that according to the report of Qastalani, Usamah was a slave and the companions were nobles of Quraish; so they disapproved Usamah’s leadership. Abul Fida also writes that Umar despised going under Usamah’s command.

Obviously, when the Prophet orders that Usamah should take over the command of the army and fight the enemies of Islam, why other people should have any say in it? It was the duty of every person to obey the command of the Prophet without any ifs and buts, even if the Prophet has ordered them to obey someone lower in status than Usamah. As for Abu Bakr’s remaining in Medina, the fact is that it is not proved from any narration that he did so with the Prophet’s approval.

The writer says: The fact is that the Holy Prophet (S) wanted Usamah to go out of Medina with his army and also Abu Bakr, Umar and their supporters as he wanted Ali to easily succeed to Caliphate after his death, which was very near as his deteriorating health showed. The Prophet knew well that Abu Bakr, Umar and their supporters and even the Helpers (Ansar) were concerned about Caliphate. They would not allow His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) to become the Caliph. And the same thing happened that the presence of the opponents of Ali (a.s.) in Medina did not allow him to become the Caliph.

The Prophet was also not unaware of their intention. Thus, Abu Bakr remained in Medina and Umar and his supporters returned to Medina from Jarf. The Prophet expired in the meantime, and the opponents of Ali (a.s.) settled the matter of Caliphate immediately. There is no doubt that if opponents of Ali (a.s.) had been out of Medina at the time of the Prophet’s demise, according to the natural course of events, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) would have become the Caliph.

No doubt, all these procedures of Saqifah seem to be tainted. The success of this procedure is the direct result of the non-participating of Usamah’s army. No doubt, opponents of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) succeeded in their aim, but they also deviated from the commands of the Holy Prophet (S). It is a matter of great regret that the Prophet invoked curse on those who disobeyed his commands.

Let Sunni and Shia argue with each other, but the fact is that which the writer has mentioned above. It is obvious that Saqifah was a really a very hideous matter as Abu Bakr and Umar abandoned the Prophet’s funeral for its sake! It was really a very unnatural act that the opponents of Ali (a.s.) indulged in. A Muslim can never abandon the dead body of a Muslim, what to say of Muslims who had to leave the holy body of the Prophet for the sake of rulership!

It seems to be a very grievous matter but Ahlul Sunnat have found a way out by framing the principles of their Imamate in such a way that it is not obligatory on Allah to appoint an Imam and the people are obliged to do so even if due to this they have to leave the dead body of the Prophet without burial1 . Refer to the book of Sharh Aqaid Nasafi, which says that priority is for selection of the Imam and the burial of the Prophet is only second in importance.

It is obvious that this principle was framed taking into consideration the matters of Caliphate, although it is absolutely against wisdom, honesty and modesty and such a principle cannot be called divine pleasure. Only those principles are divine pleasure which are based on the laws of Nature. Such an unnatural principle cannot be accepted as a point of divine law.

No. 2: In Tarikhul Khulafa2 , it is stated that Abu Bakr sent Umar to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), as some people had gathered at the house of Fatima (s.a.), in order to break up the gathering of Ali’s supporters so that it may not succeed in its purpose. Abu Bakr ordered that if they don’t obey, they must be put to death. So Umar came to Fatima’s house with this order and also brought a burning torch to burn down the house.

In the meantime, Umar met Lady Fatima (s.a.), who asked him, “O son of Khattab! Where are you going? Have you come to burn down my house?” Umar replied, “Yes, we have come to set fire to your house and all those present in it.” His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) suddenly came out and pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr. The writer says that the matter of Ali’s allegiance seems to be a Sunni tactic of the author of Tarikhul Khulafa as mentioned in the previous section of this book.

But these tactics of Abu Bakr and Umar do not comply with any law of humanity. Shah Abdul Aziz has justified them in his Tohfa, but their excuses seem to be worse than their deeds. This incident seems to be extremely repulsive in the view of the people of justice. It seems that Abu Bakr and Umar had in their concern for guarding their seat of power, forgotten that Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was the daughter of their Prophet, and a daughter that was highly aggrieved and broken-hearted due to the separation of her father. How nicely Abu Bakr sent Umar to Fatima’s house to present condolences! Truly, condolence is given with sword and fire!

The tradition of Sahih Bukhari states that the Holy Prophet (S) said: ‘The greed of Caliphate would overcome you soon, and as a result of which, you shall be ashamed in the hereafter,’ is really true. As soon as the Messenger of Allah (S) passed away, Abu Bakr and Umar and their supporters wrought such actions that may Allah protect all the Muslims from such deeds. Attack on Fatima’s house, setting it on fire, intention of eliminating those who sheltered in it etc, they all are such ugly deeds that prove their greed for rulership. May Allah protect us all from such greed. What else can result from such greed, except regret in the hereafter.

No. 3: According to the report of Hasan Basri3 , after taking the oath of allegiance, Abu Bakr delivered a sermon and said, “I am a human being and not one better than you. When I make a mistake, help me against it and when you see me going astray, correct me and know that a Satan is controlling me. When you see that I am talking nonsense, do not accept my words.”

The author says: It is a strange sermon. Abu Bakr says that he is a human being and not better than the people. There is no doubt that he was a human being and not free from human nature. But when he was certain that he was not most excellent for the followers of the Prophet, he had no right to take Caliphate in his hands. Even if you say that Abu Bakr said this by way of modesty, it was never so that there was none better than him among the followers of the Prophet. Ali (a.s.) was definitely many times superior to both, Abu Bakr and Umar, as proved from established Islamic texts. Abu Bakr knew this very well.

Did Abu Bakr and Umar not know that Islam gained strength through the sword of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)? That if Ali (a.s.) had not been there, Islam would not have been established by anyone? Did Abu Bakr and Umar not know that Islam could not have been established through them? Did Abu Bakr and Umar not confess to their hearts that it was Ali (a.s.) who had borne all the difficulties of the battles of Badr, Hunayn, Khandaq and Khaybar, whereas the two of them (Abu Bakr and Umar) have not a single achievement to their credit, except that they either fled from the battlefield or found some excuse to avoid entering the field of the battle.

Did Abu Bakr and Umar not know that the action of Ali (a.s.) only on the day of Khandaq was, according to the statement of the Holy Prophet (S), equal to all the worship acts of all the men and jinns combined? What right Abu Bakr had to take advantage of Islam, when it was the sword of Ali (a.s.) that was instrumental in establishing it? Is it not the case of ‘one takes pains while the other takes credit’? Thus, in this situation, Abu Bakr did not consider himself as the best of the people, and especially better than Ali (a.s.). Then why did he insist to take over the Caliphate?

The statement of Abu Bakr that a Satan dominated him is such that the writer cannot explain it further. It seems to be a matter between Satan and Abu Bakr. How can anyone else know its reality? It is said that a man’s Satan is man only. Perhaps Abu Bakr meant to imply that it was a human Satan who interfered with his decisions. Allah knows best. Thus, in the view of the writer, this sermon of Abu Bakr, though carrying an aspect of humility, is not free from an aspect of censure.

No. 4: Among all the evil deeds of the two Caliphs the worst in the view of the writer was the way they went out of their way to revive and rejuvenate Bani Umayyah tribe in such a way as it had never been revived. The writer has explained this in the forgone pages. But here some repetition will not be inappropriate. It is not hidden from those who know that Bani Umayyah were the greatest enemies of the Holy Prophet (S) and the religion of Allah.

As long as the Prophet remained in Mecca, he continued to suffer at the hands of this tribe. After migration to Medina, the enmity of Bani Umayyah with the Holy Prophet (S) remained as it was before. Many a times the Quraish, which included Bani Umayyah, attacked the Prophet during his stay in Medina, but the sword of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) suppressed them regularly till they were badly routed in the Battle of Hunayn. History and biographical accounts show that the Prophet subdued Bani Umayyah after a struggle spanning a period of ten years, as mentioned previously.

It is no secret that the Prophet completely hated the Bani Umayyah. So much so that he had even cursed them and they were symbolized by the accursed tree. But Abu Bakr and Umar destroyed the ten-years’ efforts of the Prophet. How the Prophet had destroyed and weakened this tribe through toil and efforts! This wretched tribe also deserved such a treatment; but after the passing away of the Prophet, it started becoming affluent.

The story of Bani Umayyah’s rise to riches is that when Abu Bakr became the ruler, Abu Sufyan, the chief of Bani Umayyah came to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and said, “O Ali (a.s.) stretch your hand, I want to give allegiance to you.” And he also said, “Abu Bakr has become the Caliph and you remained quiet. If you allow me, I will fill the deserts of Medina with troops of Mecca and destroy the Caliphate in no time.” Since His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) knew that the Holy Prophet (S) was dead against Bani Umayyah and had even cursed them, he did not pay any attention to Abu Sufyan’s offer.

It is well known that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was not one to act against the policy of the Prophet and since he considered following the path of the Messenger as his faith, he could not co-operate with Abu Sufyan in any way. When Abu Sufyan realized that Ali was not interested in seizing power, he went to Abu Bakr and Umar and said, “You have taken over the Caliphate without thinking of my share! I will destroy your Caliphate now.” Since the two Caliphs were too much concerned to save their Caliphate, without caring that the Prophet was displeased with Bani Umayyah, they rushed forward to satisfy Abu Sufyan by giving him the rulership of Syria.

So Bani Umayyah became richer by the day after the passing away of the Prophet. Up to the point that they became rulers of the whole Arab kingdom through the favor granted to them by Abu Bakr and Umar. These people acted against the Holy Prophet’s policy and made Bani Umayyah richer than they were ever before.

Although Bani Umayyah had no right to put their feet on this ground, because they were the greatest enemies of the Holy Prophet (S), his religion and his family members. They had no right to become prosperous through Islamic rule, but Abu Bakr and Umar, to safeguard their rule, helped this tribe in such a way that it is constituted the greatest sin. As a result of the generosity of the two Caliphs, Bani Umayyah became more and more powerful and all their ignoble traits of character came to light. These people were having a very bad character. They committed all sorts of prohibited acts after gaining temporal power. And no one, but the two Caliphs, could be said to be responsible for all these acts.

If Abu Bakr and Umar had not patronized Bani Umayyah, it would have remained in a miserable condition as left by the Prophet. It was as a result of the generosity of Abu Bakr and Umar that Bani Umayyah became rulers of their time and filled all the Islamic lands with their evil deeds.

It was as a result of the help rendered by Abu Bakr and Umar that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) could not pass his tenure of Caliphate peacefully. Imam Hasan (a.s.) was poisoned; Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his relatives were martyred in Karbala’. This series of martyrdoms of Imams continued for many years; Sayyid blood flowed like water and the religion of Allah was destroyed from a thousand aspects; thousands of heresies came into being, etc. Without any doubt, the ones responsible for all this were Abu Bakr and Umar and there is no doubt that on Judgment Day they will be answerable before the Almighty Allah for empowering Bani Umayyah against the wishes of the Messenger of Allah (S).

No. 5: According to the traditional report of Qastalani4 , Abu Bakr said, “I have never prostrated to idols.” Umar became angry at this and said, “You say that you have not prostrated to idols, though during the period of your infidelity, you indeed committed such acts.” When religion of Arabs, especially the people of Mecca was idol worship, Abu Bakr must also have worshipped idols during the period of Ignorance. Umar’s objection to Abu Bakr was not unreasonable. But the question is, why Abu Bakr denied worshipping the idols at that time?

From the falsification of Umar, it is clear that this refusal was unnecessary, but there must be some reason of his refusal. So far, the writer is unable to find the reason of this refusal. Perhaps Abu Bakr thought that idol worship was a defective behavior.

Especially with the official position he held, and also when he knew that right from the beginning, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) had not worshipped idols; certainly this matter rankles in the heart that one who worshipped idols in the age ignorance, how can he become a Caliph of the Prophet who was infallible since eternity? And one who was never a worshipper of idols, how he could be superceded? There is no doubt that:

“A strange thing is this, to be sure!”5

No. 6: It is mentioned in Mishkat6 and Muwattah7 , that a woman was a grandmother of a dead person. She asked Abu Bakr about the share of her inheritance as a grandmother. Abu Bakr said, “Neither the Quran mentions any share for you nor traditions; go away for the time being, we will refer to knowledgeable people about this.”

If the Caliph of his time does not know about the share of a grandmother, it is a matter of great surprise and regret. According to Allamah Suyuti, in view of the Prophet, Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable of the companions. Now if this is the case with Abu Bakr, what do you expect from Umar and others?

No. 7: In the book of Maghazi Waqidi8 , Talha bin Abdullah, Ibn Abbas and Jabir bin Abdullah report that the Holy Prophet (S) prayed the funeral prayer for the martyrs of Uhud and said, “I am a witness for them.” Abu Bakr said, “O Prophet, are they not my brothers? They entered the fold of Islam and took part in the war as I fought.” The Prophet said, “Yes, but they never delighted from the prosperity of the world. I don’t know, what you will do after me.” Upon this, Abu Bakr wept and asked, “Would I really commit such acts?”

Dear readers! The Prophet’s saying cannot be without any purpose. Abu Bakr’s deeds certainly came to light after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S), as is clear to all. We should know that Waqidi who is also called Imam Maghazi, was such a reliable researcher that Ibn Khallikan, Khatib Baghdadi, Abul Fida, Allamah Suyuti, author of Sharh Qaushiji, Allamah Damiri, Ibn Hajar and Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalvi have testified to his capability.

Notes

1. Ref. Aqaide Nasafi

2. Pg. 74

3. Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 68.

4. Vol. 6, Pg. 152.

5. Surah Saad 38:5.

6. In the Book of Inheritance.

7. Pg. 386

8. Battle of Uhud, Pg. 102.

Unlawful Acts Of Umar

No. 8: According to the report of Anas bin Malik1 , the Holy Prophet (S) awarded 40 whips to the drunkard and the same punishment was given by Abu Bakr, but Umar whipped a drunkard 80 times on the advice of Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf. Such a good advisor, that he doubled the penalty for imbibing wine! It was only Abdur Rahman Auf who could have done this! And Umar was his special partner. The Prophet had truly said: “I don’t know what innovations you will invent after my death?” This increase in punishment of alcoholism is one more example of innovations after the Prophet.

No. 9: Nine innovations of Umar are mentioned in the first volume of Hayatul Haiwan2 , but in the view of this writer, all were not bad, like making rounds of the town, as it was very beneficial for maintaining law and order in the city, but most of them are not without objection. The writer states his personal opinion in three of such innovations:

First: Prohibition of Mutah marriage. This order is against the statement of Quran and traditions and is not worth to be obeyed. Since the writer has discussed this topic in detail, there is no need to repeat it here again.

Second: Tarawih Prayers during the month of Ramadhan, as prescribed by Umar. The writer does not know what was the custom of Tarawih Prayers during the time of Umar, but it was very much disliked at that time. The usual manner of Tarawih Prayers is that people gather in the mosque and the leader starts the prayer. His recitation is like the speed of a motor car, railway, steamer, bicycle, or aeroplane etc. No one can understand whether he is reciting the Holy Quran or Sanskrit texts.

Only the words of Ya’lamoon and Ta’lamoon are audible. During this Ramadhan, the writer went to a mosque to listen to the Holy Quran. Even though the writer is more or less conversant with Quran, he could not understand, in the beginning, which part of the Holy Book the Imam was reciting and only recognized it much later. What type of a worship act is it, is beyond the comprehension of the writer, but all Tarawih reciters recite it as a habit and consider it to be a worship act.

The fact is that Umar has designed this prayer to look like a joke.

Three: He killed a young innocent child mercilessly. This shows his bad temperament and cruelty. The fact is that thinking of his viciousness hurts ones feelings.

No. 10: On the day of the treaty of Hudaibiya, Umar expressed his doubt about the prophethood of Prophet very strongly and said, “Today, so much doubt was created in my heart as had never been created before about the prophethood of the Prophet.” This shows that he used to harbor doubts about the Holy Prophet’s prophethood but on that day, it was maximum.3

No. 11: Umar gave such a hit at Fatima’s belly that she had miscarriage and the male child expired in the womb. It seems that due to this shock, she became ill and died within six months.4 The Arabic text about this incident is as follows: “Indeed, Umar thrashed the belly of Fatima on the Day of Allegiance causing the miscarriage of Mohsin.” This incident is also mentioned in Ibn Abdullah’s book, Al-Iqd and Mizanul Etedal of Zahabi, where the text is almost the same. Besides, the same event is mentioned as the cause of Fatima’s death in Maarijul Nubuwwah.

No doubt, many women die due to miscarriage. Some die immediately and some after a few days. Lady Fatima had miscarriage because of severe blow and her health deteriorated and after a few months, she passed away. When the writer thinks about Umar’s deed, he cannot understand what kind of an elder Umar was? Firstly, to beat a lady does not befit any respectable man. Secondly, to hit upon her belly. Thirdly, to hit on the stomach of a pregnant woman. Fourthly, to hit so hard that she has a miscarriage. Indeed, a gentleman can never commit such a shameful deed. This kind of deed is not permitted by any caste or religion.

Even among uneducated, ignorant and uncultured people, only such a man can commit this who is the most degraded of them. That is class difference is found among the uncivilized tribes also. Hence, one who commits such a deed will the worst of them. Fifthly, to beat a chaste woman. Sixthly, to beat a respectable woman of Bani Hashim tribe. Seventhly, to beat the daughter of the Holy Prophet (S) and that also his most beloved daughter.

Eighthly, to beat the wife of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), who is the brother of the Messenger of Allah (S), the son-in-law of the Prophet, the body of the Holy Prophet (S), the blood of the Messenger of Allah (S), the flesh of the Holy Prophet (S) and the soul of the Holy Prophet (S). Ninthly, to beat the respected mother of Hasan and Husayn (a.s.). Tenthly, to beat the grandmother of the nine Imams. Eleventh, to beat Lady Sayyida (a.s.) and that Sayyida who got the title of Sayyida (a.s.) from Allah due to her inclusion in the Verse of Purification and the Verse of Malediction, who was the descendant of the Holy Prophet (S) and the wife of a Sayyid, and the mother of two Sayyids and the grandmother of nine Imams.

O Sayyid Sunni brothers! Don’t you have some communal shame remaining? Allah forbid, I cannot say anything else here. We should know that this solitary deed of Umar was such that our hair stand on ends. Obviously, how can I, the writer have any association with such a Caliph? After all Lady Sayyida (a.s.) was the mother and ancestor of a sinful person like me and who can tolerate a person hurting his ancestor?

According to the report of Abdullah Ibn Umar5 , Umar said: “After I converted to Islam, I never urinated in the standing position.” The writer says that Umar used to urinate only in the standing position like many educated people of today, but he should not have tormented Fatima Zahra (a.s.) in the above fashion.

No. 12: According to the report of Jabir6 , Umar came to the Messenger of Allah (S) with Taurat and said: “O Prophet, this is a copy of Taurat. The Holy Prophet (S) kept quiet, but Umar started reading it. The Messenger’s expression began to change and continued changing. Seeing this, Abu Bakr said to Umar: “I wish you were dead and that your mother should have wept for you.” Umar glanced at the Prophet’s face and said: “I seek protection from the anger of Allah and anger of His Messenger. I am pleased with Allah, with Islam, with the religion of Muhammad (S) and with prophethood of Muhammad (S).”

The Prophet said: “I swear, if Prophet Moosa (a.s.) had been present now, he would have obeyed me but you would have left me and adopted the wrong path. This report also shows that Muslims should not recite the Taurat and Injeel.

Obviously, one can’t enjoy the Quran completely without having the knowledge of Taurat and Injeel, but in this narration, Umar’s recitation of Taurat was only irrelevant talk.

Besides, the Holy Prophet (S) knew that Umar had natural inclination to the religion of Jews. That is why the Holy Prophet (S) became annoyed at Umar’s act and in annoyance said: “If Prophet Moosa (a.s.) had been present, he would have surely obeyed me but leaving me aside, you would go astray.”

No. 13: In Sahih Muslim, it is narrated by Abdullah bin Umar7 that when Abdullah Ibn Abi Salool died, his son Abdullah bin Abdullah bin Abi Salool came to the Holy Prophet (S) and asked to give him his holy shirt for his father’s shroud. The Prophet gave him his shirt. Then he requested the Holy Prophet (S) to recite the funeral prayer. The Holy Prophet (S) stood up, but Umar held the Prophet’s cloak and said: “Allah has prohibited you to pray for him.” The Prophet said: “Allah has given me authority and said that we should recite Astagfirullaah (I seek Allah’s forgiveness) 70 times.”

Umar said that the dead man was a hypocrite, but the Prophet performed his funeral prayer. Then Allah sent his revelation on this Prophet (S) that:

“(O Messenger!) And never offer prayer for any one of them (the hypocrites) who dies and do not stand by his grave…”8

The fact is that the Messenger of Allah (S) was a mercy for all the worlds, why he should not have accepted the request to perform the prayer? The dead person was so fortunate that the Prophet invoked for him, so how can he remain a hypocrite? He was a beloved of Allah. Rather, it seems that the deceased was not a hypocrite at all, otherwise, he would not have had the fortune for such a funeral prayer. This report only shows the ‘mistake’ of the Holy Prophet (S) and Umar’s correctness. Tell us, O Sunni brothers! Isn’t it a wonderful thing for Umar! Such must be the tutor of the Prophet!

No. 14: It is narrated9 that the Prophet stated that the Black Stone of the Kaaba was sent from heaven to the earth and it will get two eyes on Judgment Day and will be witness of Muslims. But according to the tradition of Muwattah10 , Hisham Ibn Urwah relates from his father that Umar said: “There is no benefit in kissing the Black Stone.”

Now the readers may decide, whose saying is preferable, the Prophet’s or Umar’s? Apparently, Umar’s statement contradicts the Prophet. Ahlul Sunnat will definitely accept Umar’s statement, because it is a saying of the tutor of the Prophet and it has the position of the final word.

No. 15: According to Muwattah11 , Abu Bakr recited Surah Baqarah in the Morning Prayer and Umar was reciting Surah Yusuf and Surah Hajj in the Morning Prayers. Obviously, all these chapters are very lengthy and there is great likelihood that the sun would rise till they are concluded. Then what kind of prayer would it be? That is why, Islamic law prescribes short Surahs in obligatory Morning Prayer.

No. 16: From a report of Tarikh Abul Fida12 , we come to know that at the time of the passing away of the Prophet, Umar was saying: “I would kill one who says that the Prophet is dead. The Holy Prophet (S) has been raised to the sky like Prophet Isa (a.s.).” Abu Bakr said: “Muslims should know that the Holy Prophet (S) has passed away, but Allah is alive.” This incident also shows Umar’s severe temperament and irrelevant nature; there is no need to say more on this.

No. 17: It is mentioned in Muwattah13 , that a Muezzin14 came to Umar and seeing him sound asleep said: “Chief of believers! As-Salaato Khairum minan Nawm (Prayer is better than sleep).” Therefore, Umar ordered him to include this sentence in the Morning Azaan. It is a strange interpretation of Islamic Law; that if the Muezzin had uttered another sentence, it would also be included in Azaan. How surprising that the Caliph excluded Hayya a’laa khairil a’mal (Rush to the best of deeds) from the Azaan and included As-Salaato Khairum minan Nawm (Prayer is better than sleep).

No. 18: It is seen from the report of Tirmidhi15 that Abu Bakr and Umar quarreled with each other on some matter in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (S) and they raised their voices. The Prophet was annoyed due to this and the following verse was revealed:

“O you who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and do not speak loud to him as you speak loud to one another.”16

Obviously, such shouting in the presence of the Holy Prophet (S) was very much against etiquette. Good etiquette is a great thing. May Allah give us the good sense of manners and etiquette. Thus, the Lord of the Worlds revealed the above verse for the sake of the honor and respect of the Messenger of Allah (S).

No. 19: According to the report of Sharh Aqaid Nasafi17 Umar appointed six persons: Uthman, Ali (a.s.), Abdul Rahman bin Auf, Talha, Zubair and Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas to choose the Caliph after him, and specified that the choice of Abdul Rahman would be preferred. According to Sharh Fiqhe Akbar18 , Abdul Rahman asked Ali (a.s.): “If you become the Caliph, would you act according to the Book of Allah, Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (S) and the practice of two Shaykhs?”19 His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) replied: “I would act according to Allah’s Book and Sunnah of the Messenger and after that I will act according to my own discretion and not according to the practice of the two Shaykhs.”

According to Tarikh Khamis20 when Abdul Rahman bin Auf asked Uthman: “If you become Caliph, would you act according to Allah’s Book, Sunnah of the Messenger and the practice of the two Shaykhs?” Uthman said: “Yes, I would do that.” Therefore, Abdul Rahman bin Auf appointed Uthman as Caliph.

We should know that outwardly Umar selected six persons for the matter of Caliphate but internally he made such arrangement that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) could not become a Caliph at any cost. The political acumen of Umar was wonderful! He was worried that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) should not become a Caliph after his death. It is not an ordinary thing to appoint some advisors for his successor in such bad and critical condition that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) cannot get chance to succeed. It was also a great political plan of the second Caliph, that he included His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) in the consultative committee but disappointed him of success.

According to the reports of Mukhtasar Jame and Abu Fida, Abdul Rahman bin Auf was given more authority about Caliphate because he was the brother-in- law (sister’s husband) of Uthman and Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas was also appointed as an advisor because he was a cousin of Uthman. It was impossible that anybody could become a Caliph, except Uthman; and it happened so because of the plan of Abdul Rahman bin Auf. Instead of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), Uthman became the Caliph.

Umar had given another direction to these people that if any member does not obey Abdul Rahman’s decision, he should be killed, since cruel acts of whipping and murder were in the very nature of Umar. But he put the condition of killing so that if His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) does not obey Abdul Rahman’s decision, he would be killed. Allah be praised! What a policy of Umar! And he used his policy till the last. It is worth considering that Umar was breathing his last but he was worried about his enemy! O people of justice, pay attention. There is no doubt that Umar achieved a great success in Uthman’s appointment.

But Umar has not done anything good for Muslims. The fact is that Uthman was incapable and it was proved during the twelve years of his Caliphate. If His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) or any other man who did not belong to Bani Umayyah had been there, Caliphate would have been established on him in a much better way than the Caliphate of Uthman.

But Alas, Umar’s ego and his lack of honesty and fidelity overcame him in such a way, that a really capable man could not become a Caliph or the ruler of Arabs after his death. The writer says: If Umar had true love for Islam or if he had been just and friendly to humanity, he would kept away the Caliphate from Uthman. Since the writer has mentioned all the evil affairs of Uthman previously, there is no need to repeat them here.

Notes

1. Sahih Muslim Vol. 2, Pg. 71.

2. Pg. 431

3. Ref. Al-Minal wan Nihal, Shahristani, Pg. 20.

4. Ref. Al-Minal wan Nihal, Shahristani, Pg. 20.

5. Sahih Tirmidhi, Vol. 1.

6. Kitabul Ilm, Pg. 24.

7. Vol. 1, Pg. 276.

8. Surah Taubah 9:84.

9. Mishkat, Kitab al-Manasik, Chapter of Tawaf.

10. Pg. 143, Chapter of Taqbeelur Rukn.

11. Pg. 22 and Pg. 28

12. Pg. 164

13. Pg. 24

14. One who recites Azaan, the call for Prayer

15. Vol. 2, Pg. 77

16. Surah Hujurat 49:2

17. Pg. 95

18. Pg. 80

19. Abu Bakr and Umar.

20. Vol. 2, Pg. 255

Islam And The Faith Of Three Caliphs

When Ahlul Sunnat consider the three Caliphs to be the rightful successors of the Prophet, it is necessary to consider them Imams and leaders and not only religious and faithful persons. Presently, according to the opinion of Ahlul Sunnat the three Caliphs are superior to all the Muslims. But we have no argument with the belief of Ahlul Sunnat.

Here the argument is whether people of Shiite faith, believe that the Caliphs were infidels? The belief of Ahlul Sunnat about this is that according to Shias the three Caliphs were infidels. But seeing the reference from Shia books, we come to know that Shias consider them Muslim and not infidels.

According to Majalisul Mo-mineen1 of Qadi Nurullah Shushtari, the great scholar Khwaja Nasiruddin Muhammad Tusi says in his Tajreed that those who fight against Ali (a.s.) are infidels and those who oppose Ali (a.s.) are transgressors. The three Caliphs did not fight against Ali (a.s.), so they cannot be infidels; and when they were not infidels, they were Muslims. According to Allamah Qaushiji in Sharh Tajrid2 , people of Shiite faith are not convinced of the infidelity of the three Caliphs. Therefore, it is clear from both the books of Shia and Sunni that according to Shias, the three Caliphs were Muslims.

Notes

1. Pg. 64.

2. Pg. 29.

Matter Of Inheritance

The Almighty Allah says in the 11th verse of Surah Nisa:

“After (the payment of) a bequest he may have bequeathed or a debt; your parents and your children, you know not which of them is the nearer to you in usefulness; this is an ordinance from Allah: Surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.”1

According to Quran and traditions, the matter of inheritance is very important for Muslims. According to the report of Ibn Umar2 , the Holy Prophet (S) stated that the most difficult time on a Muslim is that only two nights are left for his death and he has not prepared his will.

One more tradition on the same topic is found in Sahih Muslim3 related by Ibn Shahab that Imam Noodi says that majority believe that making a will is recommended and not obligatory. And Dawood and many others have stated that it is obligatory, when the deceased is responsible for some right or he is having an entrusted thing of any person. According to Imam Shafei, the will must be written as a precautionary measure.

It is mentioned in Ashatul Maat4 that according to Jabir the Holy Prophet (S) stated that if a person has prepared his will before dying, he has passed away like a martyr and in the way of righteousness. From Mizan-al-Sharani5 we come to know that if a person is religious, making a will is obligatory on him, otherwise, it is desirable.

From Tarikh Abul Fida6 , it is clear that at the time of going to the cave, the Holy Prophet (S) asked His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) to return the entrusted things to the people that were with him and sleep on his bed. In Jame Sagir of Suyuti it is mentioned that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Ali (a.s.) is from me and I am from Ali (a.s.) and whatever is obligatory to be fulfilled, cannot be fulfilled by anyone, except me and Ali (a.s.).” And he also said: “Ali (a.s.) will fulfill my religion.”

In the same book, it is mentioned that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Every Prophet had a successor and my successor is Ali (a.s.).” It is surprising that despite verses and traditions about making wills, the Prophet himself didn’t leave any will. There is no doubt that the Prophet wanted to leave a written testament, but Umar said: “We have the Quran with us,” and did not allow the will to be written.

Ahlul Sunnat may offer lame excuses, but the fact is that Umar knew that the Holy Prophet (S) was going to appoint His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) as his successor, as Umar himself confessed after the Caliphate was formed: “The Prophet (S) wanted to appoint Ali as his successor, but we prevented him.”

No doubt, the Holy Prophet (S) wanted to write his will for the sake of religion. If His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) had become his successor, Islam and Muslims would have been safe from all evils, whose seeds were sown by Umar in the Islamic world. Indeed, the testament of Imamate was one of the best things and it was such an exalted thing that since it could not be realized in the world, Islam had to face thousands of troubles. So much so, that Islam has not remained the religion of Allah, it has become the religion of selfish people.

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

Notes

1. 4:11.

2. Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, Pg. 36

3. Vol. 2, Pg. 38

4. Vol. 3, Pg. 92

5. Pg. 118, Kitabul Wasaya

6. Pg. 132

Debate Of Good And Evil, Compulsion And Free Will

In Mishkat1 is mentioned a report of Sahih Muslim that “Allah fixed the very portion of adultery, which a man will indulge in. There would be no escape from it. The adultery of the eye is the lustful look and the adultery of the ears is listening to voluptuous (song or talk) and the adultery of the tongue is licentious speech and the adultery of the hand is the lustful grip (embrace) and the adultery of the feet is to walk (to the place) where he intends to commit adultery and the heart yearns and desires, which he may or may not put into effect.”

It is clear from this tradition that whatever a man does, he does so because it is written in his destiny and therefore he should not be blamed. It means that since it was the will of Allah, what is the mistake of man and why would Allah be displeased with the people? What does all this mean? It means that it is Allah’s work, but man is guilty.2

From another tradition of Mishkat3 , it is seen that when Allah creates a man for Paradise, He makes him work, so that he would be eligible for Paradise and when He creates a man for hell, He makes him do as hellish people do and then He puts him in hell, therefore it is proved that a man would not be responsible for his deeds.

According to Ihya-ul-uloom of Ghazzali4 , good actions of people show faith in Allah and all worldly affairs appear according to the will of Allah. And good and evil, profit and loss, Islam and infidelity, good guidance and deviation, devotion, sin, polytheism and faith are the commands of Allah and no one can disobey His commands. If Allah wants to mislead anyone, He misleads him. It is thus clear that whatever is done, it is by Allah and man does not do anything. What justice is it that man has to bear punishment?

The writer says that in his opinion, the question of good, evil, free will and compulsion is beyond human’s sense and though he has read discussions about it in different languages, but through his investigation, he hasn’t formed a final opinion. O my Lord! This matter is beyond my intellect. I believe in whatever is Your command and Your Prophet’s and the commands of the Infallibles in this matter, and to follow it, is my duty and I don’t want to argue anything about it.

“Keep us on the right path. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.”5

Notes

1. Pg. 12

2. In this matter, a clear and simple faith is enough that Allah has not created a man like vegetables and minerals. On the contrary, He has bestowed him power and strength, that a man can do whatever he likes and he can use his power with the help of Allah’s gift. No doubt that Allah has given some abilities to man and some He has kept beyond him. For example, when a man is standing, he is given choice to raise one of his feet, and he can raise it, but he cannot raise both the feet together and remain suspended in space.

It is clear that a man is helpless in some matters and therefore he cannot be held answerable in those matters as it is illogical. His reward and punishment depends only on his work in which he was given an authority. Readers of the Holy Quran can understand that Prophet Isa (a.s.) is mentioned to have created living things and Isa (a.s.) himself has also mentioned about his creation, but through the power of Allah.

Thus a man performs good deeds and bad deeds but whatever he does, he does not on his own, since he has no personal power. Whatever he does, he does so by the power that Allah has granted to him. Therefore, good or bad will be related to man and to blame Allah for it, is meaningless. Therefore, good or bad, everything is from Allah and if it means that whatever a man does is from Allah, is entirely wrong.

And if it means that whatever is good or bad in the world are granted by Allah, then we accept that whatever good is from Allah and whatever Allah does is all for the best, and evil is out of Allah’s will, because Allah is Supreme, the Knower and Omnipotent. Therefore, He does not allow bad deeds. Those who have invented the concept of compulsion, believe that a man is helpless and whatever Allah wants, He does. Seeing the senseless and inhuman deeds of their elders, they attributed all their misdoings to Allah in order to save them from blame.

3. Pg. 12

4. Pg. 66/67

5. Surah Al Hamd 1:5-7

Second Cause Of The Decrease Of Religious Significance Of Bani Hashim

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Discussion About Sunni and Imamiyah Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples Of Dissociation Of The Two Sects

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

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

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

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

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

Imams of the Prophet’s Family

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

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

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

O Allah! Bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

Important Warning

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of Religious Differences Between The Two Sects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need Of Unity Among Muslims

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

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

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

The Religion of Imamites is The Religion of Ahlul Bayt

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

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

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

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

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

The Desired Success Of Ahlul Sunnat Faith

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

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

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

Differences Of The Principles With Regard To The Tragedy Of Karbala’

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

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

Beliefs Of Ahlul Sunnat And Imamiyah With Regard To Caliphate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Arson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After The Arson

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

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

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

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

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

Decrease in the Respect Of Ahlul Bayt From The Aspect Of The Rule Of Consensus

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

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

Inappropriate Titles That Decreased The Respect Of Muhammad’s Progeny

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

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

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

Notes

1. The great discriminator

2. The great truthful one.

3. Sword of Allah.

4. Truthful lady