• Start
  • Previous
  • 25 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 8125 / Download: 4274
Size Size Size
Analysis of the History of Aale Muhammad (P.B.U.H.)

Analysis of the History of Aale Muhammad (P.B.U.H.)

Author:
Publisher: www.alhassanain.org/english
English

The Problem of Caliphate

They object in the following manner:

Firstly, from the beginning of Islamic Caliphate to the present age, more than a thousand years have passed. Many important and authentic scholars have graced these centuries and all of them have examined the matter carefully. Needless to mention that they were right from all aspects. Then why is there any need to raise these objections (against the Caliphs) and conduct dialogue? But even if they were wrong, thousands of years have passed and tens of thousands researches conducted but they were not sufficient to solve the problem. From this aspect too, it is impossible to solve this great problem in a book as brief as this.

Reply: In spite of numerous studies in the past centuries, the problem has not been solved satisfactorily. It means they did not really intend to solve it. For, in order to solve a problem, we have to rid ourselves of bias, prejudice and enmity. And the scholars of Ahle Sunnat have not achieved this so far, because this problem is the chief cause of controversy in the Ummat. The Muslims have trodden the way of controversy and hypocrisy on this issue and divided themselves into two major sects.

Firstly: The present day Ahle Sunnat accepts the concept of Caliphate without any reservations. Secondly: The Shias challenge this and have opposing beliefs. Due to this the rulers of both sects have succeeded in keeping the people of the Ummat divided.

During the rule of Bani Umayyah, the conditions of caliphate were clear. That everyone was not allowed to express the truth is obvious on the dark pages of Islamic history. If anyone denies this, I can show that the chiefs of the tyrannical rule were from the tribes of Mu'awiyah, Ziyad and Hajjaj ibne Yusuf.

Mu'awiyah used to severely punish all those who mentioned any virtue of Ali (a.s.). Whenever anyone related anything against Ali (a.s.), no matter how great an allegation, he was rewarded amply by Mu'awiyah. Thus, in that period, it was impossible to differentiate truth from falsehood. Only the ignoramuses would differ on this score. Ziyad and Hajjaj were the worst characters in this regard. These two usurpers could never stand anyone having love and regard for Ali (a.s.). Such a person was invariably arrested and severely punished by them. It is a fact that in this atrocious era, thousands of sincere people were falsely implicated and punished. Then, the love for Ali and his progeny (a.s.) was considered to be a great crime.

Yes! Those people who know the condition of that age will agree with me. Let me quote a few examples for the benefit of our readers so that they may get an idea of the gravity of the situation.

First of all, we shall discuss the origin of caliphate. A group of companions, who did not pay allegiance to the first caliph in addition to all of the Bani Hashim, had gathered in the house of Ali ibne Abi Talib (a.s.). They were threatened and forced by some people to Hashimites to give oath of allegiance. This was followed by the snatching of sword from Zubair and being smashed on a stone. There were disturbances, crowds, attacks, and the terror tactics used by them.

For further details, refer to the following: Chapter of Imamat and Khilafat of Ibne Khaldoon, discussion of caliphate in Iqdul Farid's book, Sharh-o-Nahjil Balagha of Ibne Abil Hadeed, the volume on Politics and Imamat of Dinawari, the topic of 'Caliphate' in Daairatul Maa'rif, Al Bayaan wa Tabiin of Al-Jahiz, twelve volumes of Al-Aghani of Abul Faraj Isfahani, etc. Numerous other ancient writings can be studied for details. By this you will agree to the opinion of this humble writer. A point to be stressed at this juncture is that only the writings of Ahle Sunnat scholars have been quoted herein to prove each point. Books of Shia scholars are not used as proofs in our discussion.

Also apart from these intrigues and plots and trampling of rights, were the causes of Battle of Jamal. Keeping this in mind that all this proves our assertion we leave it for the moment and begin the discussion of Umayyads. The horrible battle of Siffeen is before our eyes. We shall discuss it at the proper place but here we only mention a tragic incident of this battle. After the martyrdom of Hazrat Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.), Muawiyah gained absolute rulership over the Islamic Empire. He also usurped the titles of 'Amirul Momineen' and 'Caliph' for himself. There was not a single companion of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) who had not heard his words of infidelity and his imprecation for the Master of the Pious (a.s.). And the limit is that during that time not a single senior scholar dared to criticize his words of disbelief and oppose him! Yes! How was it possible to prove the right of Caliphate in that time? And who could dare to accomplish this?

One day Muawiya invited Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.) to the mosque so that people may hear some words of respect for Muawiya from the tongue of Imam Hasan (a.s.)! Needless to mention that he failed miserably in his devilish attempts and Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.) never uttered such things.

When Mu'awiyah found that his words were against his wishes, insultingly, he brought Imam Hasan (a.s.) from the pulpit in such a way that the respected head of Imam (a.s.) was hurt by the pillar of the mosque. Finally, Imam Hasan (a.s.) was poisoned with special poison formulated by Mu'awiyah's doctor, Ibne Aasaar. Hujr bin Adi and his comrade Amr bin Hamq Al-Khuzai along with five members of their family were buried alive due to their love and attachment for Ali (a.s.) and his progeny! Now you understand why it was impossible for anyone to speak the truth!

During the Umayyad rule, the renowned poet Farazdaq, was reprimanded and exiled. His crime: he had composed a poem (Qasidah) eulogizing the Purified Ahle Bayt (a.s.) Qambar, the slave of Ali (a.s.) and a close companion of the people of Infallibility, was martyred at the hands of Hajjaj. At this juncture, I would like to present an example that would explain the mentality of the scholars of that age. By this we shall be able to get a slight inkling of the conditions prevalent in that period.

Shu'bah, the well-known scholar says: One day Hajjaj ordered me to present myself before him. In a state of extreme fright, I presented myself. As soon as Hajjaj saw me, he called a cruel executioner. When the executioner appeared, Hajjaj said to me, “O Shu'bah, I have heard that you say that Hasan and Husain are the progeny of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.). If you cannot prove your assertion from Quranic verses, I will have you executed.”

Shu'bah was sure of his death and destruction and without any fear said, “Yes! I will prove this statement in the light of the glorious Quran.” Hajjaj said, “But you must not indicate the verse of Mubahela, you must use some other verses. I said, “All right, I will prove from other verses and I recited,

And We gave to him Ishaq and Yaqoub; each did We guide, and Nuh did We guide before, and of his descendants, Dawood and Sulaiman and Ayub and Yusuf and Haroun; and thus do We reward those who do good (to others). And Zakariya and Yahya and Isa and Ilyas; every one was of the good; (Surah An'aam:84-85)

I said, “How many generations come between Nuh and Isa (a.s.)?” Hajjaj said, “So many that it is impossible to count them.” I said, “How many generations come between the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and Hasan and Husain (a.s.)?” Hajjaj understood what I meant and said, “As if I had never seen this verse in the Quran!”

But despite accepting my argument, Hajjaj threatened to execute me and I escaped to Muwarun Nahr. There too the order to arrest and execute me was sent by Hajjaj. But I hid myself and escaped punishment.” Yes! The aim of relating this incident is to know the reality. And who were the people who possessed the qualities of Caliphate? Was there no person who had such capabilities?

Now let us study the period of Bani Abbas: This was a period of great Islamic scholarship and jurisprudence. Therefore it should have been a period of expounding of the realities. But what a pity! It proved to be worst for the Muslim Ummah wherein the worst types of evils and crimes were perpetrated. The members of the household of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) were martyred through sword and poison, one by one! Those who harbored malice against the progeny of Ali (a.s.) were rewarded and valued. In the same way, truth-loving people were degraded and tortured and a great number of scholars were killed and terrorized as mentioned earlier.

We shall mention all such atrocities at their appropriate places. Let us revert to our discussion. We have said that the early scholars did not undertake to solve the problem of caliphate. We do not feel it is necessary to present all the proofs. From the origin of Islam to this day thirteen centuries have passed4 but it is still the main cause of differences and disunity. Please, for the sake of justice, is there anything more effective in causing divisions in the Ummah?

It is only the matter of caliphate that has caused dissensions in the ummah and wrecked havoc and unfortunately, it still continues. As we said before, people will object that the 1000-year-old problem is not worth repeating.

Reply: This problem in the Ummah is like a wound that is always oozing blood and puss. Obviously, no matter how much you cover the wound, without proper medication, it will deteriorate and gradually become incurable. Thus if one intends to cure a wound, one should use good medication, and for this, it is inevitable for the wound to be opened. Yes! Just as a closed wound is bereft of cure and medicine, in the same way, the problem of Imamat is a very dangerous wound and has shaken the very foundations of the unity of Ummah. If any of the sincere researchers do not address it impartially, it will remain in its state of incurableness and the foundations of unity that can strengthen Islam will be rendered weak. Hence, we have made a firm determination that with the help of logical arguments and authentic books written by great scholars of Ahle Sunnat, we may study and arrive at a conclusion. And we pray to Allah for help and grace in this regard.

This was when the book was written. Now, fourteen centuries have passed- Translator.

Caliphate of Amirul Momeneen (a.s.)

There is no controversy regarding the matter that Hazrat Ali ibne Abi Talib is the caliph - the difference is on the point whether Ali (a.s.) is the absolute legatee and immediate successor of the Prophet (s.a.) or is he the fourth one? It is clear that Ahle Sunnat believe him to be the fourth Caliph, whereas the Shias consider him to be the immediate Caliph after the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a). But in the beginning, we will quote the writings of some great scholars. And with a little study, accompanied by the rules of research, arrive at some conclusions so that the falsity of those claims is exposed.

Now we present the great scholar, Imam Muhammad Ghazzali's words that are also famous in Europe. We shall quote it and then decide upon it. With due respect to his scholarly capabilities, we shall not indulge in any personal attack but still his criteria will be followed by us. Ghazzali writes in his well-known book Ihyaul Uloom:

“If a saying comes from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), we accept it with all respect. And if it has come from the companions, we have the choice to accept it or not. But if it has come from the Tabeen scholars, all of them are (ordinary) mortals and so are we. (That is, they are also like us, and hence we should not follow them blindly).”

Well said, Ghazzali! We shall also act upon this statement. In the same way, we shall also not accept without scrutiny the sayings of the early scholars. Just as you do not accept blindly the sayings of his predecessors, we shall also follow his example. With due respect to your merits and knowledge, we shall conduct our own research and arrive to our conclusions in the same way. By this the soul of Ghazzali will not be unhappy with us because we are acting on his method. Hujjatul Islam Ghazzali writes in Ihyaul Uloom (consisting of 20 volumes) 2nd volume part 5:

“Caliphate by Ijma (consensus) of Ummat is valid. For, if divine text (Nass) were present, the companions would have definitely acted upon it.” Reply: This is a claim without proof because it is very likely that Nass was present but the companions did not act upon it. And this could be due to two reasons. Perhaps they were ignorant of Nass when they had gathered at Saqifah. This was because very few people were present at Saqifah and ignorant of this matter. The act of 10 or 12 persons cannot be called Ijma and to take the absence of Nass as an excuse is not correct. It is clear that only three persons from Mohajirs were present in Saqifah. From the Ansar were a few that came with Sa'ad bin Ubadah.

Firstly, the situation was that the mortal remains of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) were not yet buried. The hastening of all companions to rush to Saqifah for Ijma was against the spirit of Islam.

Secondly, not a single member of the household of the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) was present; and it was not even possible for them to be present there. Thirdly, the gathering was secretly held by Sa'ad bin Ubadah and even the claimants of caliphate reached there afterwards; but they also kept it a secret. Fourthly, a few days after the popular allegiance received by Ali (a.s.), he entered the mosque and reiterated his claim to caliphate to the gathering of Migrants and Helpers. They replied, “O Abul Hasan! If at all we had heard your statements before the oath of allegiance was given, we would certainly not have paid allegiance to any one other than you.” From this it becomes clear that at that time Ali (a.s.) informed all the people of the nomination (Nass) regarding him from the Messenger of Allah (s.a.). The group of companions was aware of the Nass and they had testified to it and narrated it. It is for this that the first caliph expressed regret of having accepted the caliphate but he could not convince his supporters.

Fifthly, on the day of Saqifah Bani Saaedah, Abu Bakr ibne Abi Qahafa told Umar ibne Khattab and Abu Ubaidah Jarrah, “Give me your hand, so that I pay allegiance to you.”

All this was grossly incorrect because:

The right of Ijma is for the whole Ummah and was not restricted to three persons. So much so, that at that time apart from Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Ubaydah and Awaim none of the Migrants were present as is proved from other historical sources. Specially, Ibne Khaldun on page 77 volume 1, Iqdul Farid, pg. 33, vol. 3, Dairatul Ma'rif, pg. 70, vol. 4, and many others books can be mentioned. From this case, it was necessary for all the companions to have unanimity (Ijma). Since this was such a critical issue, it was necessary that all the great companions should have been aware of it and should have discussed in detail so that it would become clear whether Nass existed or not and in case there was no Nass then, if not all the Muslim Ummah, at least the senior companions should have been the decisive authority over the selection.

In what way is it possible that the pivot of Caliphate Hazrat Amirul Momineen (a.s.) and the uncle of Prophet (s.a.), Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib, were absent from this Ijma? In fact, not a single person of the Bani Hashim was present there! The Ijma of those seven people does not solve the problem of Imamat and this kind of the Ijma does not even constitute a simple gathering. Secondly, it is possible that the people who were present in Ijma had heard the Nass but refrained from acting upon it. This was not unlikely at that time. To prove this, we present the following example.

After the murder of the third caliph the companions led by Talha and Zubair willingly paid allegiance to Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.). But Talha and Zubair were not happy with it. Later, on some pretext, they went to Makkah Mukarramah, joined forces with a woman having a similar view and invited her to create rebellion and dissension in the Islamic Ummah. They instigated her come out of the four walls of chastity and brought her to Basra.

At that time Uthman bin Hunayf, the ruler of Basra objected to Zubair and Talha that they had previously given oath of allegiance to Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.). They said, “We had given allegiance to Ali under duress. Now we dissociate from it!” On the basis of this, it was decided that a person should go to Madinah and ascertain the situation. Thus a person deputed for this purpose arrived at Madinah on a Friday at the time when all the people had gathered for Friday prayers. The messenger stood up and said, “O companions of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.)! Talha and Zubair sow the seeds of dissension in the Ummah and say,

'We had given allegiance to Ali (a.s.) under duress.' Now tell me whether allegiance was extracted with force or did they pay it willingly?” It is clear that all the companions were aware that allegiance was paid with the will and wish of Talha and Zubair. First of all to testify to truth and to promote peace in the Ummah it was obligatory of all those present to announce the truth. But not even one spoke up the truth and all of them remained silent. Usamah bin Zaid became the first to give a false testimony and said, “The allegiance of Talha and Zubair was given under duress and force.” Now, please pay attention: They denied the allegiance that was clear as the sun so it is very much possible that they did not follow the Nass with regard to Imamat.

I request all the readers: Without casting aspersions on the companions and with all due respect to them, we shall continue to follow the truth in proving our claim and we do not have any fear in this regard. Yes! We object to the claim of those who claim Ijma without noticing their proofs and support our objection with the following arguments and quote Ibne Abde Rabb the famous scholar of Ahle Sunnat from the book Iqdul Farid page 77, volume 3 who writes under the topic:

“And from those who refrained from the oath of allegiance to Abi Bakr were Ali ibne Abi Talib, Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib, Zubair bin Awwam. They had gathered in the house of Ali (a.s.) when Umar ibne Khattab went to the door of Ali and they did not heed his demand. So Umar said to his group to bring some fire. Fatimah said, “O Umar! Would you torch my house?” Muhammad Wajdi, an Ahle Sunnat scholar, writes in the third of the 22 volumes of Daaeratul Maa'rif under the topic of Khilafat as follows: “Ali bin Abi Talib and his party refrained from paying allegiance to Abi Bakr. So Umar came to them with some of his friends. Zubair the supporter of Ali (a.s.) attacked them with his sword. Umar ordered them to restrain Zubair. Salmah attacked Zubair and snatched the sword from his hand. They took Ali (a.s.) forcibly to Abu Bakr to extract allegiance from him but Ali (a.s.) demanded his right. Abu Bakr told Umar not to force him but Umar said, “I will not leave you if you do not pay allegiance.”

Yes! The above lines are exactly as given in the most important books of Ahle Sunnat viz. Daaeratul Maa'rif, page 757, volume 3. Hazrat Ali (a.s.) said, “O Umar! You are establishing such a thing of which half is yours. Today you are consolidating caliphate for Abu Bakr so that tomorrow he will hand it to you.” Ali (a.s.) made Fatima sit on a mule and took her to the houses of companions demanding his rights.

O readers! Kindly pay attention to this tumult. Whose house was it? And this crowd and attack? How it could Ijma be proved in this situation? In case it was the consensus of Ummah, what was the cause of this crowd and attack? What was this for? Were not Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain (a.s.), Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib members of the Ummah? Is it possible that one says the claim of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was invalid? Were not the claim and demand of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) the claim and demand of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.)?

Thus it becomes clear that Abu Bakr being incapable of rejecting the proof of Ali (a.s.) said, “I do not force you for allegiance. And I am regretful for having accepted the Caliphate,” It is proved in all the writings of the Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat that Abu Bakr said, “O Abul Hasan! If I knew I wouldn't have accepted the affair (caliphate).” But by what authority did Umar on his own came to the house of Ali (a.s.)? Was he the Caliph, or the commander of his army? No one knows! It's a pity. This incident is a blot on the pages of history, which can neither be removed and nor can it be corrected.

Let us discuss the nomination and selection of the second caliph:

The problem is obvious that the first caliph appointed the second caliph by a will. It is right that the majority of people paid allegiance to Umar ibne Khattab on the basis of this will. But it was a clear nomination and not a selection. Nomination also is quite different from consensus. Now here we wish to ask a few questions? Firstly: Is the nomination of a Caliph compulsory in Islam or not? In case it was compulsory, did the Messenger of Allah act upon it or did he not? In case the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) did not act upon the matter of appointment of Caliph, wasn't the appointment of successor on the part of the first Caliph an innovation (bid'at)?

We repeat: Appointment of legatee by the first caliph is an unacceptable matter. Because in case the right of selection of Caliph is with the Ummah, a Caliph by appointing his own legatee has deprived the Ummah of its rights. In case the preceding caliph had the power to appoint the Caliph then all people would not have opposed the appointment of Yazid by Muawiya. Both these cases were identical.

We shall also discuss in brief the Shura for the selection of the third caliph. We have always claimed that people, who do not accept that Nass existed for Imamat, must accept that Ijma is the right of the Ummah. But from the very beginning, it was deprived of this right. Even if it is proved for the first and the second Caliph, our aim here, is to prove that the Shura appointed by Umar did not constitute Ijma. After the ten years of his Caliphate, the second Caliph, it must be said, committed error in appointing the Shura.

Firstly: The second caliph devised the selection of Caliph through a Shura (Committee) of six persons. Such an appointment of Shura is not based on Nass, or nomination or Ijma. It was not Nass because he did not specify a particular person. It was also not Ijma because it was entrusted to only six persons. Secondly: In the appointment of six members, the second caliph gave all sorts of proof yet there remained many doubts. Because if just being a companion was their merit, there were thousands of others as well who were almost equally qualified if not more than most of the members of the Shura. If being present in the battle of Badr was their virtue, there were many others who were also present at Badr. If it is for some rare tradition that mentions some merit of these six people (who constituted the Shura), then a tradition is solely recorded regarding the merits of Ammar Yasir. That is,

“Truth turns with Ammar.” Such a tradition was not recorded for all the members of Shura together, how it can be for each of them separately. Thirdly: The second caliph ordained that the decision of Abdul Rahman bin Auf should be final. This is unacceptable!

Fourthly: Muhammad bin Salmah was instructed that if after six days a caliph is not selected; all these six persons should be executed. Now we say: This was an extremely improper and illogical matter. Because in case the opinion of all the Ummah was made subservient to these six persons and each of them asserted their own rights or in spite of the Nass rejected the Shura, it was possible that the appointment of caliph had been delayed for some days. It was possible that six days might have passed without the selection of caliph and Muhammad bin Salmah would have killed them with the help of the fifty men under his command. Who would have been responsible for that?

Fifthly: The second caliph after appointing the Shura members pointed out some defect in each of them. Thus, implicitly implying by these alleged defects that the matter of caliphate was not of much importance. Sixthly: He also ordered that his son should be present there without expressing his opinion - but Umar totally ignored Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.) the beloved grandson of the Prophet (s.a.). Even though at that time Imam Hasan (a.s.) was much more deserving and concerned with this matter than Abdullah. Seventhly: Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib was not included in the Shura even though he was more suitable for it than five of the members.

Eighthly: The second Caliph made unworthy mention regarding each member of the Shura but when he came to Ali (a.s.) he said: This is the man sufficient for your affairs if he hadn't a humorous strain for it- meaning for Caliphate. After mentioning the names of the five members of Shura, Talha, Zubair, Uthman, Abdur Rahman and Sa'ad and implying that not one of them deserved caliphate he said:

“Only this man Ali bin Abi Talib is suitable for it and would fulfill your affairs. And I would have appointed him for the caliphate if he had not been greedy for it.”

The famous scholar of Baghdad Ibne Abil Hadeed in his book Sharh-e- Nahjul Balagha has discussed this matter in detail. Now in this matter there are some points that become clear, so much so that respectable scholars did not consider them suitable to write about. The worst of these was the fact that in spite of confessing that the most suitable candidate for Caliphate was Ali (a.s.), the Second Caliph advised him not to contest. If at all the Second Caliph had been concerned with the welfare of Islam and Muslims, he should have himself appointed Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph, whom he considered most suitable. This would have guarded the Islamic faith from hypocrisy, divisions, sedition and confusion till the day of Qiyamat. Is there any other matter, which caused such divisions and shook the pillars of Islam? No, it is this very matter! This Shura was invalid from the aspect of reason as well as traditional proof. We consider it to be absolutely illogical.

Now let us examine the opinion of Ghazzali: He says: If Nass (Quranic verse or hadith) had been present the companions would not have differed! Just for argument sake we can say that Nass was there but the companions did not act on it, in this way or that the Nass was not known to them or they intentionally did not act on it. We have explained both these matters at their appropriate place but here we only state that Nass did exist, as proved with logical as well as traditional proofs, because it is the most important point of our analysis. First of all, we shall present the logical proofs in brief and then move on to textual proofs:

Yes! Nass was present for Imamate as apparent from the fact that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) struggled greatly to expound and explain the religion of Islam. He made every effort for the protection and defense of the upright faith. Since Islam ensures for its followers the well-being of this life as well as the hereafter, in order to protect this institution from external as well as internal dangers, it was incumbent on the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) to specify in his lifetime, a capable and deserving person to manage the affairs of this institution. This matter is clearer when we consider that at the time of his death, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was aware of his approaching death and was concerned for Islam. And since the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was the most concerned person for the well being of Islamic religion, he naturally should have appointed the most capable person at the helm of its affairs. That person should also be the most deserving. It is necessary according to the dictates of wisdom and not acting upon it would have destroyed the very aim of sending Prophets and Messengers, which is against divine wisdom.

Then in this situation it was necessary for the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to appoint a suitable person.

We shall mention the traditional proofs in brief and prove our point. We shall be content to discuss the following points:

Firstly: All the great Prophets and Messengers (a.s.) had appointed their successors to manage the affairs of the community after them as is evident from the Holy Quran. Therefore it was also incumbent on the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to maintain this practice and appoint somebody as his successor. So that the saying “As is the leader, so are his followers” will be fulfilled.

Secondly: The traditions that are recorded and famous among the Ummah, especially the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, which are considered our most authentic books. All the traditions mentioned therein are considered reliable and no one has an iota of doubt among them. These traditions shall be quoted by us. These traditions will prove that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) did appoint a successor. And this was none but Ali (a.s.) because the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had announced at Ghadeer Khum.

“Of whomsoever I am the Master, this Ali is his master.” 'Master' in this context meant the master of affair (one who possesses absolute authority). If this was merely a command for love and devotion to Ali (a.s.), there was no need to announce it to such a large gathering because the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had time and again advised the Muslims to love Ali (a.s.). Hence the announcement of this did not call for arrangements of such magnitude. The Prophet (s.a.) had repeated many times:

“Love for Ali is a virtue. One who loves Ali loves me. The sign of the believers is love for Ali.”

But here the meaning of Wali is Successor and master of affair. Secondly: The hadith-e-Manzilah proves that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) appointed Ali (a.s.) as his successor because the similarity with Haroon, apart from successorship and Wisayat, nothing else was worth comparing. Thirdly: The tradition of the 'Mender of Shoes' (Khaasif al-Na'l) proves the Wilayat of Ali (a.s.). Because in this tradition the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) says: As I had struggled for the revelation of Quran this person will struggle for its interpretation and this is none but the mender of my shoes, that is, Ali (a.s.).

Indeed, it is clear that the one who is supposed to wage a holy war for the propagation and interpretation of the Quranic message must also be the legatee and successor of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Fourthly: Imam Hasan (a.s.) says in a report that, “My grandfather the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) said, 'And you Ali are from me and I am from you. And you are the guardian of all the believers after me.' From this tradition, it is clear that after the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), Ali (a.s.) is the master and guardian of all the believers. Because if 'wali' denoted only love (for Ali), it was incumbent during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as well.

Fifthly: Imam and Mujtahid Ahmad bin Hanbal has recorded in his Musnad a tradition from Abdullah bin Hanbal that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) said: “O Bani Waliya! Either you will be destroyed or I will send to you a man who is like me and establishes my command and will fight for truth and make children prisoners.” After that he looked at Ali (a.s.) and said: “It is this man!” This hadith proves that Ali (a.s.) was appointed by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to manage the affairs of Islam. This is a clear Nass in favor of Imamat. Sixthly: The case of announcing the verses of Surah Bara'at also proves that Ali (a.s.) was to manage the affairs of the community after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Because initially the Surah was given to the First caliph and he departed to Makkah. But on this juncture divine revelation descended commanding that the announcement of the Surah Bara'at must be entrusted to Ali (a.s.).

This was in keeping with Allah's order that the Prophet (s.a.) himself, or his successor, must announce the divine laws. And since Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.) was the successor of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), he was deputed to take the Surah from Abu Bakr and recite it himself.

Seventhly: In all the military expeditions Ali (a.s.) was appointed as the Commander while the three caliphs were under Ali's command and none of them ever held command.

Another important point that is derived from the above is that Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.) was appointed as the Master of the affair through divine Command whereas the three Caliphs were under Ali's command.

Since only an indication is sufficient for the people of intellect we feel that the above logical and textual proofs are sufficient to prove our view. Yes! Ghazzali said: It is the belief of Ahle Sunnat that all the actions of companions be justified and we must praise them all. In reply we say: It's a pity! Hujjatul Islam, while making this statement has not paid attention to the meaning of Tazkiye Jamea (purification of all). Because, the word Sahaba (companions) in that period denoted hundreds of people and the term 'All the companions' indicates the purification of all companions and makes them immune from errors and mistakes.

Because by 'cleansing' Ghazzali means to prove their infallibility and inerrancy from all evils and sins. Actually, infallibility is restricted to the Prophets (a.s.) and very few personalities called the Imams (a.s.), but according to Ghazzali it is incumbent for all to consider all the companions infallible. We say if that is the case then why Haatib, who was an immigrant (Muhajirin) and one of the senior most convert, try to betray the secret plans of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) regarding the conquest of Makkah?

And hundreds of companions even after entering the circle of companionship had resorted to hypocrisy and intrigue and thus reneged from faith! The supreme example is that of Thalaba, who refused to obey the laws of Shariat. That Mughira bin Shu'bah committed fornication was absolutely proved to the Second Caliph. Harqoos bin Zuhair, in spite of the fact that he was a companion at Badr, became the leader of the Khawarij in the battle of Naharwan. Similarly in Naharwan a few thousand companions joined the sect of Kharjities. And Ghazzali himself agrees that all of them were beyond the pale of Islam. Mu'awiyah and Marwan despite the fact that they had been companions, rebelled and reneged and their acts of rebellion are well known and well chronicled among the scholars of Ahle Sunnat. Mu'awiyah also mobilized his army to fight against the Imam of the Muslims (Ali a.s.). He also initiated the vile practice of cursing Ali (a.s.) from the pulpits of Islam. This is recorded in the history of Islam. Such acts were not only against Nass, they even amounted to infidelity.

If we begin to relate the crimes and evil deeds of all the companions in this book, we will stray from the main purpose. But the engagements of Jamal, Naharwan and Siffeen are mentioned here just to clarify the matter. If we were to act upon the view of Ghazzali we would be agreeing to the cleansing of all the misguided satans and their justifications. Their crimes are such that judicious and religious people remain aloof from such things.

But since the writer himself belonged to the Ahle Sunnah, he will endeavor to clear the misconceptions about Ahle Sunnah - because Ahle Sunnah means the followers of the Sunnah (practice) of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Thus one who justifies all the vile acts of companions would not have followed the practice of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

How apt is the couplet of the great Sufi thinker, Hafiz Shirazi: One who does not befriend Ali (a.s.) is an infidel Whether he is the pious one of his time or a Shaykh All the sects of Islam are obliged to respect and have regard for all those that follow the path of the Allah's Messenger (s.a.w.a.), whether Ahle Sunnat or others.

Ghazzali says, 'Respect and regard for all the companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is incumbent on us'! The reply to this baseless assertion has been given in my book Irshad-e-Hamzavi in detail and it will not be repeated here. Ghazzali says, 'No one refrains from justifying the deeds of the companions except the Raafedis'! It is pity! It is a statement that does not befit the scholarship of Ghazzali, because some people use the word of Raafedi as a weapon to save themselves. That is those who are helpless in logical reasoning and those who are ignorant. But the status of Hujjatul Islam Ghazzali is much higher.

Yes! We repeat that no one from the Muslim Ummah is capable of refuting the proven merits of the companions but if one does not accept the alleged and mythical virtues of the Sahaba, he cannot be labeled as Raafedi. With all pleasure we announce to the readers that Hujjatul Islam Ghazzali has mentioned some things in Ihyaul Uloom. And in another book Sirrul Aalemain, he has contradicted himself drastically. I request the reader to read carefully the chapter titled “The Fifth Essay on Caliphate”. And I feel indicating this much is sufficient.

Suratul Baqarah: Verses 102 - 103

وَاتَّبَعُوا مَا تَتْلُو الشَّيَاطِينُ عَلَىٰ مُلْكِ سُلَيْمَانَ وَمَا كَفَرَ‌ سُلَيْمَانُ وَلَـٰكِنَّ الشَّيَاطِينَ كَفَرُ‌وا يُعَلِّمُونَ النَّاسَ السِّحْرَ‌ وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَى الْمَلَكَيْنِ بِبَابِلَ هَارُ‌وتَ وَمَارُ‌وتَ وَمَا يُعَلِّمَانِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ حَتَّىٰ يَقُولَا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ فِتْنَةٌ فَلَا تَكْفُرْ‌ فَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مِنْهُمَا مَا يُفَرِّ‌قُونَ بِهِ بَيْنَ الْمَرْ‌ءِ وَزَوْجِهِ وَمَا هُم بِضَارِّ‌ينَ بِهِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ اللَّـهِ وَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مَا يَضُرُّ‌هُمْ وَلَا يَنفَعُهُمْ وَلَقَدْ عَلِمُوا لَمَنِ اشْتَرَ‌اهُ مَا لَهُ فِي الْآخِرَ‌ةِ مِنْ خَلَاقٍ وَلَبِئْسَ مَا شَرَ‌وْا بِهِ أَنفُسَهُمْ لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ ﴿١٠٢﴾

وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ آمَنُوا وَاتَّقَوْا لَمَثُوبَةٌ مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّـهِ خَيْرٌ‌ لَّوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ ﴿١٠٣﴾

And they followed what the satans chanted(of sorcery) against the kingdom of Sulayman; and Sulayman was not an unbeliever, but the satans disbelieved; they taught men sorcery and what was sent down to the two angels at Baby­lon, Harut and Marut. Yet these two taught no one until they had said: “Surely we are only a trial, therefore do not be a disbeliever.” Even then men learned from these two, that by which they might cause a separation between a man and his wife; and they cannot hurt with it any one except with Allah's permission; and they learned what harmed them and did not profit them; and certainly they knew that he who bought it should have no share (of good) in the hereafter, and vile was the price for which they sold their souls; had they but known(this) (102).

And if they had believed and guarded themselves(against evil), reward from Allah would certainly have been better; had they but known(this ) (103).

Commentary

Qur’an: And they followed what the satans chanted... The exegetes have disputed among themselves about each and every aspect of this verse; so much so that the resulting picture of the differences is almost unparalleled in the whole Qur'an. A list of the differences is given below:

“they followed ”: Does the pronoun, “they”, refer to the Jews of the Sulayman's time, or to those at the time of the Prophet, or to all?

“chanted”: The Arabic word is “tatlu ” ( تَتْلوْا ) which may be translated as “chanted”, “recited”, “told a lie about”, “faked” or “followed and acted according to”. In which sense the word is used here? Every meaning has some supporters.

“satans”: Does it refer to the satans of jinn? Or to those among the human beings? Or to both?

“about”: The Arabic participle is ”'ala ” (عَلی) = against, on, about, upon). Does the phrase mean, about the kingdom of Sulayman? Or, during the reign of Sulayman? Or, against his kingdom? Or, on his reign?

“the satans disbelieved”: Some say, they disbelieved because they published the sorcery among the people. Others say, they disbelieved because they ascribed the sorcery to Sulayman. Still others say, the disbelief, as mentioned here, actually means sorcery.

“they taught men sorcery”: It means they instructed them as a teacher instructs his students. No! it means that they buried the chants under Sulayman's chair, and then directed the men to it who brought it out and learnt it.

“and what was sent down”: The word translated here as “what” is “ma ” (مَا ) which is a relative pronoun (“what”); also, it is a particle of negation (“not”). “And” is mostly used as a conjunctive; but not infrequently, it is also used to begin a new sentence. A group says that “ma” means “what”, and the conjunctive joins it to “what the satans chanted” (the Jews followed what was sent down).

Another party is of the opinion that the conjunctive joins it to “sorcery” (the satans taught them sorcery and that which was sent down). A third group thinks that “ma” means “not”, and the word “and” begins a new sentence (And sorcery was not sent down to the two angels, contrary to what the Jews claimed).

“sent down”: Was it sent down from the heavens? Or from the highlands?

“the two angels”: They were the angels from the heaven. No! They were two good men, or men who feigned to be good. No! It is not “al-malakayn ” (المَلَكَيْنِ = two angels); it is “al-malikayn ” (المَلِكَيْنِ = two kings).

“Babylon”: It is the famous ancient city of Iraq. No! It is a city in Damawand (Iran); Wrong! It is the land between Nasibayn (Turkey) and Ra'sul 'Ayn.

“these two taught no one”: Teaching is used in its common meaning of instruction. No! It means, these two apprised no one.

“do not be a disbeliever”: By learning sorcery? Or, by practising it? Or, by both?

“the men learned from these two”: The “two” refers to the two angels. No! It means, they learned from the two subjects, sorcery and disbelief. Wrong! They learned the practice of sorcery, in place of the advice given by the angels.

“that by which they might cause a separation between a man and his wife”: Some exegetes say that they caused love or hate between the couple with the help of their sorcery. Others think that they misled one of the spouses to disbelief and polytheism, and the apostasy caused the separation mentioned here. A third group say that they created hatred and enmity between the couple with their calumny and slander.

This, in short, gives a glimpse of the differences of opinions concerning the explanations of the words and clauses of the verse. There are still more differences about the event referred to - whether it narrates an actual happening or is just a parable; and so on and so forth. Compute the differences mentioned above and you will get nearly one million and two hundred sixty thousand possible explanations (4 x 3 9 x 2 4)!!

It seems an astounding quality of the Qur'an, that a verse that is subjected to so many divergent interpretations, still maintains its highest standard of eloquence; that in spite of all these vagaries of the exegetes, its meaning is not disjointed, nor its beauty marred.

A similar treatment has been meted out to the verse:

Is he then who has with him clear proof from his Lord, and a witness from him recites it and before it (is) the Book of Musa, a guide and a mercy (11:17).

However, it appears from the context that this verse deals with a hitherto unmentioned affair of the Jews, that is, their wide-spread use of sorcery. They based this practice on one or two stories, which were very popular among them.

The Jews were addicted to making alterations and inter­polations in, and omissions from, their Divine books, let alone the historical narrations. They used to change their books and records fitting them to the prevalent moods of their times. A story narrated by them was not to be relied upon. But this Qur'anic admonition is based on their own belief, because it was they who used to narrate these stories.

The verse proves that the practice of sorcery was prevalent among the Jews, and that they ascribed it to Sulayman (a.s.). They presumed that Sulayman (a.s.) got the kingdom and sub­jugated the jinn, the human beings, the animals and the birds - all with the help of sorcery; and all the supernatural miraculous events related to him depended on witchcraft.

And they claimed that some of the enchantments in their hands had come down to them from him. The remaining portion was attributed to the two angels at Babylon, named Harut and Marut.

The Qur'an refutes the stories, saying that the prophet Sulayman (a.s.) never indulged in witchcraft and sorcery. How could he, when sorcery was nothing but disbelief in Allah? Sulayman (a.s.) could not be an unbeliever as he was a sinless, innocent prophet. All this is clearly seen from the words of Allah:

“and Sulayman was not an unbeliever, but the satans disbelieved, they taught men sorcery”; “and certainly they knew that he who bought it should have no share (of good) in the hereafter”. Sulayman's position was too distinguished, his rank too high, and his name too sacred to be associated with disbelief and sorcery.

He was the prophet whose outstanding position has been eulogized in several places in the chapters of Meccan period, long before this Chapter of the Cow was revealed. See, for example, the chapters of the Cattle (6th), the Prophets (21st), the Ant (27th) and Sad (38th).

You shall find therein that Sulayman (a.s.) was an excellent servant of Allah, a prophet and an apostle; Allah gave him the knowledge and the wisdom; and granted him a kingdom which was not fit for any one after him.

Obviously, Sulayman could not indulge in sorcery; it was just a mythical story invented by the satans, which they dictated to their human friends; and it was the satans who disbelieved because they misguided the men by teaching them sorcery.

As for the story of the two angels at Babylon, the Qur'anic stand is as follows:

The two angels, Harut and Maria, were certainly given some sorcery as a means of test and trial for the human beings - and no objection could be raised against that; after all, Allah has taught the human nature the ways of evil too in order that He may test them with it.

Likewise, sorcery was sent down to the two angels; but they did not teach it to anyone until they had said to him: Surely we are only a trial, therefore do not become a disbeliever by using it for wrongful purposes; you must use it only to nullify the effect of witchcraft, to expose the viles of the sorcerers and things like that.

But the men learned from them that by which they might destroy the domestic peace and turn the love between husband and wife - the best of the things ingrained in human nature - into hatred, causing a separation between them. Also they learned what harmed them and did not benefit them.

The verse therefore may be explained as follows:

And they (i.e., the Jews coming after the reign of Sulayman - every generation passing on the legacy to the later one) followed what the satans from among the jinn faked and lied about the kingdom of Sulayman.

Tatlu ” تـَتْلـُوْا) = translated here as recited or chanted) actually has the connotation of “lied about ” or “faked about”, because it is followed by the preposition ”'ala ”عَلیٰ ) = on) which has changed its semantic value.

Why do we say that the satans were from the jinn? The following two verses read together provide the answer to this question:

And of the satans there were those who dived for him and did other work beside that, and We kept guard over them (21:82);

and when he fell down, the jinn came to know plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in abasing torment (34:14).

The first verse shows that the satans were reduced to subjection by Sulayman (a.s.) who kept them away from mischief by assigning to them very heavy task; and the second verse refers to the same slavish group as the jinn.

Qur’an:and Sulayman was not an unbeliever: “and” is used here in the meaning of “while”. Sulayman did not indulge in sorcery; therefore, it was not he who disbelieved; rather it was the satans who disbelieved, because they misled the people by teaching them sorcery.

Qur’an:and what was sent down: The Jews followed that which was sent down - through inspiration - to the two angels at Babylon, Harut and Marut. Yet these two did not teach any one any thing of the sorcery, without warning him not to practice it.

They admonished every one who wanted to learn sorcery: Surely we are only a trial for you. What we teach you is but a means of test for you. Beware! Don't become an unbeliever by practising sorcery.

Qur’an: Even then men learned from these two: that is, from the two angels, Harut and Maria. “that by which they might cause a separation”, that is, the sorcery which caused separation “between a man and his wife”.

Qur’an:and they cannot hurt with it any one except with Allah's permission: It is a parenthetic sentence, to remove a possible misunderstanding: One could assume, on hearing that the sorcerers caused separation between a husband and his wife, that the sorcerers were powerful enough to disturb the divinely ordained arrangement of the world; that they could undo the Divine Decree and change the system created by Allah.

This sen­tence clears the air and emphasizes the fact that sorcery draws its strength from the Divine Decree; it cannot affect any thing but with the permission of Allah. Therefore, the sorcerers act within the framework of the system designed by Allah.

This sentence was placed where it is because only the preceding sentence(that by which they might cause a separation...) mentions the effect of sorcery. Therefore, it was explained that whatever effect it had was based on the permission of Allah.

The following clause(and they learned what harmed them and did not profit them) is not concerned with this aspect of sorcery, and the above-mentioned clarifying parenthetic sentence, if placed after it, would have looked out of place.

Qur’an:and certainly they knew that he who bought it should have no share (of good) in the hereafter: They knew it because their reason and intellect told them that the sorcery was the most wicked source of disorder in the society. Also, they were made aware of it by Musa (a.s.) when he had said:

and the magician shall not be successful wheresoever he may come from (20:69).

Qur’an:and vile was the price for which they sold their souls; had they but known (this): They knew that sorcery was bad for them and ruinous for their future abode; yet it was as though they did not know it - because they did not act according to their knowledge. If a knowledge fails to lead the knower to the straight path, then it is not knowledge; it is ignorance.

Allah says:

Have you then seen him who takes his low desire for his god, and Allah has made him err in spite of (his) knowledge... (45:23).

Therefore, it was completely in order to wish for them know-ledge and guidance, even if they had had the knowledge before.

Qur’an:And if they had believed and guarded themselves....: If they had followed the dictates of belief and piety, instead of following the satans' yarns and practising sorcery which is nothing short of disbelief, they would have got its reward from Allah.

This verse indicates that the disbelief emanating from sorcery is a disbelief within the sphere of action, like that which results from withholding zakat; it is not a disbelief within the sphere of faith. Had the sorcery been a disbelief within the sphere of faith, Allah would have only said, “And if they believed”, with-out adding “and guarded themselves (against evil)”.

The Jews had believed, no doubt; but they did not guard themselves against evil and did not desist from the things forbidden by Allah; therefore, Allah did not attach any importance, any value, to their belief, and they were called the disbelievers.

Qur’an:reward from Allah would certainly have been better; had they but known (this): that is, better than the rewards and profits they seek through sorcery and amass through disbelief.

Traditions

al Baqir (a.s.) said, inter alia, explaining the words of Allah, And they followed what the satans chanted (of sorcery) against the kingdom of Sulayman...:“When Sulayman died, Iblis invented sorcery and wrote it in a book; then folding it, wrote on its back: 'This is the valuable treasure of knowledge which Asif ibn Barkhiya produced for the king Sulayman ibn Dawud. Whoever wanted such and such thing, should do so and so.'

Then he buried it under his throne. Thereafter, he unearthed it for the Jews and recited it (before them). The disbelievers said: 'Sulayman had not gained supremacy over us but because of this.' And the believers said:

'Nay! He was a servant of Allah and His prophet.' Thus Allah, Great is His remembrance! said:And they followed what the satans chanted (of sorcery) against the kingdom of Sulayman.” (at-Tafsir, al-'Ayyashi, al-Qummi ).

The author says: This tradition says that it was the Satan, that is, Iblis, who invented sorcery and wrote and recited it. There is no discrepancy between this statement and the verse under discussion which ascribes these things to the satans from among the jinn.

Even their deeds are ultimately attributed to the Iblis, because he is the source of all evil; it is he who instigates his friends to wickedness and evil. Such usage is common in the traditions.

It appears from this tradition that the verb, “tatlu” in this verse is derived from “at tilawah ” (التـِّلاوَةُ = to recite, to chant). It not in conflict with the interpretation given by us in the Commentary that it gives the meaning of “lied about” or “faked about”; because, as we said there, this connotation emerges from the preposition, ” 'ala ” which has changed its semantic value.

The sentence, therefore, may be interpreted as follows: The satans chanted the sorcery, reciting it, and faking it, lying about the kingdom of Sulayman.

Etymologically, tala, yatlu, tilawatan ( تَلا ، يَتلوا ، تِلاوَةً ) returns towaliya, yali, wilayatan ( وَلِي ، يَلِي ، ولايَةً ) which has the semantic value of being near to, governing and following; one owns a thing gradually, one part following the other - reciting is called at-tilawah simply because in recitation one word follows the other.

A fuller discourse of this subject will be given under the verse:

Verily, your guardian is only Allah and His Apostle and those who believe, those who establish prayer and pay zakat while they bow down (5:58).

ar-Rida (a.s.) said, inter alia, in his discussion with al‑ Ma'mun: “And as for Harut and Marut, they were two angels; they taught sorcery to the people in order that they could protect themselves from the enchantments of the sorcerers, and could nullify their devices. And they did not teach any one any (en­chantment) until they had said to him:

'Surely we are only a trial, therefore do not be a disbeliever.'

But a group became dis­believers by practising what they were warned against; and they caused a separation between a man and his wife with their practice (of sorcery). Allah has said: and they cannot hurt with it any one except with Allah's permission.” ('Uyunu 'l-akhbar).

On Some Spurious Traditions

Ibn Jarir has narrated from Ibn ''Abbas that he said: “When-ever Sulayman wanted to enter the toilet or to attend to some of his affairs, he gave his ring to al-Jaradah, his wife. When Allah decided to test Sulayman in the way He tested him, one day Sulayman gave his ring (as usual) to al-Jaradah. Then Satan came to her in the likeness of Sulayman and said:

'Give me my ring.' So he took it and put it on. As soon as he did so, the satans (from the jinn and the human beings) came under his control. Then came Sulayman and said to her: 'Give me my ring.' She said: 'You are a liar; you are not Sulayman.' So Sulayman knew that it was a trial to test him.

The satans got a free hand, and wrote, in those very days, some books containing enchantments and disbelief, and buried them under the chair of Sulayman. Thereafter they unearthed them and recited them before the people.

And they said: 'It was because of these books that Sulayman dominated over the people.' Thus the people avoided Sulayman and accused him of disbelief. (It continued) until Allah sent Muhammad (S) and revealed to him:and Sulayman was not an unbeliever, but the satans disbelieved.” (ad-Durru ‘l-manthur )

The author says: This story is found in other traditions too. It is a long story forming a part of a multitude purporting to show the supposed sins and mistakes of the prophets.

Said ibn Jarir and al-Khatib (in hisat-Tarikh ) have quoted Nafi' as saying: “I went on a journey with Ibn 'Umar. When the night was coming to its end, he said: 'O Nafi'! Look at the red star1 , has it risen?' Twice or thrice I said: 'No.' Then I said: 'It has risen.' He said: 'No welcome to it!' I said: 'Praise the Lord! (It is but) a star, subjugated, obedient (and) submissive!'

He said: 'I have not told you except that which I heard the Apostle of Allah (S) saying. He said: “The angels (once) said: 'O Lord! How doest Thou bear with the mistakes and sins of the children of Adam?' (Allah) said:

'I have put them to trial and given them some dispensation.' They said: 'If we were in their place, we would not have disobeyed Thee.' He said: 'Then select (for trial) two angels from among yourselves.'

They spared no effort in the selection and (finally) selected Harut and Marut. They came down (to the earth); and Allah created in them the lust.” (At this juncture, Nafi' said: 'And what is lust?' He said: 'Sexual urge.') ”Then there came a woman, az-Zuhrah (i.e., Venus) by name, and both felt attracted towards her, each con­cealing his feeling from his companion.

Then one of them asked the other: 'Do you feel in your heart what I do in mine?' The other said: 'Yes!' Thereupon, they asked her for themselves. She said: 'I will not give you power (over myself) until you teach me the name by which you ascend to, and descend from, the heaven.' They refused to do so. Then they asked her again; and again she refused. At last they did (teach her the name).

When she flew (to the heaven), Allah effaced her into a star and cut her wings. Then the (two angels) sought pardon from Allah; and He gave them an option, saying: 'If it is your wish, I shall let you return to the position you held before, and then you shall be punished on the Day of Resurrection.

Or, if you wish, I shall chastise you in this world, and when the Day of Resurrection comes you shall be reinstated to your previously held position.' So one of them said to the other: 'The punish­ment of this world will come to an end and will be short-lived.'

Therefore, they opted for this world's chastisement against the punishment of the next world. And Allah revealed to them to go to Babylon. They went there and the earth swallowed them up; they are hanging upside-down between the heaven and the earth, undergoing punishment up to the Day of Resurrection.” ' ” (ad-Durru 'l-manthur)

The author says: Something like this has been narrated in some Shi'ah books too from al-Baqir (a.s.). as-Suyuti, the Sunni traditionalist, has narrated more than twenty traditions of the same theme about Harut, Marut and the Venus; some of those traditions have been confirmed as having “correct” chains of narrators; and the chains end on various companions, like Ibn ''Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, 'Ali, Abud-Darda', 'Umar, 'A'ishah and Ibn 'Umar.

These are fictitious stories, which collectively ascribe to the angels of Allah the worst type of polytheism and the most heinous sins, that is, idol-worship, murder, fornication and liquor-drinking. Could the angels indulge in such sins, when they are known to be the honoured servants of Allah who are purified from all sins and mistakes?

And they accuse the planet Venus to be a woman of loose character, who was transformed into a luminary body - have you ever heard of such a punishment!! - while it is known to be a heavenly body, free from any defect in its creation or any flaw in its system; a planet by which Allah swears in the Qur'an:

But nay! I swear by the stars that run their course (and) hide themselves... (81:15-16).

Moreover, the astronomy has today unveiled its reality, and found out in detail the elements it is made of, as well as their quantity and combination - in short all matters related to it.

This story, like that given earlier (about Sulayman and his ring), is in complete agreement with the legends popular among the Jews. They remind one of the Greek mythology related to the stars and the planets.

A discerning reader will agree that these traditions, like those slandering and defaming the prophets and apostles, are but a few samples of the intrigues and machinations of the Jews.

Their prevalence in the Muslims' books of traditions is a living proof of the hold they held on the Muslims' minds in the early days of Islam. The Jews toyed with the Muslim traditions in any way they liked; and the Muslim traditionalists were their willing partners in these interpolations.

But Allah has kept His Book under His Own protection. The enemies of truth cannot play with it. Whenever one of their satans tries to steal a hearing he is chased away by a visible flame. Allah has said:

Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most certainly be its guardian (15:9);

and most surely it is a Mighty Book: Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One (41:41- 42);

And We reveal of the Qur'an that which is a healing and mercy to the believers, and it adds only to the perdition of the unjust (17:82).

The promise given in these verses is uncon­ditional. Every interpolation, every alteration is repulsed by the Qur'an. The Book of Allah unmasks the true face of the inter­polators, adding to their perdition. Also, the Apostle of Allah (S) has said:

“Whatever is in conformity with the Book of Allah, take it; and whatever is against it, leave it.” The ummah has been given this frame of reference; it is this yardstick with which all the traditions attributed to the Prophet and his Ahlu 'l-bayt are to be measured.

The Qur'an removes every falsehood and exposes every deception. Allah says:

Nay! We cast the truth against falsehood, so that it breaks its head, and lo! it vanishes (21:18);

and Allah desired to manifest the truth of what was true by His words... that He may manifest the truth of what was true and show the falsehood of what was false, even though the guilty ones disliked (8:7-8).

Allah confirms the truth and erases the falsehood by showing the true faces of both.

Some people, and especially those with materialistic out-look, who are overawed by the western civilization, have used the above-mentioned historical fact as a pretext to throw away all the traditions attributed to the Prophet.

They looked at some traditionalists and al-Haruriyyah and found that they accepted every tradition - without any scrutiny whatsoever. They reacted to it by going to the other extreme and rejecting every tradition - without any scrutiny whatsoever.

It needs not much intelligence to realize that the total acceptance of the traditions is as bad as its total rejection.

Its unconditional acceptance nullifies the standard laid down for the purpose of differentiating between the truth and the falsehood; and encourages one to ascribe lies to the Prophet. Likewise, its indiscriminate rejection casts aside the said standard and leads one to the rejection of the Book of Allah itself - the Mighty Book that falsehood does not come to it from before it nor from behind it.

Allah has said in this Book: and whatever the Apostle gives you, take it; and from whatever he forbids you, keep back (59:7);

And We did not send any apostle but that he should be obeyed by Allah's permission (4:64).

If the sayings of the Prophet had no authority, or if his words - reported to his contemporaries who were absent from his gathering or to the generations coming after his time - had no validity then nothing of the religion could survive at all.

Man by his instinct relies and accepts the reports brought by others - he cannot survive without it. As for the alterations and interpolations, it is not a disease peculiar to the traditions of the Prophet.

The society depends on the reported news and information; and the motives to tell lies, to make changes and alterations to suit one's purpose, to twist the words and to quote them out of context, are much more stronger in the case of the worldly affairs.

So, what do we do? Do we reject all reports and information? No! We scrutinize every report with the help of some well-established and relevant standard; what passes the test, is accepted as truth; and that which fails is thrown aside as falsehood; and if no clear result emerges from the test, if we are unable to decide whether the report was true or not, we reserve our judgment - as our nature tells us to do in such cases.

The above procedure is applied regarding the subjects we have some expertise about. As for a subject outside our specialty, the common practice is to refer it to the specialists in that field and accept their judgment.

This is, in short, the dictate of human nature for the smooth running of the society. The self same system is adhered to in religion for distinguishing truth from falsehood. The litmus-paper of this test is the Book of Allah - if a tradition conforms to it, its truth is confirmed; if it clearly goes against it, its false-hood is known; and if no definite stand may be taken because of some ambiguities, then the judgment is reserved.

This system has been explained in the mutawatir traditions of the Prophet and the Imams (of the Ahlu 'l-bayt - a.s.). It applies to all the tradi­tions that are not concerned with jurisprudence; as for those dealing with the law and jurisprudence, they are governed by the Principles of Jurisprudence.

A Philosophical Discourse on Sorcery and Witchcraft

It is a common knowledge that many unusual events do take place which are outside the frame of the established natural system. It is difficult to find someone who has not seen, or heard about, some abnormal or seemingly supernatural events.

But we find after scrutiny that most of them are not enigmatic and mysterious at all; rather they arise from normal and natural causes. Often they result from practice and training, for example, eating poison, lifting heavy load, walking or dancing on tight-rope etc.

Some are based on natural causes that are not known to the general public, for example, a man walks into flaming fire without coming to any harm, (he applies some chemicals like talc to his body); or sends a sheet of blank paper and the addressee understands the message it contains.

(He writes with an invisible ink which becomes visible if heated by fire or treated with some chemicals.) A third set depends on the sleight of hand like jug­glery. All these seemingly abnormal feats actually emanate from the normal causes, although the causes remain hidden from a common man's eyes; they may even be beyond his ability.

Yet there are other strange happenings that cannot be attri­buted to any normal physical cause. For example, giving infor­mation of the unseen, and particularly foretelling the future events; the charms for love and hate, the spells harmfully or beneficially affecting man's virility; hypnotism; mesmerism; spiri­tualism; telekinesis and so on.

It is known that such events do take place from time to time; we have seen some demonstrations ourselves; and similar reports were brought to us by reliable sources. Today there are many people in India, Iran and the western countries, who demonstrate such extraordinary feats - and their authenticity is beyond doubt.

It appears from close investigation of their methods and regimen that these feats spring from the will-power of the doer, and from his unshakable confidence in effectiveness of his work. The will-power emanates from the confidence, which in its turn arises from the knowledge.

Sometimes the will acts independently and sometimes it needs some help: for example, writing a certain charm with a certain ink in a certain place at a certain time (for the amulets of love or hate); or fixing a mirror before a certain child (in the seances of spiritualism); or chanting a certain incan­tation a certain number of times, and so on and so forth. When the conditions are fulfilled the will is strengthened to bring the desired effect into being.

When the knowledge becomes one with the knower, it influences his senses to such an extent that he sees the end product, that is, the desired effect, with his eyes. You may verify this statement yourself. Just tell yourself that a certain person is present before you and that you are looking at him; then put your imagination to work to bring his form before your eyes; this should be raised to such a high level of certainty that you become oblivious of all contrary thoughts and ideas.

And then you will actually see him standing before you - as you had imagined. Many is a doctor who, acting on this principle, restored to health his incurable patients - simply by creating in them the confidence that they would soon get their health back.

Taking this principle a step further, if someone's will-power is extraordinarily strong, it might create an impression on other's psyche too - as it had created on his own self in the foregoing example. That impression might, or might not, depend on fulfillment of some conditions, as indicated earlier.

From the above discourse, we may deduce the following three principles:

First: The appearance of such extraordinary events depends on the firm “knowledge” and strong conviction of the doer. But it is irrelevant whether that “knowledge” is true to the fact or not. That explains why the conjurations of the priests of the sun-god and the moon-goddess etc. seemed to work - although they believed that the heavenly bodies had souls, which they claimed to bring under their control by their magic.

Probably the same applies to the angels and satans whose names are “discovered” and invoked by many practitioners of the magic art. The same is true for spiritualism and its séance and spirit communication - and the spiritualists' belief that the spirits attend their sittings.

Utmost that may be claimed re­garding those sessions, is that the spirit appears in their imagi­nation or, let us say, before their senses - and this “perception” emanates from their firm belief in their art. But it can never be said that the spirit actually presents itself at those sittings - otherwise all the participants in the sitting should have perceived its presence, because everyone of them has the same senses as the medium has.

By accepting this principle, we may solve many problems related to the séance and spirit communication. For example:

1 - Sometimes the spirit of a living man is called to present itself at a séance, and supposedly it comes there. But at that very moment, that man is busy attending to his affairs, and he never feels his spirit leaving him even for an instant. The question is: As a man has only one spirit, how was it possible that his spirit presented itself to that séance without his being aware of it?

2 - The spirit is an immaterial essence which has no relation whatsoever with space and time. How can it present itself at a certain place at a certain time?

3 - Why is it that often a single spirit appears before different mediums in different forms?

4 - Why is it that sometimes when the spirits are called to a séance, they tell lies and give wrong answers? And why do the various spirits sometimes contradict each other?

All these problems will be solved if the principle is accepted that it is not any spirit that presents itself to the séance; it is only the firm belief and conviction of the spiritualist and his medium that is at work, making the medium see, hear and feel the spirit. It is all a play of his imagination and will; and nothing more.

Second: Some of the people, holding the strong and effec­tive will-power, rely on their own power and their own being, in bringing about the desired effect, the intended super-natural events. Such events are bound to be limited in strength, confined in their scope - in their own imagination as well as in reality.

On the other side, there are some persons, like the prophets and the friends of Allah who, in spite of their most effective will-power, totally rely on their Lord. They truly worship Him and have full trust in Him.

They do not wish any thing but from their Lord, and by His permission. Theirs is a pure and clear will, untainted by any personal feeling of their own. It does not depend except on Allah. This is a Divine Will - not limited in any way, nor restricted in any manner.

The super-natural events that are brought into being by the first group may be of many kinds: If they are based on enquiry of, or help from, a jinn or a spirit etc., then it is called “al-kihanah ” (اَلكـِهَانـَة ُ ) = divination, sooth-saying, fortune-telling); and if it comes about by means of a charm, amulet, telesm or other such instruments or portions, then it is called magic.

The super-natural events shown by the prophets and friends of Allah are also of many kinds: If it is produced as a challenge, in order to prove the truth of the claim of prophethood, then it is called miracle; and if it is not offered as a challenge, then it is named “al-karamah ( اَلكـَرامَة ُ ) which literally means nobility, mark of honour; and in Islamic terminology is used for a miraculous event shown without a challenge; and if it happens as a result of the prayer to Allah, then it is called, “answer to the prayer.”

Third: As the whole thing depends on the will-power of the doer, its strength varies according to the strength (or weakness) of the will. That is why some of them may nullify the others, as, for example, the miracle annihilates the sorcery.

Also, a weak agent fails to impose his will on a stronger psyche, as is often seen at the sessions of mesmerism, hypnot­ism and seances.

We shall further explain this subject somewhere else.

An Academic Description of Various Kinds of Magic

There are many fields of study dealing with various awe-striking feats and extraordinary deeds; and it is very difficult to classify them so as not to leave any thing out. However, we give here a list of the more commonly used branches of this art:

as-Simiya': It deals with the ways of combining the will-power with particular physical and material forces for ma­nipulating the natural order and, thus, producing extraordinary effects. Under this head comes the manipulation of thought, also known as the eye-enchantment.

It is the most deserving candidate for the title of magic.

al-Limiya': It teaches how one may establish a connec­tion between his psyche and the higher and stronger spirits, in order that one may bring them under one's control, for example, the spirits of the stars, or the jinn, etc. It is also called the knowledge of subjugation of the spirits.

al-Himiya': It explains how the powers of the higher spiritual world may be combined with the base elements of this world to produce awe-inspiring effects. It is also called talisman. The stars and their configuration have some relation to the ma­terial happenings of this world, in the same way as the elements and compounds and their physical qualities affect those phenom­ena.

Supposedly if the heavenly forms, pertaining to a certain event, for example, A's life or B's death, could be combined with the relevant material forms, the desired effect would take place without fail.

ar-Rimiya': It trains one how to control and manipulate the qualities of various things, to produce seemingly super-natural effects. It is also called “ash-Sha'badhah ” ( اَلشـَّعْبَذَة ُ) = sleight of hand, jugglery, magic).

These four fields of knowledge, together with the fifth, called “al-Kimiya' ” ( اَلكـِيمياءُ ) = alchemy, the forerunner of chemistry, primarily the attempt to transmute base metals into gold or silver) formed what the ancients called the five secrets, mysterious branches of knowledge.

Ash-Shaykh al-Baha'i has said: “The best book written on these subjects was the one I saw in Harat, 'Kulah-e sar' (the head's cap) by name. Its name was an acronym, made of the first letters of the five subjects, that is,al-Kimiya', al Limiya', al-Himiya', as-Simiya' andar-Rimiya' ”.

The- standard books of these subjects are the epitome of the books of Minds, Rasa'il, al-Khusraw Shahi, adh-Dhakhirah, al-Iskandariyyah, as-Sirru 'l-maktum (by ar-Razi), at-Taskhirat (by as-Sakkaki) and A'malu 'l-kawakib as-Sab'ah (by al-Hakim Tamtam al-Hindi).

Supplementary to the above are the following subjects:

The knowledge of numbers (numerology): It shows the relation of numbers and letters with the desired effect. The relevant letters or numbers are filled in a magic square or triangle etc. in a particular sequence.

al-Khafiyah: ( اَلخَافـِيَة ُ) = the hidden knowledge): It breaks down the name of the desired effect or other relevant names, and finds out the names of the angels or the satans managing the said effect; and then composes the invocations made of those names.

The books written by ash-Shaykh Abul-'Abbas al-Buni and as-Sayyid Husayn al-Akhlati are the standard works of the above two subjects.

Then there are various modern arts covering this field, which have gained wide currency nowadays; for example, mesmerism, hypnotism and spirit communication. As described earlier, these are based on the impression created on the im­agination by the will-power. There are numerous well-known books and magazines dealing with these subjects.

We have given all this detail here, so that it may be ascer­tained which of them could be classified as magic or sorcery.

Footnote

1. The red star refers to the Mars, but as will be seen later, Ibn 'Umar is supposed to talk about the Venus. Obviously, the man who forged this “tra­dition” did not know the difference between the Mars and the Venus. (tr.)

Suratul Baqarah: Verses 102 - 103

وَاتَّبَعُوا مَا تَتْلُو الشَّيَاطِينُ عَلَىٰ مُلْكِ سُلَيْمَانَ وَمَا كَفَرَ‌ سُلَيْمَانُ وَلَـٰكِنَّ الشَّيَاطِينَ كَفَرُ‌وا يُعَلِّمُونَ النَّاسَ السِّحْرَ‌ وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَى الْمَلَكَيْنِ بِبَابِلَ هَارُ‌وتَ وَمَارُ‌وتَ وَمَا يُعَلِّمَانِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ حَتَّىٰ يَقُولَا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ فِتْنَةٌ فَلَا تَكْفُرْ‌ فَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مِنْهُمَا مَا يُفَرِّ‌قُونَ بِهِ بَيْنَ الْمَرْ‌ءِ وَزَوْجِهِ وَمَا هُم بِضَارِّ‌ينَ بِهِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ اللَّـهِ وَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مَا يَضُرُّ‌هُمْ وَلَا يَنفَعُهُمْ وَلَقَدْ عَلِمُوا لَمَنِ اشْتَرَ‌اهُ مَا لَهُ فِي الْآخِرَ‌ةِ مِنْ خَلَاقٍ وَلَبِئْسَ مَا شَرَ‌وْا بِهِ أَنفُسَهُمْ لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ ﴿١٠٢﴾

وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ آمَنُوا وَاتَّقَوْا لَمَثُوبَةٌ مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّـهِ خَيْرٌ‌ لَّوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ ﴿١٠٣﴾

And they followed what the satans chanted(of sorcery) against the kingdom of Sulayman; and Sulayman was not an unbeliever, but the satans disbelieved; they taught men sorcery and what was sent down to the two angels at Baby­lon, Harut and Marut. Yet these two taught no one until they had said: “Surely we are only a trial, therefore do not be a disbeliever.” Even then men learned from these two, that by which they might cause a separation between a man and his wife; and they cannot hurt with it any one except with Allah's permission; and they learned what harmed them and did not profit them; and certainly they knew that he who bought it should have no share (of good) in the hereafter, and vile was the price for which they sold their souls; had they but known(this) (102).

And if they had believed and guarded themselves(against evil), reward from Allah would certainly have been better; had they but known(this ) (103).

Commentary

Qur’an: And they followed what the satans chanted... The exegetes have disputed among themselves about each and every aspect of this verse; so much so that the resulting picture of the differences is almost unparalleled in the whole Qur'an. A list of the differences is given below:

“they followed ”: Does the pronoun, “they”, refer to the Jews of the Sulayman's time, or to those at the time of the Prophet, or to all?

“chanted”: The Arabic word is “tatlu ” ( تَتْلوْا ) which may be translated as “chanted”, “recited”, “told a lie about”, “faked” or “followed and acted according to”. In which sense the word is used here? Every meaning has some supporters.

“satans”: Does it refer to the satans of jinn? Or to those among the human beings? Or to both?

“about”: The Arabic participle is ”'ala ” (عَلی) = against, on, about, upon). Does the phrase mean, about the kingdom of Sulayman? Or, during the reign of Sulayman? Or, against his kingdom? Or, on his reign?

“the satans disbelieved”: Some say, they disbelieved because they published the sorcery among the people. Others say, they disbelieved because they ascribed the sorcery to Sulayman. Still others say, the disbelief, as mentioned here, actually means sorcery.

“they taught men sorcery”: It means they instructed them as a teacher instructs his students. No! it means that they buried the chants under Sulayman's chair, and then directed the men to it who brought it out and learnt it.

“and what was sent down”: The word translated here as “what” is “ma ” (مَا ) which is a relative pronoun (“what”); also, it is a particle of negation (“not”). “And” is mostly used as a conjunctive; but not infrequently, it is also used to begin a new sentence. A group says that “ma” means “what”, and the conjunctive joins it to “what the satans chanted” (the Jews followed what was sent down).

Another party is of the opinion that the conjunctive joins it to “sorcery” (the satans taught them sorcery and that which was sent down). A third group thinks that “ma” means “not”, and the word “and” begins a new sentence (And sorcery was not sent down to the two angels, contrary to what the Jews claimed).

“sent down”: Was it sent down from the heavens? Or from the highlands?

“the two angels”: They were the angels from the heaven. No! They were two good men, or men who feigned to be good. No! It is not “al-malakayn ” (المَلَكَيْنِ = two angels); it is “al-malikayn ” (المَلِكَيْنِ = two kings).

“Babylon”: It is the famous ancient city of Iraq. No! It is a city in Damawand (Iran); Wrong! It is the land between Nasibayn (Turkey) and Ra'sul 'Ayn.

“these two taught no one”: Teaching is used in its common meaning of instruction. No! It means, these two apprised no one.

“do not be a disbeliever”: By learning sorcery? Or, by practising it? Or, by both?

“the men learned from these two”: The “two” refers to the two angels. No! It means, they learned from the two subjects, sorcery and disbelief. Wrong! They learned the practice of sorcery, in place of the advice given by the angels.

“that by which they might cause a separation between a man and his wife”: Some exegetes say that they caused love or hate between the couple with the help of their sorcery. Others think that they misled one of the spouses to disbelief and polytheism, and the apostasy caused the separation mentioned here. A third group say that they created hatred and enmity between the couple with their calumny and slander.

This, in short, gives a glimpse of the differences of opinions concerning the explanations of the words and clauses of the verse. There are still more differences about the event referred to - whether it narrates an actual happening or is just a parable; and so on and so forth. Compute the differences mentioned above and you will get nearly one million and two hundred sixty thousand possible explanations (4 x 3 9 x 2 4)!!

It seems an astounding quality of the Qur'an, that a verse that is subjected to so many divergent interpretations, still maintains its highest standard of eloquence; that in spite of all these vagaries of the exegetes, its meaning is not disjointed, nor its beauty marred.

A similar treatment has been meted out to the verse:

Is he then who has with him clear proof from his Lord, and a witness from him recites it and before it (is) the Book of Musa, a guide and a mercy (11:17).

However, it appears from the context that this verse deals with a hitherto unmentioned affair of the Jews, that is, their wide-spread use of sorcery. They based this practice on one or two stories, which were very popular among them.

The Jews were addicted to making alterations and inter­polations in, and omissions from, their Divine books, let alone the historical narrations. They used to change their books and records fitting them to the prevalent moods of their times. A story narrated by them was not to be relied upon. But this Qur'anic admonition is based on their own belief, because it was they who used to narrate these stories.

The verse proves that the practice of sorcery was prevalent among the Jews, and that they ascribed it to Sulayman (a.s.). They presumed that Sulayman (a.s.) got the kingdom and sub­jugated the jinn, the human beings, the animals and the birds - all with the help of sorcery; and all the supernatural miraculous events related to him depended on witchcraft.

And they claimed that some of the enchantments in their hands had come down to them from him. The remaining portion was attributed to the two angels at Babylon, named Harut and Marut.

The Qur'an refutes the stories, saying that the prophet Sulayman (a.s.) never indulged in witchcraft and sorcery. How could he, when sorcery was nothing but disbelief in Allah? Sulayman (a.s.) could not be an unbeliever as he was a sinless, innocent prophet. All this is clearly seen from the words of Allah:

“and Sulayman was not an unbeliever, but the satans disbelieved, they taught men sorcery”; “and certainly they knew that he who bought it should have no share (of good) in the hereafter”. Sulayman's position was too distinguished, his rank too high, and his name too sacred to be associated with disbelief and sorcery.

He was the prophet whose outstanding position has been eulogized in several places in the chapters of Meccan period, long before this Chapter of the Cow was revealed. See, for example, the chapters of the Cattle (6th), the Prophets (21st), the Ant (27th) and Sad (38th).

You shall find therein that Sulayman (a.s.) was an excellent servant of Allah, a prophet and an apostle; Allah gave him the knowledge and the wisdom; and granted him a kingdom which was not fit for any one after him.

Obviously, Sulayman could not indulge in sorcery; it was just a mythical story invented by the satans, which they dictated to their human friends; and it was the satans who disbelieved because they misguided the men by teaching them sorcery.

As for the story of the two angels at Babylon, the Qur'anic stand is as follows:

The two angels, Harut and Maria, were certainly given some sorcery as a means of test and trial for the human beings - and no objection could be raised against that; after all, Allah has taught the human nature the ways of evil too in order that He may test them with it.

Likewise, sorcery was sent down to the two angels; but they did not teach it to anyone until they had said to him: Surely we are only a trial, therefore do not become a disbeliever by using it for wrongful purposes; you must use it only to nullify the effect of witchcraft, to expose the viles of the sorcerers and things like that.

But the men learned from them that by which they might destroy the domestic peace and turn the love between husband and wife - the best of the things ingrained in human nature - into hatred, causing a separation between them. Also they learned what harmed them and did not benefit them.

The verse therefore may be explained as follows:

And they (i.e., the Jews coming after the reign of Sulayman - every generation passing on the legacy to the later one) followed what the satans from among the jinn faked and lied about the kingdom of Sulayman.

Tatlu ” تـَتْلـُوْا) = translated here as recited or chanted) actually has the connotation of “lied about ” or “faked about”, because it is followed by the preposition ”'ala ”عَلیٰ ) = on) which has changed its semantic value.

Why do we say that the satans were from the jinn? The following two verses read together provide the answer to this question:

And of the satans there were those who dived for him and did other work beside that, and We kept guard over them (21:82);

and when he fell down, the jinn came to know plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in abasing torment (34:14).

The first verse shows that the satans were reduced to subjection by Sulayman (a.s.) who kept them away from mischief by assigning to them very heavy task; and the second verse refers to the same slavish group as the jinn.

Qur’an:and Sulayman was not an unbeliever: “and” is used here in the meaning of “while”. Sulayman did not indulge in sorcery; therefore, it was not he who disbelieved; rather it was the satans who disbelieved, because they misled the people by teaching them sorcery.

Qur’an:and what was sent down: The Jews followed that which was sent down - through inspiration - to the two angels at Babylon, Harut and Marut. Yet these two did not teach any one any thing of the sorcery, without warning him not to practice it.

They admonished every one who wanted to learn sorcery: Surely we are only a trial for you. What we teach you is but a means of test for you. Beware! Don't become an unbeliever by practising sorcery.

Qur’an: Even then men learned from these two: that is, from the two angels, Harut and Maria. “that by which they might cause a separation”, that is, the sorcery which caused separation “between a man and his wife”.

Qur’an:and they cannot hurt with it any one except with Allah's permission: It is a parenthetic sentence, to remove a possible misunderstanding: One could assume, on hearing that the sorcerers caused separation between a husband and his wife, that the sorcerers were powerful enough to disturb the divinely ordained arrangement of the world; that they could undo the Divine Decree and change the system created by Allah.

This sen­tence clears the air and emphasizes the fact that sorcery draws its strength from the Divine Decree; it cannot affect any thing but with the permission of Allah. Therefore, the sorcerers act within the framework of the system designed by Allah.

This sentence was placed where it is because only the preceding sentence(that by which they might cause a separation...) mentions the effect of sorcery. Therefore, it was explained that whatever effect it had was based on the permission of Allah.

The following clause(and they learned what harmed them and did not profit them) is not concerned with this aspect of sorcery, and the above-mentioned clarifying parenthetic sentence, if placed after it, would have looked out of place.

Qur’an:and certainly they knew that he who bought it should have no share (of good) in the hereafter: They knew it because their reason and intellect told them that the sorcery was the most wicked source of disorder in the society. Also, they were made aware of it by Musa (a.s.) when he had said:

and the magician shall not be successful wheresoever he may come from (20:69).

Qur’an:and vile was the price for which they sold their souls; had they but known (this): They knew that sorcery was bad for them and ruinous for their future abode; yet it was as though they did not know it - because they did not act according to their knowledge. If a knowledge fails to lead the knower to the straight path, then it is not knowledge; it is ignorance.

Allah says:

Have you then seen him who takes his low desire for his god, and Allah has made him err in spite of (his) knowledge... (45:23).

Therefore, it was completely in order to wish for them know-ledge and guidance, even if they had had the knowledge before.

Qur’an:And if they had believed and guarded themselves....: If they had followed the dictates of belief and piety, instead of following the satans' yarns and practising sorcery which is nothing short of disbelief, they would have got its reward from Allah.

This verse indicates that the disbelief emanating from sorcery is a disbelief within the sphere of action, like that which results from withholding zakat; it is not a disbelief within the sphere of faith. Had the sorcery been a disbelief within the sphere of faith, Allah would have only said, “And if they believed”, with-out adding “and guarded themselves (against evil)”.

The Jews had believed, no doubt; but they did not guard themselves against evil and did not desist from the things forbidden by Allah; therefore, Allah did not attach any importance, any value, to their belief, and they were called the disbelievers.

Qur’an:reward from Allah would certainly have been better; had they but known (this): that is, better than the rewards and profits they seek through sorcery and amass through disbelief.

Traditions

al Baqir (a.s.) said, inter alia, explaining the words of Allah, And they followed what the satans chanted (of sorcery) against the kingdom of Sulayman...:“When Sulayman died, Iblis invented sorcery and wrote it in a book; then folding it, wrote on its back: 'This is the valuable treasure of knowledge which Asif ibn Barkhiya produced for the king Sulayman ibn Dawud. Whoever wanted such and such thing, should do so and so.'

Then he buried it under his throne. Thereafter, he unearthed it for the Jews and recited it (before them). The disbelievers said: 'Sulayman had not gained supremacy over us but because of this.' And the believers said:

'Nay! He was a servant of Allah and His prophet.' Thus Allah, Great is His remembrance! said:And they followed what the satans chanted (of sorcery) against the kingdom of Sulayman.” (at-Tafsir, al-'Ayyashi, al-Qummi ).

The author says: This tradition says that it was the Satan, that is, Iblis, who invented sorcery and wrote and recited it. There is no discrepancy between this statement and the verse under discussion which ascribes these things to the satans from among the jinn.

Even their deeds are ultimately attributed to the Iblis, because he is the source of all evil; it is he who instigates his friends to wickedness and evil. Such usage is common in the traditions.

It appears from this tradition that the verb, “tatlu” in this verse is derived from “at tilawah ” (التـِّلاوَةُ = to recite, to chant). It not in conflict with the interpretation given by us in the Commentary that it gives the meaning of “lied about” or “faked about”; because, as we said there, this connotation emerges from the preposition, ” 'ala ” which has changed its semantic value.

The sentence, therefore, may be interpreted as follows: The satans chanted the sorcery, reciting it, and faking it, lying about the kingdom of Sulayman.

Etymologically, tala, yatlu, tilawatan ( تَلا ، يَتلوا ، تِلاوَةً ) returns towaliya, yali, wilayatan ( وَلِي ، يَلِي ، ولايَةً ) which has the semantic value of being near to, governing and following; one owns a thing gradually, one part following the other - reciting is called at-tilawah simply because in recitation one word follows the other.

A fuller discourse of this subject will be given under the verse:

Verily, your guardian is only Allah and His Apostle and those who believe, those who establish prayer and pay zakat while they bow down (5:58).

ar-Rida (a.s.) said, inter alia, in his discussion with al‑ Ma'mun: “And as for Harut and Marut, they were two angels; they taught sorcery to the people in order that they could protect themselves from the enchantments of the sorcerers, and could nullify their devices. And they did not teach any one any (en­chantment) until they had said to him:

'Surely we are only a trial, therefore do not be a disbeliever.'

But a group became dis­believers by practising what they were warned against; and they caused a separation between a man and his wife with their practice (of sorcery). Allah has said: and they cannot hurt with it any one except with Allah's permission.” ('Uyunu 'l-akhbar).

On Some Spurious Traditions

Ibn Jarir has narrated from Ibn ''Abbas that he said: “When-ever Sulayman wanted to enter the toilet or to attend to some of his affairs, he gave his ring to al-Jaradah, his wife. When Allah decided to test Sulayman in the way He tested him, one day Sulayman gave his ring (as usual) to al-Jaradah. Then Satan came to her in the likeness of Sulayman and said:

'Give me my ring.' So he took it and put it on. As soon as he did so, the satans (from the jinn and the human beings) came under his control. Then came Sulayman and said to her: 'Give me my ring.' She said: 'You are a liar; you are not Sulayman.' So Sulayman knew that it was a trial to test him.

The satans got a free hand, and wrote, in those very days, some books containing enchantments and disbelief, and buried them under the chair of Sulayman. Thereafter they unearthed them and recited them before the people.

And they said: 'It was because of these books that Sulayman dominated over the people.' Thus the people avoided Sulayman and accused him of disbelief. (It continued) until Allah sent Muhammad (S) and revealed to him:and Sulayman was not an unbeliever, but the satans disbelieved.” (ad-Durru ‘l-manthur )

The author says: This story is found in other traditions too. It is a long story forming a part of a multitude purporting to show the supposed sins and mistakes of the prophets.

Said ibn Jarir and al-Khatib (in hisat-Tarikh ) have quoted Nafi' as saying: “I went on a journey with Ibn 'Umar. When the night was coming to its end, he said: 'O Nafi'! Look at the red star1 , has it risen?' Twice or thrice I said: 'No.' Then I said: 'It has risen.' He said: 'No welcome to it!' I said: 'Praise the Lord! (It is but) a star, subjugated, obedient (and) submissive!'

He said: 'I have not told you except that which I heard the Apostle of Allah (S) saying. He said: “The angels (once) said: 'O Lord! How doest Thou bear with the mistakes and sins of the children of Adam?' (Allah) said:

'I have put them to trial and given them some dispensation.' They said: 'If we were in their place, we would not have disobeyed Thee.' He said: 'Then select (for trial) two angels from among yourselves.'

They spared no effort in the selection and (finally) selected Harut and Marut. They came down (to the earth); and Allah created in them the lust.” (At this juncture, Nafi' said: 'And what is lust?' He said: 'Sexual urge.') ”Then there came a woman, az-Zuhrah (i.e., Venus) by name, and both felt attracted towards her, each con­cealing his feeling from his companion.

Then one of them asked the other: 'Do you feel in your heart what I do in mine?' The other said: 'Yes!' Thereupon, they asked her for themselves. She said: 'I will not give you power (over myself) until you teach me the name by which you ascend to, and descend from, the heaven.' They refused to do so. Then they asked her again; and again she refused. At last they did (teach her the name).

When she flew (to the heaven), Allah effaced her into a star and cut her wings. Then the (two angels) sought pardon from Allah; and He gave them an option, saying: 'If it is your wish, I shall let you return to the position you held before, and then you shall be punished on the Day of Resurrection.

Or, if you wish, I shall chastise you in this world, and when the Day of Resurrection comes you shall be reinstated to your previously held position.' So one of them said to the other: 'The punish­ment of this world will come to an end and will be short-lived.'

Therefore, they opted for this world's chastisement against the punishment of the next world. And Allah revealed to them to go to Babylon. They went there and the earth swallowed them up; they are hanging upside-down between the heaven and the earth, undergoing punishment up to the Day of Resurrection.” ' ” (ad-Durru 'l-manthur)

The author says: Something like this has been narrated in some Shi'ah books too from al-Baqir (a.s.). as-Suyuti, the Sunni traditionalist, has narrated more than twenty traditions of the same theme about Harut, Marut and the Venus; some of those traditions have been confirmed as having “correct” chains of narrators; and the chains end on various companions, like Ibn ''Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, 'Ali, Abud-Darda', 'Umar, 'A'ishah and Ibn 'Umar.

These are fictitious stories, which collectively ascribe to the angels of Allah the worst type of polytheism and the most heinous sins, that is, idol-worship, murder, fornication and liquor-drinking. Could the angels indulge in such sins, when they are known to be the honoured servants of Allah who are purified from all sins and mistakes?

And they accuse the planet Venus to be a woman of loose character, who was transformed into a luminary body - have you ever heard of such a punishment!! - while it is known to be a heavenly body, free from any defect in its creation or any flaw in its system; a planet by which Allah swears in the Qur'an:

But nay! I swear by the stars that run their course (and) hide themselves... (81:15-16).

Moreover, the astronomy has today unveiled its reality, and found out in detail the elements it is made of, as well as their quantity and combination - in short all matters related to it.

This story, like that given earlier (about Sulayman and his ring), is in complete agreement with the legends popular among the Jews. They remind one of the Greek mythology related to the stars and the planets.

A discerning reader will agree that these traditions, like those slandering and defaming the prophets and apostles, are but a few samples of the intrigues and machinations of the Jews.

Their prevalence in the Muslims' books of traditions is a living proof of the hold they held on the Muslims' minds in the early days of Islam. The Jews toyed with the Muslim traditions in any way they liked; and the Muslim traditionalists were their willing partners in these interpolations.

But Allah has kept His Book under His Own protection. The enemies of truth cannot play with it. Whenever one of their satans tries to steal a hearing he is chased away by a visible flame. Allah has said:

Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most certainly be its guardian (15:9);

and most surely it is a Mighty Book: Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One (41:41- 42);

And We reveal of the Qur'an that which is a healing and mercy to the believers, and it adds only to the perdition of the unjust (17:82).

The promise given in these verses is uncon­ditional. Every interpolation, every alteration is repulsed by the Qur'an. The Book of Allah unmasks the true face of the inter­polators, adding to their perdition. Also, the Apostle of Allah (S) has said:

“Whatever is in conformity with the Book of Allah, take it; and whatever is against it, leave it.” The ummah has been given this frame of reference; it is this yardstick with which all the traditions attributed to the Prophet and his Ahlu 'l-bayt are to be measured.

The Qur'an removes every falsehood and exposes every deception. Allah says:

Nay! We cast the truth against falsehood, so that it breaks its head, and lo! it vanishes (21:18);

and Allah desired to manifest the truth of what was true by His words... that He may manifest the truth of what was true and show the falsehood of what was false, even though the guilty ones disliked (8:7-8).

Allah confirms the truth and erases the falsehood by showing the true faces of both.

Some people, and especially those with materialistic out-look, who are overawed by the western civilization, have used the above-mentioned historical fact as a pretext to throw away all the traditions attributed to the Prophet.

They looked at some traditionalists and al-Haruriyyah and found that they accepted every tradition - without any scrutiny whatsoever. They reacted to it by going to the other extreme and rejecting every tradition - without any scrutiny whatsoever.

It needs not much intelligence to realize that the total acceptance of the traditions is as bad as its total rejection.

Its unconditional acceptance nullifies the standard laid down for the purpose of differentiating between the truth and the falsehood; and encourages one to ascribe lies to the Prophet. Likewise, its indiscriminate rejection casts aside the said standard and leads one to the rejection of the Book of Allah itself - the Mighty Book that falsehood does not come to it from before it nor from behind it.

Allah has said in this Book: and whatever the Apostle gives you, take it; and from whatever he forbids you, keep back (59:7);

And We did not send any apostle but that he should be obeyed by Allah's permission (4:64).

If the sayings of the Prophet had no authority, or if his words - reported to his contemporaries who were absent from his gathering or to the generations coming after his time - had no validity then nothing of the religion could survive at all.

Man by his instinct relies and accepts the reports brought by others - he cannot survive without it. As for the alterations and interpolations, it is not a disease peculiar to the traditions of the Prophet.

The society depends on the reported news and information; and the motives to tell lies, to make changes and alterations to suit one's purpose, to twist the words and to quote them out of context, are much more stronger in the case of the worldly affairs.

So, what do we do? Do we reject all reports and information? No! We scrutinize every report with the help of some well-established and relevant standard; what passes the test, is accepted as truth; and that which fails is thrown aside as falsehood; and if no clear result emerges from the test, if we are unable to decide whether the report was true or not, we reserve our judgment - as our nature tells us to do in such cases.

The above procedure is applied regarding the subjects we have some expertise about. As for a subject outside our specialty, the common practice is to refer it to the specialists in that field and accept their judgment.

This is, in short, the dictate of human nature for the smooth running of the society. The self same system is adhered to in religion for distinguishing truth from falsehood. The litmus-paper of this test is the Book of Allah - if a tradition conforms to it, its truth is confirmed; if it clearly goes against it, its false-hood is known; and if no definite stand may be taken because of some ambiguities, then the judgment is reserved.

This system has been explained in the mutawatir traditions of the Prophet and the Imams (of the Ahlu 'l-bayt - a.s.). It applies to all the tradi­tions that are not concerned with jurisprudence; as for those dealing with the law and jurisprudence, they are governed by the Principles of Jurisprudence.

A Philosophical Discourse on Sorcery and Witchcraft

It is a common knowledge that many unusual events do take place which are outside the frame of the established natural system. It is difficult to find someone who has not seen, or heard about, some abnormal or seemingly supernatural events.

But we find after scrutiny that most of them are not enigmatic and mysterious at all; rather they arise from normal and natural causes. Often they result from practice and training, for example, eating poison, lifting heavy load, walking or dancing on tight-rope etc.

Some are based on natural causes that are not known to the general public, for example, a man walks into flaming fire without coming to any harm, (he applies some chemicals like talc to his body); or sends a sheet of blank paper and the addressee understands the message it contains.

(He writes with an invisible ink which becomes visible if heated by fire or treated with some chemicals.) A third set depends on the sleight of hand like jug­glery. All these seemingly abnormal feats actually emanate from the normal causes, although the causes remain hidden from a common man's eyes; they may even be beyond his ability.

Yet there are other strange happenings that cannot be attri­buted to any normal physical cause. For example, giving infor­mation of the unseen, and particularly foretelling the future events; the charms for love and hate, the spells harmfully or beneficially affecting man's virility; hypnotism; mesmerism; spiri­tualism; telekinesis and so on.

It is known that such events do take place from time to time; we have seen some demonstrations ourselves; and similar reports were brought to us by reliable sources. Today there are many people in India, Iran and the western countries, who demonstrate such extraordinary feats - and their authenticity is beyond doubt.

It appears from close investigation of their methods and regimen that these feats spring from the will-power of the doer, and from his unshakable confidence in effectiveness of his work. The will-power emanates from the confidence, which in its turn arises from the knowledge.

Sometimes the will acts independently and sometimes it needs some help: for example, writing a certain charm with a certain ink in a certain place at a certain time (for the amulets of love or hate); or fixing a mirror before a certain child (in the seances of spiritualism); or chanting a certain incan­tation a certain number of times, and so on and so forth. When the conditions are fulfilled the will is strengthened to bring the desired effect into being.

When the knowledge becomes one with the knower, it influences his senses to such an extent that he sees the end product, that is, the desired effect, with his eyes. You may verify this statement yourself. Just tell yourself that a certain person is present before you and that you are looking at him; then put your imagination to work to bring his form before your eyes; this should be raised to such a high level of certainty that you become oblivious of all contrary thoughts and ideas.

And then you will actually see him standing before you - as you had imagined. Many is a doctor who, acting on this principle, restored to health his incurable patients - simply by creating in them the confidence that they would soon get their health back.

Taking this principle a step further, if someone's will-power is extraordinarily strong, it might create an impression on other's psyche too - as it had created on his own self in the foregoing example. That impression might, or might not, depend on fulfillment of some conditions, as indicated earlier.

From the above discourse, we may deduce the following three principles:

First: The appearance of such extraordinary events depends on the firm “knowledge” and strong conviction of the doer. But it is irrelevant whether that “knowledge” is true to the fact or not. That explains why the conjurations of the priests of the sun-god and the moon-goddess etc. seemed to work - although they believed that the heavenly bodies had souls, which they claimed to bring under their control by their magic.

Probably the same applies to the angels and satans whose names are “discovered” and invoked by many practitioners of the magic art. The same is true for spiritualism and its séance and spirit communication - and the spiritualists' belief that the spirits attend their sittings.

Utmost that may be claimed re­garding those sessions, is that the spirit appears in their imagi­nation or, let us say, before their senses - and this “perception” emanates from their firm belief in their art. But it can never be said that the spirit actually presents itself at those sittings - otherwise all the participants in the sitting should have perceived its presence, because everyone of them has the same senses as the medium has.

By accepting this principle, we may solve many problems related to the séance and spirit communication. For example:

1 - Sometimes the spirit of a living man is called to present itself at a séance, and supposedly it comes there. But at that very moment, that man is busy attending to his affairs, and he never feels his spirit leaving him even for an instant. The question is: As a man has only one spirit, how was it possible that his spirit presented itself to that séance without his being aware of it?

2 - The spirit is an immaterial essence which has no relation whatsoever with space and time. How can it present itself at a certain place at a certain time?

3 - Why is it that often a single spirit appears before different mediums in different forms?

4 - Why is it that sometimes when the spirits are called to a séance, they tell lies and give wrong answers? And why do the various spirits sometimes contradict each other?

All these problems will be solved if the principle is accepted that it is not any spirit that presents itself to the séance; it is only the firm belief and conviction of the spiritualist and his medium that is at work, making the medium see, hear and feel the spirit. It is all a play of his imagination and will; and nothing more.

Second: Some of the people, holding the strong and effec­tive will-power, rely on their own power and their own being, in bringing about the desired effect, the intended super-natural events. Such events are bound to be limited in strength, confined in their scope - in their own imagination as well as in reality.

On the other side, there are some persons, like the prophets and the friends of Allah who, in spite of their most effective will-power, totally rely on their Lord. They truly worship Him and have full trust in Him.

They do not wish any thing but from their Lord, and by His permission. Theirs is a pure and clear will, untainted by any personal feeling of their own. It does not depend except on Allah. This is a Divine Will - not limited in any way, nor restricted in any manner.

The super-natural events that are brought into being by the first group may be of many kinds: If they are based on enquiry of, or help from, a jinn or a spirit etc., then it is called “al-kihanah ” (اَلكـِهَانـَة ُ ) = divination, sooth-saying, fortune-telling); and if it comes about by means of a charm, amulet, telesm or other such instruments or portions, then it is called magic.

The super-natural events shown by the prophets and friends of Allah are also of many kinds: If it is produced as a challenge, in order to prove the truth of the claim of prophethood, then it is called miracle; and if it is not offered as a challenge, then it is named “al-karamah ( اَلكـَرامَة ُ ) which literally means nobility, mark of honour; and in Islamic terminology is used for a miraculous event shown without a challenge; and if it happens as a result of the prayer to Allah, then it is called, “answer to the prayer.”

Third: As the whole thing depends on the will-power of the doer, its strength varies according to the strength (or weakness) of the will. That is why some of them may nullify the others, as, for example, the miracle annihilates the sorcery.

Also, a weak agent fails to impose his will on a stronger psyche, as is often seen at the sessions of mesmerism, hypnot­ism and seances.

We shall further explain this subject somewhere else.

An Academic Description of Various Kinds of Magic

There are many fields of study dealing with various awe-striking feats and extraordinary deeds; and it is very difficult to classify them so as not to leave any thing out. However, we give here a list of the more commonly used branches of this art:

as-Simiya': It deals with the ways of combining the will-power with particular physical and material forces for ma­nipulating the natural order and, thus, producing extraordinary effects. Under this head comes the manipulation of thought, also known as the eye-enchantment.

It is the most deserving candidate for the title of magic.

al-Limiya': It teaches how one may establish a connec­tion between his psyche and the higher and stronger spirits, in order that one may bring them under one's control, for example, the spirits of the stars, or the jinn, etc. It is also called the knowledge of subjugation of the spirits.

al-Himiya': It explains how the powers of the higher spiritual world may be combined with the base elements of this world to produce awe-inspiring effects. It is also called talisman. The stars and their configuration have some relation to the ma­terial happenings of this world, in the same way as the elements and compounds and their physical qualities affect those phenom­ena.

Supposedly if the heavenly forms, pertaining to a certain event, for example, A's life or B's death, could be combined with the relevant material forms, the desired effect would take place without fail.

ar-Rimiya': It trains one how to control and manipulate the qualities of various things, to produce seemingly super-natural effects. It is also called “ash-Sha'badhah ” ( اَلشـَّعْبَذَة ُ) = sleight of hand, jugglery, magic).

These four fields of knowledge, together with the fifth, called “al-Kimiya' ” ( اَلكـِيمياءُ ) = alchemy, the forerunner of chemistry, primarily the attempt to transmute base metals into gold or silver) formed what the ancients called the five secrets, mysterious branches of knowledge.

Ash-Shaykh al-Baha'i has said: “The best book written on these subjects was the one I saw in Harat, 'Kulah-e sar' (the head's cap) by name. Its name was an acronym, made of the first letters of the five subjects, that is,al-Kimiya', al Limiya', al-Himiya', as-Simiya' andar-Rimiya' ”.

The- standard books of these subjects are the epitome of the books of Minds, Rasa'il, al-Khusraw Shahi, adh-Dhakhirah, al-Iskandariyyah, as-Sirru 'l-maktum (by ar-Razi), at-Taskhirat (by as-Sakkaki) and A'malu 'l-kawakib as-Sab'ah (by al-Hakim Tamtam al-Hindi).

Supplementary to the above are the following subjects:

The knowledge of numbers (numerology): It shows the relation of numbers and letters with the desired effect. The relevant letters or numbers are filled in a magic square or triangle etc. in a particular sequence.

al-Khafiyah: ( اَلخَافـِيَة ُ) = the hidden knowledge): It breaks down the name of the desired effect or other relevant names, and finds out the names of the angels or the satans managing the said effect; and then composes the invocations made of those names.

The books written by ash-Shaykh Abul-'Abbas al-Buni and as-Sayyid Husayn al-Akhlati are the standard works of the above two subjects.

Then there are various modern arts covering this field, which have gained wide currency nowadays; for example, mesmerism, hypnotism and spirit communication. As described earlier, these are based on the impression created on the im­agination by the will-power. There are numerous well-known books and magazines dealing with these subjects.

We have given all this detail here, so that it may be ascer­tained which of them could be classified as magic or sorcery.

Footnote

1. The red star refers to the Mars, but as will be seen later, Ibn 'Umar is supposed to talk about the Venus. Obviously, the man who forged this “tra­dition” did not know the difference between the Mars and the Venus. (tr.)


4

5

6

7