Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

The Tragedy of Karbala’ Is the Natural Consequence of Some Unnatural Factors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

1. Ref. Tarikh Khamis

Yazeed’s Allegiance and the Tragedy of Karbala’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O Allah! Bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

1. Refer Tarikh Tabari

Justification Of The Martyrdoms Of Imams Hasan And Husayn

Scholars have written that the Almighty Allah had bestowed every type of excellence on the Holy Prophet (S), except for the position of martyrdom. This exception is explained in the way that if he had been martyred directly, it would have been somewhat disrespectful for his stature. Therefore, this martyrdom was saved for his sons. In the view of the writer, this is a defective opinion.

First of all, how can martyrdom be disrespectful to any prophet? Secondly, if martyrdom is in anyway related to respect, how is it possible that it should apply to the Prophet but not for his grandsons? If martyrdom was a cause of disrespect for the Prophet, it should in the same way for his grandsons. According to the writer, this is not a valid explanation of the martyrdoms of Imams Hasan and Husayn (a.s.). Because, the fact seems to be that the martyrdoms of the grandsons was intended by Allah to prove the veracity of the Holy Quran.

Thus, this martyrdom proved the truthfulness of the claim of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (S). Imam Hasan (a.s.) showed to the whole world the beautiful patience that the Quran has prescribed and Imam Husayn (a.s.) practically showed all the teachings of the Holy Quran.

O Allah! Bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

Infallibility and Fallibility of Imam Husayn

It should be clear that the incident of Karbala’ is as explained above. Now you can see it from any point of view that you like. Only those people consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the martyr who consider him infallible and the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S). But those who do not consider him infallible and the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S) cannot believe that he was a martyr. In such a situation, they cannot believe that he was oppressed. Thus, to consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as a martyr, it is must to believe in his infallibility and rightful successorship of the Prophet.

It is evident that when infallibility was not accepted as a condition of Caliphate, what doubt can there be that Yazeed was a rightful Caliph? In such a situation, what can Imam Husayn (a.s.) be considered, except a traitor of Caliphate? How can anyone support this traitor and how can his killing be martyrdom? We are very surprised on those who believe in the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) but deny his infallibility. It is a sect that does not keep in view the final outcome. Their mourning the calamities of Imam Husayn (a.s.) is a meaningless act. Such people may weep at their own misfortune, but they have no right to weep on Imam Husayn (a.s.).

There are also some who consider the Holy Prophet (S), the twelve Imams and Lady Fatima (s.a.) to be infallible. And only Shias perfectly believe in the guardianship (Wilayat) of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), though Ahlul Sunnat believe only in the Caliphate. These people consider the three Caliphs to be rightful, but act according to the practical laws of Ahlul Sunnat faith. This is a strange sect, which is neither completely Shia nor Sunni.

They do not understand that if the infallibility of the fourteen Infallibles is a fact, the Caliphate of the three Caliphs becomes meaningless. In such a situation, Ali (a.s.) being infallible, becomes the immediate successor of the Holy Prophet (S). Since even Ahlul Sunnat did not regard the three Caliphs as infallible, their superiority cannot be valid in comparison to Ali (a.s.). It is apparent that an infallible cannot be inferior. Thus, when on the basis of infallibility, Ali (a.s.) was superior to the three Caliphs, how can the three be regarded as rightful Caliphs?

It is surprising that one should believe that Ali (a.s.) was infallible and the three were not, but that in the matter of Caliphate one prefers the three Caliphs to Ali (a.s.)! Preferring a fallible person to an infallible one is against reason. It seems to be a very irrational matter that the successor of an infallible person like the Messenger of Allah (S), should also be fallible. In this way, the superiority of Abu Bakr and Umar is completely disproved. Although none of Ahlul Sunnat oppose this belief of superiority.

Doubtlessly, the Sunni sect that accepts the infallibility of the fourteen infallibles is a very weak sect. Without any doubt, the acceptance of infallibility of the Imams entails invalidation of the three Caliphs. The belief of the infallibility propounded by Shias is incompatible with the belief of the Caliphate, as followed by Ahlul Sunnat.

The Sunni sect that confesses to the infallibility of the fourteen infallibles seems to be devoted to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) but they hardly follow the beliefs or practical law of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). They do not follow even a single practical law of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), their followers or their scholars. It is indeed a strange thing, that this sect gives much importance to the guardianship (Wilayat) of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) but they have no regard even for namesake, to the beliefs or worship acts of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

This sect usually follows the Hanafite School of law but some people of this sect follow the Shafei School. It is well known that this sect has got nothing to do with the roots and branches of faith of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) even though they always chant their names and make noise on the atrocities inflicted upon them.

We should know that a Muslim can either be a Sunni or a Shia but he cannot follow a religion between the two. The principles of Ahlul Sunnat religion are distinct from those of Shia faith. Both are faithful to their principles. But this sect has a strange admixture of both. It believes in the infallibility of Fourteen Infallibles, but in the matter of Caliphate, believes like Ahlul Sunnat do. How can these opposite beliefs find a place in the mind of a single person? It is beyond the understanding of this writer.

The Absurd Belief Of Tafzeeliya Sect

The situation of these people is indeed surprising. Shias cannot call them Shias, and Sunnis seem disinclined to call them Sunnis. The Tafzeeliya sect considers Ali (a.s.) superior to Abu Bakr and Umar. These people, like Shias, also believe in the five holy beings (Panjetan Paak). Apparently, it is a very weak faith.

It is well known that Shia and Sunni sects are particular about the principles of their religion, but the Tafzeeliya sect does not seem to follow any particular faith. I would like to present an example of the absurdity of this sect. It is well-known that the Tafzeeliya sect has special faith in Abdul Qadir Jilani like Ahlul Sunnat people, whereas Shias believe in Ali (a.s.) as the remover of difficulties. Sunnis invoke Ghaus Paak1 (Pure Refuge) just as Shias invoke the name of Ali (a.s.) during difficulties. It seems that Sunnis believe that Pir Dastagir (Helper Saint) accompanied the Holy Prophet (S) to Ascension.

On this night, the Holy Prophet (S) stepped on his shoulders and said: “My foot is on your shoulders and your foot is on the shoulders of all the saints (Awliya).” Apparently, this proves his superiority even to Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.) because the Holy Prophet (S) had made Ali (a.s.) climb his shoulders to break the idols as Ali (a.s.) was incapable to bear the weight of Prophethood. But in Ascension, the Holy Prophet (S) stepped on the shoulder of Piranepir (saint of saints), which shows that he had the strength to bear the weight of Prophethood. Also in addition to this, it is related that Pir became the Buraaq on the night of Ascension.

Another proof of his superiority mentioned in writings, is that one night Imam Hasan (a.s.) saw in dream the progeny of his brother, Imam Husayn (a.s.) that nine of them were to be Imams, while in his own progeny there no sign of any Imam. He was saddened due to this, but the Almighty Allah told him that he must not be sad and that from his progeny will come a person who shall be superior to the nine Imams from the progeny of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

And this was the same Abdul Qadir Jilani. We should know that this Tafzeeliya sect accords great respect to Abdul Qadir Jilani. But in the matter of his commands, they completely oppose him. He says in Ghaniyatu Talibeen that Ahlul Sunnat should believe that the Ummah of the Holy Prophet (S) is the best of all Ummahs.

Then they are best who have seen the Holy Prophet (S) and believed in him, testified him and followed him and fought with him against the infidels and sacrificed their lives and properties for Islam. Among them the best are the people who pledged allegiance to the Prophet at Hudaibiya, which is known as the Allegiance of Rizwan. They were 1400 persons in all. From them the best are the people of Badr. They were 313 people equal to the companions of Talut. Of them come the best forty who are known as Ahlul Darul Khizran,2 which after including Umar, come to forty.

Then of them are the ten, whose salvation was foretold by the Holy Prophet (S). They are: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali (a.s.), Talha, Zubair, Abdul Rahman Ibn Auf, Saad, Saeed and Abu Ubaidah Jarrah. Of them the best are the four righteous Caliphs. The most superior of the four is Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman and then Ali (a.s.). The writer has remained content with the translation rather than give the original Arabic quotation to maintain brevity. Those who wish to refer to the original text may see it on Page no. 86 of Ghaniyatu Talibeen.

It should be clear that this is the actual belief of Ahlul Sunnat and Pir Dastagir (Abdul Qadir Jilani) also believed in this. Now the Tafzeeliya should tell us how they could consider Ali (a.s.) superior to Abu Bakr? The writer can show thousands of such examples how the Tafzeeliya sect opposes the commands of Ghausul Aazam (Abdul Qadir Jilani). The fact is that there is no limit to absurdity of the Tafzeeliya sect. The limit is that when they are defeated in debates, they at last say that the book of Ghaniyatu Talibeen was not written by Ghaus.

But the proof that it was indeed written by him as mentioned in numerous Sunni books. Even though the Tafzeeliya may deny it was so, the authentic books of Ahlul Sunnat like Fathul Ghaib, Kashfuz Zunoon and Sharh Fiqhul Akbar mention it. We should also know that this book is of scholarly level and I have referred to it as a majestic book, because this book of Ghaus explains in detail, the principles of Sunni faith. That is why it is absolutely opposed to the beliefs of Tafzeeliya. In brief, this book is exactly as a scholarly book of Ahlul Sunnat should be.

Notes

1. Abdul Qadir Jilani, also called Piranepir

2. People of the bamboo house.

Violation of Orders about Usamah’s Army

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

4. Ref. Sahih Muslim, Pg. 125.

5. Sermon no. 3 of Nahjul Balagha.

A Look at The Phrase: “We Have The Book Of Allah With Us”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

2. Surah Najm 53:3-4

3. Ref. Tohfa, Pg. 201.

Beginning Of Imamiyah and Non-Imamiyah Ways and a Brief Description Of Both

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

2. Pg. 136

Quranic Affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

1.

2. By way of explanation

3. Surah Aale Imran 3:33

4. 3 Ref. Nihyatal Uqool by Fakhruddin Razi and Najatul Mo-mineen by Mulla Hasan Kashmiri and also Maarife Ibn Qutaibah.

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

Fadak Affair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

1. Surah Bani Israel 17:26

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

A Discussion About the Phrase of ‘She Frowned’ (Ghadhibat)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

1. Vol. 2, Pg. 292