Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Mutah (Temporary) Marriage

Mutah is a kind of marriage (Nikah). The only difference is that one is periodic and the other is permanent. Its detail is given in the Holy Quran. Mutah is not compulsory or obligatory but the Holy Quran considers it lawful. Since no verse of Mutah is found to be abrogated, Shias believe that it is lawful and they practice it. Non-Shias regard it unlawful, because Umar Ibn Khattab has decreed it to be illegal.

In his own words: “I prohibit both.” How the statement of the Prophet or Caliph can abrogate a verse of Quran is beyond the understanding of this writer.

According to non-Shias, some tradition of the Prophet abrogated the command of Mutah and that is why the Caliph also instructed thus. The writer says that it is the same, whether there is some saying of the Prophet abrogating Mutah or not, neither the statement of the Prophet can abrogate a verse of Quran nor the saying of Umar. According to Shias belief, only Allah can abrogate His own command.

Even the Prophet or a descendent of a Prophet cannot abrogate a divine command. But the same cannot be expected from Ahlul Sunnat according to whose belief, Umar had the right to abrogate any command of Allah, since according to Ahlul Sunnat faith most verses were revealed because of Umar; so if after the passing away of the Prophet, the Caliph abrogates a command of Allah, what is wrong in it?

By following this faith, it becomes easy to accept the abrogation of the verse of Mutah, otherwise, apparently the command of Umar for abrogation of Mutah seems to be absolutely opposed to Islamic texts. This argument is not acceptable to the writer, because to say that Quranic verses were revealed according to Umar’s opinion is meaningless. In the view of intelligent people, Quranic verses were not revealed according to Umar’s opinion and Umar’s command cannot abrogate the command of Allah.

Ahlul Sunnat believe that Allah sent revelation according to the Caliph’s wish and this shows that Umar had a share in prophethood, which means that he was superior to the Prophet. Thus, when the Caliph disliked something, Allah’s command come down according to his wish and there was no interference of the Prophet or anyone else. We also come to know that Muhammad (S) and even Allah felt it necessary to bear in mind Umar’s likes or dislikes. If it was not so, how can they say that revelation was sent according to his wish?

Muhammad (S) was a channel to convey divine revelation and preaching of verses that whatever communications were sent by Allah, he was to bring them to the believers and without interfering, whether he liked it or not. It is clear that this is the function of the Messenger of Allah (S). But revelation was according to Umar’s opinion; and Allah had to ask Umar about his opinion before sending it, which means that Umar did not only have a share in prophethood, he also was a partner in godhood.

This belief seems to exceed the faith of Bahrul Uloom Maulavi Abdul Alaa, which regards Umar only to be the tutor of the Holy Prophet (S). Bahrul Uloom says that sometime the Prophet was in a position where even angels could not tread and sometimes he came down to the earthly level and it was in one of those moments that in the last days, the Messenger of Allah (S) said:

“Give me pen and paper, so that I may write for you something that you would never go astray after me.”

Umar understood that it was the moment of his earthliness and therefore he corrected him. Upon which the Messenger of Allah (S) continued to repeat: “I seek the refuge of Allah.”

The writer says: When Umar had a share in Quranic revelation, then how could the personal reformation of Prophet Muhammad (S) be difficult for the Caliph? But the writer cannot share the Maulavi’s faith, because the saying of the Holy Prophet (S) does not show that when he said: “Give me pen and paper…” he had fallen to the level of earthliness, because if it had been so, he would not have said: “So that you will not go astray after me.”

It is a statement, which shows that what he was saying was very important. That is, he wanted to write something, which would save his followers from going astray. It is clear that such a document cannot be concerned with his terminal condition. Certainly his thoughts were on Allah, but Umar could not understand the Prophet’s style and his demand of intelligence and wisdom, otherwise, he never would have tried to correct his thinking.

When at last the Prophet said, “I seek the refuge of Allah,” also it was not due to low thoughts. Rather, it seems that the Prophet was very much displeased of the people’s disobedience. No doubt, to say, “I seek the refuge of Allah,” was a demand of nature as his followers and all Muslims had always obeyed him, but now the condition was such that when he was in his terminal illness and asking for pen and paper, they were not prepared to obey him. On the contrary, Umar was also claiming that the Prophet was talking nonsense, as clear from his statement that: “The disease has overcome him…”

If the Prophet had not said, “I seek the refuge of Allah,” what else could he have said? Maulavi Abdul Alaa has, in his justifications, praised priesthood a lot, but it is regretful that his justifications have no relation to Nature. Now the people of justice can decide whether Umar had any share in divine revelation or not? The fact is that Ahlul Sunnat love the three Caliphs to such an extent that they do not care for the respect and honor of the Prophet. Allah and the Prophet have only minor value for them. We are horrified on seeing people like Bahrul Uloom and other learned Ahlul Sunnat. Although there are many strange things in the world, but the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is the strangest of all.

Thus, we should know that Mutah is sanctioned by Quran and it cannot be abrogated by a statement of the Prophet or a saying of Umar. Research shows that Mutah is lawful in religion and it was lawful during the time of the Prophet till the end of Bakr’s tenure. It was only Umar who decreed it unlawful and from then onwards, Ahlul Sunnat regarded Mutah unlawful.

There is no doubt that during the time of the Prophet and Abu Bakr, Mutah was lawful, as Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari says that, “I performed Mutah during the time of the Messenger of Allah (S) and in the time of Abu Bakr,” and also in Tirmidhi1 it is mentioned that a Syrian asked Abdullah Ibn Umar that, “Mutah of Hajj was lawful with Umrah, but your father made it unlawful,” Abdullah replied, “My father made it unlawful but the Messenger of Allah (S) has made it lawful. Shall I leave the Sunnah (practice) of the Prophet and obey the commands of my father?”

Now, let us see what Mutah is?

We should know that permanent marriage (Nikah) is a civil contract in Islam, in the same way, Mutah (Temporary marriage) is also a civil contract. The difference in temporary or permanent marriage is that there is no divorce in Mutah and in Nikah, divorce is possible. It means that Mutah cannot be cancelled within the fixed period of time, as opposed to Nikah, which can be terminated anytime through divorce.

Since, according to the dictates of reason, Mutah is an unblemished contract, educated people of the world cannot deny its excellence. For example an Englishman, who was also a famous jurist of India, complied with this contract. He was among the friends of the writer. He married a respectable woman of his own community on contract for thirty years and his spouse participated in society with other married women.

Since he was not bound by Christian faith and discriminated between the merits and demerits of a thing, he did not consider such a contract to be defective. Now the excellence of Mutah is unfolded even among the people of America and it would not be a surprise if Mutah becomes customary in the whole world. We should know that both, Mutah and Nikah are based on the same principle and having the same aim. Both are means to protect against fornication. Islam has endeavored much to save the Muslims from fornication.

Islam has allowed four marriages at the same time and also fixed rational prohibitionary limits. By making Mutah lawful, in addition to permanent marriage, Allah has made martial relations so easy for the believers, which cannot be obtained by those who deny Mutah. Lack of facility in lawful sexual contact is due to the prohibition of Mutah. And this lack of facility results in fornication.

Rather, it can cause even worse consequences as seen during the time of Umar. From that time onwards, nothing could replace Mutah as a channel to save the people from fornication. When the order for prohibition of Mutah was announced in the Islamic lands, within a very short time, complaints arrived from Syria that soldiers were indulging in many inappropriate misdeeds2 due to the prohibition of Mutah, which was not surprising, considering the hot temperament of Arabs! Allah forbid! That is why, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.) stated that if Ibn Khattab had not prohibited Mutah, only the most wretched ones would have indulged in fornication.3

We should know that four marriages are permissible in Islam. This order is not obligatory nor compulsory; a man can marry one, two, three or four, or due to some helplessness, he cannot even marry one. Those who advocate monogamy, should know that if Allah had made it obligatory, the religion of Islam would have advanced in other countries, but it had no chance in the land of Arabs.

A community whose males were not at all worried of hunger and thirst during fasts and who considered the best way to end the fast through sexual intercourse with the wife, to think that they would be content with one wife is only madness! Such a community cannot be saved from fornication through limited sex.

Therefore, the permission of four marriages was not without exigency. Those who have accepted monogamy and are proud of it, they have no reason to be proud of as whatever is seen in Paris and London is beyond imagination. They advocate one wife even she were leprous or sterile! Indecency is not unexpected from one who is bound like this.

Experience shows that the slogan of one wife is only used to conceal obscenity. Islam has removed the system of one wife very intelligently and allowed four wives and to be safe from fornication, has also shown the easy way of Mutah.

If Mutah is adopted, there would be no need to keep prostitutes on contract in the army and that wherever the army moves the prostitutes go along with them! Government is not concerned whether the army personnel do this lawfully or unlawfully. While the government must assure that the army should not create disturbance.

It is clear that if the government would not supply prostitutes, disturbance could be created in the army such as the disturbance created in the army of Syria when Umar prohibited Mutah. According to the writer’s view, limited polygamy and Mutah, both are the best ways and Quran has considered both lawful. Certainly, if one does not consider fornication wrong, he cannot value these facilities!

One who knows the worth of polygamy and is aware of their necessity and he knows that fornication is appalling. I am not writing this against non-Muslims, otherwise, my writing would be in a different style.

Being a Muslim, I am not against Mutah. After it was made unlawful, what difficulties the Muslims had to bear! Imam Abu Hanifah had to derive the order that if a man pays an amount of money to fornicate with a woman, the amount would be lawful for that woman and that man would not be penalized for adultery. It is clear that if Mutah had not been made unlawful, Abu Hanifah would not have to formulate this point of law. Anyhow, whatever the Hanafites may think about this interpretation, according to the writer, Mutah is much better.

This order may be acceptable to whoremongers but the fact is that it is very abominable and it destroys the communal and personal respect of Muslims. In the eyes of the people of justice, such judgment can never have a religious sanction and a wise man could never follow it. Below, the writer presents his research about Mutah. Allah, the Almighty says in Quran:

“Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed.”4

Baidhawi states that this verse was revealed for Mutah and this order continued till after three days after the conquest of Mecca and then it was abrogated but no other verse can be seen that has abrogated this verse. Hence Noodi5 states that Imran bin Husayn says that the Holy Prophet (S) did not prohibit Mutah as long as he lived and Quran has not abrogated it.

On the same page, Imran bin Husayn says that “the verse of Mutah was revealed in Quran and the Prophet allowed Mutah for us, then the verse was never abrogated and the Prophet also did not prohibit it. But Umar did whatever he liked.”

It is worth considering that Baidhawi writes about abrogation of this verse, but he has not mentioned the verse, which has abrogated this verse of Mutah. If any verse had abrogated the verse of Mutah, he would have surely pointed it out. The fact is that there is no such verse that has abrogated the command of Mutah, as clear from the research of Imam Noodi. Another argument for the abrogation of Mutah is that in the chapter of ‘Fi-Nasikh and Al Mansukh’ of Tafseer Itqan6 we do no see the abrogated verse of Mutah.

In the same way, Mulla Jeevan Jaunpuri has included the verse of Mutah among the verses of legislation in his exegesis of Quran. The greatest argument of non- abrogation of Mutah is that according to Tarikh Ibn Khallikan7 , the command of Mutah continued during the time of the Holy Prophet (S) and the first Caliph. If any verse of Mutah had been revealed to abrogate Mutah, it would not have remained concealed from the Prophet. How surprising that Umar was aware of it and the Prophet and the first Caliph were not. In short, it is confirmed that the verse of Mutah was not abrogated by any verse.

Some learned Ahlul Sunnat who try to abrogate Mutah through the verses of Surah Momin and Surah Maarij do not realize that these verses are Meccan, while the verse of Mutah is from Surah Nisa and it is Medinite. How can verses of abrogation be revealed before verses of legislation?

Umar had announced from the pulpit that, “Mutah of women and Mutah of Hajj, both were lawful during the time of the Prophet, but now I prohibit them.”8 According to Tarikhul Khulafa9 , in the Chapter of innovations of Umar, it can be seen that it was he that made Mutah unlawful. Abul Fida has also mentioned it in his history and Muwattah10 also states the same.

Now let us see whether Umar had the right to cancel the command of Mutah or not, because the Prophet and first Caliph had no right and if they had this right, surely the Prophet and the Caliph would have ordered as Umar did. From where did Umar get this discretion? Umar must have secured this right in the capacity of a jurist.

Thus, Allamah Qaushiji writes in Sharh Tajrid11 that Umar went to the pulpit and made Mutah of women and Mutah of Hajj unlawful and also cancelled the statement of “Hayya A’laa Khairil A’mal” (Rush to the best of deeds). He says that it is allowed for the jurist to give a verdict. Now the question is whether Umar, Abu Bakr or the Prophet had any right to abrogate a divine command or not?

Certainly, the Holy Prophet (S) had no right to abrogate even a small verse of Quran. Only Allah had the right to abrogate His command from Quran as some abrogated commands are seen in the Holy Quran. It is not possible for any tradition of Prophet to abrogate a verse of Quran, as clear from the statement of the Prophet that “If our tradition conforms to Quran, accept it and whatever is opposed to Quran, reject it.”12

When such is the position of a saying of the Prophet, then what is the value of the words of Abu Bakr and Umar?

No doubt, this jurisprudence of Umar is against the command of Allah and is not worthy to be followed by Muslims. Now let us see which followers of the Prophet followed Umar’s command and who were against it? Followers who accepted the command of Allah about Mutah, that is those who were against Umar were:

1) Abdullah Ibn Abbas

2) Abdullah Ibn Masood

3) Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari

4) Salma bin Al-Akwa

5) Abu Saeed Al-Khudri

6) Saeed bin Jubair

7) Mujahid

8) Abdullah Ibn Umar

9) Imran Ibn Al-Husayn

10) Akrama, slave of Ibn Abbas and

11) Abu Moosa Ashari.

We should know that the purified Imams of the family of the Prophet were also aloof from Umar’s jurisprudence and followed the command of Mutah.13 From the distinguished companions, only Uthman bin Affan and Abdullah Ibn Zubair are seen as supporters of Umar’s verdict. Now the writer states a few more points related to Mutah which are found in reliable books.

According to Noodi14 , Ibn Abbas used to certify the legality of Mutah and Ibn Zubair considered it unlawful. When Abu Nasrah, the narrator mentioned this before Jabir Ansari, Jabir said: “I did Mutah for a short period, along with the Prophet’s companions, but Umar became angry and said: ‘Allah has allowed Mutah in Quran, but if anyone does so, we would stone him to death.”

The writer says: “O Umar! Who are you? You were ready to stone to death a follower of Allah? You are not the Lord of the world that you can abrogate the verse of Holy Quran. Even the Prophet could not do so. How can the believers of Allah and Prophet interfere in the command of Allah and His Prophet (S)?” Really, we cannot understand Umar, because he had a special type of temperament and was very stubborn all the time. He didn’t like the peace treaty of Hudaibiya, due to which he doubted the prophethood of the Messenger of Allah (S) and could not hide it.

Obviously, if the treaty had not been signed and there had been fighting with the infidels of Mecca, they would not have helped the Prophet. Did the Prophet get his help in the war that he would give his help today? Well, the abrogation of the command of Mutah informs us of the hot temperament of Umar.

If it would be that he possessed knowledge of Quran and tradition and for this reason and had the capability to exercise the judgment there would have no need to establish committee of jurists whose member was Zaid Ibn Thabit etc. The biggest argument is that he had no intrinsic capability like Imam Ali. He was making mistakes in juridical matters and he could not understand such things even till the end of his life. With such useless ability, to issue the order of Mutah is a very surprising matter.

Imam Noodi says that Abu Moosa Ashari used to certify the legality of Mutah and he supported his view by a tradition of the Prophet. From Tafseer Nishapuri, one comes to know that even an illegal wife has a right like a legally married wife. Hence according to this explanation, the lawfulness of Mutah is proved.

From the Book of Nikah, Pg. 293, we come to know that according to Hanafite faith, Mutah is invalid but Imam Malik says it is lawful and Imam Zomur says Mutah is right because due an invalid condition the marriage does not become invalid. From Tafseer Kashaf it appears that Ibn Abbas was always convinced of the lawfulness of Mutah and didn’t revert to its unlawfulness. Noodi15 has recorded that Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari says: “I did Mutah during the time of the Holy Prophet (S) and in the time of Abu Bakr.”

Tirmidhi16 records that a Syrian asked Abdullah Ibn Umar about the Mutah during Hajj. Ibn Umar replied that Mutah was lawful. The man raised an objection and said: “Your father made it unlawful.” Ibn Umar replied: “If my father made it unlawful, the Holy Prophet (S) made it lawful. Shall I give up the practice of the Prophet and follow my father’s sayings?”

It is stated in Noodi17 that Imran bin Husayn says that “the verse of Mutah was revealed in the Holy Quran and the Prophet ordered me for Mutah and no other verse is revealed to abrogate this verse of Mutah and the Holy Prophet (S) has not made the Mutah unlawful, but Umar declared it unlawful.” From the research of Qastalani18 , it seems that Ibn Abbas made Mutah lawful and said that Mutah was lawful in times of need. It is also mentioned that Salma bin Al- Akwa says: “We were in the army and the Holy Prophet (S) came and said: ‘You are allowed to do Mutah’, therefore all did it.”

Noodi19 has recorded that Qadi bin Qalami says that even if time is not fixed verbally and it is only in mind, then also this marriage is lawful.

It is also written in the same book that Abu Moosa Ashari used to consider it lawful. One day a man asked: “Don’t you know that Umar has made it unlawful in Hajj rites?” Abu Moosa asked about it when he met Umar and he said: “No doubt, the Holy Prophet (S) and his companions did Mutah, but I disapproved such a thing in Hajj rites that people enjoy during the Hajj and bath water should drip from their heads.”

O Allah, be praised, Umar has mentioned this reason for the unlawfulness of Mutah! Allah provides facilities to believers and Umar regards them unlawful! Here, Umar himself had taken Allah’s place by force, after tutoring the Prophet! There is no limit to bad temperament! Even if the 16th part of this temperament had given you bravery, Islam would have been safe from different kinds of adversities. Bad times arrived for Islam due to Umar’s temperament. The destruction of the Prophet’s family, their troubles and dissension in Islamic Ummah etc. All this came to light only because of Umar.

Whether the bigots believe it or not, Umar is responsible for all the evils that inflict Islam. The family of the Prophet continued to shed tears of blood because of Umar and the religion of Muhammad today is not in fact the religion of Muhammad. Islam seems to be the religion of Umar or Zaid Ibn Thabit, but it is not the religion of Muhammad.

The religion of Muhammad was limited to Ahlul Bayt but now it is not an easy task to separate the religion of Muhammad from the religion of Umar. In the end, I quote a tradition related by Saeed bin Musayyab from the book of Noodi20 that says: Once His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and Uthman met in the district of Affan. Ali (a.s.) was asserting that Mutah was lawful and Uthman claimed that it was unlawful. Ali (a.s.) asked: “What do you want? Do you want to prohibit something that the Messenger of Allah (S) had made lawful?”

In the same book, a tradition on this topic is recorded from Abdullah bin Shafiq, that Uthman considered Mutah unlawful as Umar had prohibited it and Uthman himself had no power to take a decision on Quranic verses. It is possible that Marwan or someone else had told him about the unlawfulness of Mutah; but Imam Ali’s view about the lawfulness of Mutah is worthy of attention, because none in the Islamic lands was more perfect in knowledge than His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

Thus, after investigating all explanations and traditions of Ahlul Sunnat, we come to know that the unlawfulness of Mutah was only Umar’s creation and his command was totally against Allah and His Prophet. People of insight, who are aloof from prejudice, cannot say that Mutah is unlawful, because the Prophet, Ali (a.s.) and all family members of the Prophet conform to the command of Allah with regard to Mutah. Wisdom also dictates that whatever the Prophet and Ali (a.s.) agree upon, must be the truth; and it is the religion of Allah and all that is against it, is false.

Notes

1. Vol. 1, Pg. 107

2. Sodomy, perhaps.

3. Ref. Tafseer Tabari

4. Surah Nisa 4:24

5. Vol. 1, Pg. 293

6. Vol. 47, Pg. 310

7. Pg. 358

8. Ref. Tafseer Kabir, Vol. 3, Pg. 289.

9. Chapter of Awaliyate Umar, Pg. 136.

10. Pg. 196

11. Pg. 385

12. Ref. Tafseer Kabir, Vol. 3, Pg. 537.

13. Ref. Sharhe Ibn Abil Hadid, Vol. 2, Pg. 90.

14. Pg. 393

15. Vol. 1, Pg. 451

16. Vol. 1, Pg. 107

17. Vol. 1, Pg. 292

18. Vol. 8, Pg. 53

19. Vol. 1, Pg. 54

20. Pg. 104

First Case Of False Testimony In Islam

According to the report of Qays bin Hazm, Ibn Abbas, Aamir Shobi and Habib bin Umair have reported that when the caravan of ‘A’ysha, Talha and Zubair started from Mecca to Basrah to confront His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), when they reached Hawwab, the dogs started barking. At that time, ‘A’ysha ordered them to return from that place. The people asked her why she wanted to return. She replied that the Holy Prophet (S) had said that “one of my wives would rebel and the dogs of Hawwab will bark upon her.” Upon this Zubair said: “Be patient, Hawwab is very far away from here.” ‘A’ysha asked: “Do you have any witness to support your statement?” Zubair and Talha bribed fifty Arabs who swore that it was not Hawwab and ‘A’ysha’s caravan moved towards Basra. We should know that this was the first instance of false evidence in Islam. This caravan was marching to Basra to fight with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). In this battle, ‘A’ysha was defeated and Zubair and Talha were killed. Barwan killed Talha and someone else killed Zubair. This battle was named the Battle of Jamal because ‘A’ysha participated in the battle on her camel and one of her camels was also killed in the battle. Now the writer requests attention to the following points:

(1) We came to know from this tradition that the Holy Prophet (S) knew from his foreknowledge of his prophethood that one of his wives would rebel against his successor, that is, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.); and he also knew that she would be ‘A’ysha. He also knew that when ‘A’ysha would reach Hawwab, dogs would bark at her caravan. He knew all these things and they came to be true. Since the Prophet and his executor have knowledge of the unseen, how can the Prophet’s prediction be wrong? It happened as the Prophet had stated.

(2) ‘A’ysha had heard about her rebellion from the Prophet and the Holy Prophet (S) told her that its sign will be that dogs would bark at her at Hawwab. Even though she knew all this, she did not desist from war with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Ahlul Sunnat consider this error of ‘A’ysha as an error of jurisprudence, but it does not seem to be so. Being informed by the Holy Prophet (S) she did all this knowingly. It was not a battle against His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), it was a battle against the Holy Prophet (S) himself.

Anyway, the decision of ‘A’ysha is in Allah’s hands. No one can say, what would happen and what not, but I want to ask Ahlul Sunnat that when Pir Dastagir has said that ‘A’ysha was the most prominent woman of the world, to be most prominent demands that one should fight with Allah and that no one can become most excellent without it?

(3) The statement of Zubair that she was very far from Hawwab was a white lie. The writer asks: “Is falsehood necessary to be among the blessed ten?” Allah, the Almighty has made falsehood a greater sin and has cursed the liars. Quran says:

“And pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.”1

Inspite of this, in the view of Ahlul Sunnat, Zubair holds a great status. Certainly, the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is entirely beyond human understanding. Allah curses the liars and Ahlul Sunnat think they are blessed!

(4) When evidence was needed, Zubair and Talha bribed fifty Arabs of the neighboring area who falsely swore that, that place was not Hawwab. Apparently, Zubair and Talha were from the ten blessed persons of Paradise and it is highly regretful that they instruct witnesses to give false evidence. Praise be to Allah! What pure and pious persons are included among the ten blessed ones of Ahlul Sunnat! If such persons cannot be heavenly, who can be? Really the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is beyond the understanding of rational people.

(5) In the view of Ahlul Sunnat all these deeds of Zubair and Talha are errors of jurisprudence and their war with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is also considered as error of jurisprudence. Everything has a limit after all! Clearly, they fought with Ali (a.s.) and also made ‘A’ysha fight against him and this is called error of jurisprudence! Indeed, in order to save them from blame, enemies of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) have created a nice trick of the error of jurisprudence. How can any intelligent person accept a religion that is having such illogical principles?

(6) The incident of Hawwab shows that ‘A’ysha remembered the words of the Holy Prophet (S) and wanted to return, but Zubair lied and bribed fifty persons to give a false testimony to prevent her. The writer thinks that it seems if Zubair and Talha would not have been there, ‘A’ysha was not capable to fight His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

Certainly Zubair was a strange elder! First he was not prepared to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr after Saqifah and wanted to give it to Imam Ali (a.s.) and make other people also give allegiance to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). But later he claimed revenge for Uthman’s blood and entered the battlefield to fight against His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). The fact is that he was not a man of principles and he was a slave of worldly pleasures. He had no concern with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) or Abu Bakr, he was only interested in personal gains and because of it he was killed with his companion, Talha. Both swore allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s.) but later broke it and joined ‘A’ysha. They had taken oath at the Imam’s hand because they thought they would gain something; but after the oath, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) put out the lamp and it dawned on them that they could not benefit from His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) in a legal way. So they left Ali (a.s.) and joined Muawiyah and ‘A’ysha.

The incident of the lamp is that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was checking the accounts of the Public Treasury in the light of a lamp which burnt the oil bought from public funds. Zubair and Talha came to meet the Imam for some worldly matter and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) put out the lamp and began to speak to them.

They understood from this act of Imam Ali (a.s.) that when he was so careful about public funds, how can they get anything from him? After that the two seekers of the world had no option but to break the oath of allegiance and join the adversaries of Imam Ali (a.s.).

Thus, after paying attention to all these points the writer says that a religion cannot be said to belong to Allah if it considers such unprincipled persons as ones who are promised Paradise. Allah has given sense to human beings to discriminate between good and bad. If a man does not employ this sense, how can he call himself a human being?

Note

1. Surah Aale Imran 3:61

Umar And Bravery

It is common belief of all Ahlul Sunnat that Umar was a very brave man. Hence, Qadi Sulaiman Patyalvi has mentioned in his book that the Holy Prophet (S) stated about the bravery and courage of Umar. The writer is surprised that when there was no bravery and courage in Umar, why has the Qadi confidently attributed it to him?

I have discussed in detail that Umar was not at all brave and there was no need to repeat my discussion again, but after seeing the biography of Qadi it was necessary to write afresh about the Caliph’s alleged bravery and courage. Readers are requested to pay attention to the following:

I have represented previously that during the age of Ignorance, Umar was going to display a feat of courage, but it was postponed as narrated before. When Umar came to know that Muhammad Ibn Abdullah is the Messenger of Allah (S) who wanted to establish a new religion, he became very angry and was suffering from anger and sorrow for six years, till the day he came out of his house with a sword to kill the Messenger of Allah (S).

On the way, someone said to him: “You are going to kill Muhammad (S) but children of Zahra (s.a.) will take revenge from you.” Upon this, he gave up the idea of killing and returned home. It seems that he dared to kill the Holy Prophet (S) in ire and fury, but when his anger calmed down, his courage also calmed down. In the period of Ignorance, his sole deed of courage was going to be committed, but after practical wisdom, he forgot everything.

After converting to Islam, his greatest feat was that after performing Hajj, he migrated from Mecca to Medina openly without caring for the infidels of Mecca and this speaks of his great courage! But the fact is that his maternal uncle, Abu Jahl guaranteed his safety, so no one could harm him and in this condition he migrated openly and it cannot be called any kind of courage.

In the same way is the matter connected to his going to Mecca. Its detail is that when after a few years, the Holy Prophet (S) wanted to send him to the infidels of Mecca with a message, he refused to take it and stated that the reason of his refusal was that since Abu Jahl was not alive anymore, ‘the people of Mecca would kill me.’ Thus, neither his walking from Mecca to Medina was an act of bravery, nor his refusal to go to Mecca.

As for his martial exploits, he did not participate in the Battle of Badr because his maternal uncle, Abu Jahl had come to fight against the Holy Prophet (S); so how could he participate in the battle against his uncle? Secondly, he fled from the battlefield in Uhud to save his life, leaving the Holy Prophet (S) wounded.

In his own words: ‘I was scampering away like a mountain goat.’ Besides, he refused to confront Amr Ibn Abde Wudd in the Battle of Khandaq and in the Battle of Khaybar, he hid himself from Marhab and Harith for two days and did the same in the Battle of Hunayn. We cannot find any evidence in Quran, traditions and History that Umar or Abu Bakr ever caused an injury to anyone or were ever injured in a battlefield.

Whenever such a time arrived they used to flee from there. When this is the reality, why has Qadi Sulaiman Patyalvi praised Umar’s bravery? The truth is that Umar was not brave or courageous at all, but it was all a result of his obstinacy. If Umar had courage, he would not have beaten a lady.

The greatest sin committed by him was the severe blow to Lady Fatima (s.a.) that caused miscarriage. After that, Fatima fell ill and finally passed away. It is clear that a brave man can never stoop so low.

To beat a woman is an act of cowardice and to behave mercilessly with the Lady of Paradise? Leave alone Muslims, even infidels cannot commit such an ugly deed.

We should know that Umar had no courage at all, but he was a very bad tempered man and Ahlul Sunnat believe that Umar was very brave and courageous because of his hot temper. Brave people cannot be a hot tempered. They are always kind and merciful, but Umar was not concerned with kindness and mercy. He behaved harshly with everyone, whether he was a Muslim or infidel.

An example of his real temperament is that when the prisoners of Badr were brought to Medina, he advised the Prophet to kill them all in such a way that each Muslim soldier would kill his relative by his own hands. The Prophet turned away his face from this advice and did whatever he felt appropriate. If the Prophet had acted according to Umar’s ugly opinion, people would have blamed Islam.

It is clear that Umar’s opinion shows hot temperament. What a shame that Umar did not do anything during the actual battle; but when prisoners were brought to Medina, he roamed the city with his sword. This was not an act of bravery. But regretfully, his sword could not come out from the sheath in the battles of Khandaq, Uhud, Khaybar and Hunayn. Now decide for yourself whether attribution of bravery to Umar by Qadi Sulaiman Sahab is lawful or not?

How This Writer Converted To Shiaism?

The writer’s father, late Shamsul Ulamah Sayyid Wahiduddin Khan Bahadur was a well known leader and besides being an intellectual had acquaintance with religious precepts of all faiths and respected all religions and he himself knew about the world and hereafter, because he knew Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Latin, English, Sanskrit and Hebrew languages and always referred to the religious books in these languages.

In brief, he knew all about Islam as well as the religions of Greece, Rome, Hindu, Buddha, Magians, Jews and Christian etc. He knew the Taurat and Injeel by heart as one knows the Quran by heart. If not perfect, he had sufficient knowledge.

He was pre-eminent regarding religion in the beginning and the writer witnessed him performing the fundamental rituals of Shiite faith in his last days, but after his death, his funeral was performed according to Hanafiya School, because his children and family believed in Hanafiya religion, except me. His father and grandfather, Sayyid Imdadali Khan Bahadur also believed in the same religion but as a matter of fact, the late grandfather believed in Shiite religion, but according to the faith of his son, Akbar Nawab Munshi Sayyid Najmuddin, he did not call himself a Shia. Najmuddin also believed in the Shiite religion, but being a narrator of traditions, he did not like to be associated only with Shiite religion.

Besides, from Sayyid Imdadali Khan Bahadur, the writer’s great grandfather upto Imam Ali Murtadha’ (a.s.), all followed the Shiite faith and none were Sunni. Though his father was a learned man, he left no stone unturned in his training and education. He appointed teachers to teach his son Arabic and morals and also appointed calligraphist and appointed an army officer to teach him how to use a gun and also appointed a tutor to teach him English for a long time.

Here I want to mention about a teacher who was appointed to teach me Arabic. Most of these teachers frequently left their service and new tutors came to take their place. All these teachers were of Hanafite religion and the last tutor who was appointed for me for Arabic language was Sayyid Muhammad Gul Jalalabadi. His religion was Hanafite, due to communal restriction.

The writer was seventeen years old at that time and in matters of religious faith, he was well informed. The religious faith was firm in his mind by the source of education that Allah is one and Prophet Muhammad (S) is His Messenger, and then Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman and then His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), then Muawiyah, then Yazeed, and then six Caliphs of Bani Umayyah, and then all remaining Imams including Imam Mahdi (a.j.). The most prominent woman is ‘A’ysha and after her, Lady Fatima (s.a.).

After this instruction and after clearing the Intermediate exams, the writer came from Bhagalpur to Patna and was admitted in Patna College and separated from Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Gul Nurullah. There he started taking religious lesson from Maulavi Abdul Karim. He was also of Hanafite religion, but he was not convinced of Yazeed’s Caliphate and followed the Sunni religion but did accord importance to Yazeed after Muawiyah. Anyhow, his belief did not affect me, because I believed Yazeed as a rightful person, according to the instructions of Maulavi Sayyid Gul Muhammad.

When the writer was nineteen, he got a chance to witness a religious disturbance. The writer’s uncle, Nawab Munshi Sayyid Najmuddin, also lived on the other side of the same house. As mentioned above, his uncle was of Sufi religion and many times Sufi people gathered in his house making nice mystic jokes everyday. But one day by chance they mentioned Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan. Since the uncle did not have any devotion to Muawiyah, he delivered a speech, from which no dignity of Muawiyah could be derived.

This was unbearable to the Sufi, who was one of our neighbors. He became extremely irritated and said that if you refuse the excellence of Muawiyah you have forgone the Sunni faith. What is the difference between deniers of excellence and a Shia? Other Sufi gentlemen present there also supported him. But the writer’s uncle remained adamant in his opinion and due to this the Sufi group broke up. Not only this, their friendship declined and both parties began to debate in writing about the excellence of Muawiyah or lack of it.

At last Shah Ali Habib of Pahelwari Sharif got information about it and he opposed Sayyid Munshi Najmuddin. First he tried to make him understand but in vain. Nawab Munshi remained same as he was before. Then Shah Ali wrote a powerful book entitled Uswatul Hasana in praise of Ahlul Sunnat faith and all the beliefs were explained according to their faith, which clarified that no Sunni can refuse to believe in the excellence of Muawiyah.

On the contrary, a Sunni can also not decline that Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah, was not a rightful Caliph. The writer is not concerned with the merits or demerits of this disturbance, but the fact is that he learnt many new things which were opposed to his previous faith. This matter fully convinced him that according to the writing of Pir Dastagir, it is impossible for Ahlul Sunnat to avoid Muawiyah.

Rather, according to Ghazzali they are also bound by their faith to accept Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah as a legal and official Caliph, like his father. But when information increased about Yazeed and Muawiyah, both seemed extremely evil; on the other hand, Muawiyah looked worse than Yazeed. No doubt, this disturbance weakened my Sunni belief. When I got free time from college, I read books regarding this controversy and was also thinking about this matter all the time.

My previous teacher, Sayyid Muhammad Gul did not even allow me to read any book of history or biography; and when I asked any question regarding faith, he said that such a question was misleading. But now the writer had access to all kinds of books. Such effect was not only restricted to the writer, it affected Maulavi Abdul Karim also, a famous scholar of Ahlul Sunnat. He announced his disbelief in Muawiyah and gradually became entirely opposed to the Amir of Sham (Muawiyah). I gradually I had no concern with Muawiyah and in my view, he seemed to be worse than his son.

Sometime after this disturbance, the writer had to travel to Chhaprah1 . His uncle, Maulavi Sayyid Farzandali was a very respected advocate of Chhaprah, who had obtained the certificate of High Court of Calcutta, but he practiced law in the courts of Chhaprah. His prestige was such that all people of that district respected him, besides the Europeans and Hindustani officials.

As a matter of fact, none equaled him among the writer’s peers, as far as human qualities were concerned. He deserved more than he was ever honored. He had a very good memory and was a good respondent. Allah had granted him great intelligence and he had no equal in wisdom and understanding. He was outwardly as elegant as he was internally perfect.

Along with these naturally acquired attributes, he was a learned man having studied the books of Zawahid and Sadr Awafiq and acquired knowledge of Hanafite faith from Maulana Wajidali Benarsi. He was the younger brother of the venerable Maulana Muhammad Ismail. Hakim Muhammad Ali alias Hakim Munna was the son of late jurist. Even today he is well known among the people of Chhaprah and other villages.

Thus, Maulavi Sayyid Farzandali had mastery over Arabic language and in addition to that he had no equal as far as the knowledge of English was concerned.

The writer spent every evening during his stay in Chapprah with his late Uncle to gain knowledge and every moment of his company was edifying for the writer. The writer heard each statement of that gentleman with attention and tried to benefit from it. Everyday, there were useful talks, but one day in the company of some of his friends, he said: “Although many books are written to refute Shia objections, the fact is that none of them are reasonable answers to Shia objections.”

This statement created a strange effect on my mind. If it had not been a statement of Maulavi Sayyid Farzandali, it would not have created this effect on my mind, since I knew that the Maulavi had mastery on all religions and he was not interested in foolish talks. This statement of my uncle opened up for me a completely new field of research and I decided not to leave any stone unturned in my search for truth.

After that, he explained the matter of Fadak in great detail. Allah had granted him knowledge and eloquence. The audience listened to him attentively were and very much impressed and after mentioning about the matter of Fadak he himself wept. This meeting further inclined the writer to verify the truth.

On the third occasion, the Maulavi stated: “When I die, recite the same supplications at my burial ceremony that Shia people recite.” This constrained me more to inquire about the truth and I started to refer to books of both the sects. The writer was occupied in this when all of sudden Maulavi Sayyid Farzandali expired. The dead is helpless over the alive. How could I get the chance to exercise the bequest of the Maulavi against the wishes of his family?

At that time, I was also unaware of the ways and manners of pronouncing the Shia creed to dead and to recite blessings for the dead. Even if I had been aware of them, what I could have done? Maulavi Abdul Karim was present to recite the funeral prayer and I had no time to say anything.

Anyway, I wrote the supplication of Naade Ali on a piece of paper and placed it under his shroud. The Maulavi expired, but this writer did not falter from the path of investigation. The fact is that if the writer had not had the company of the late Maulavi, such readiness would not be created in his mind to research the truth. In research of truth, I had to be such as is apparent from my above writings. Below, the writer shall narrate the story of his religious research.

The writer started his religious investigation with eagerness after the death of his uncle. The late Maulavi Abdul Karim did not like my association with books. He didn’t want me to refer to the art of history or scholastic theology, but he could do nothing about it.

Note

1. A city in North-East India.

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