Imamat and Khilafat

Chapter 5: Scholastic Study of Imamat

With a view to make clear the basis of the arguments which the Shi'ah scholars advance in support of their conception of Imamat and to show what others say in this respect, we deem it fit to reproduce with some explanatory remarks a passage written by Khwaja Nasiruddin Tusi. This passage is very precise and the Shi'ah and the Sunni scholars alike have been commenting on it since it was written.

You must have heard the name of a book, Tajrid, written by Khwaja Nasiruddin. A part of this book deals with logic and is called the logic of Tajrid. Another part of it deals with scholastic theology and discusses such questions as Monotheism, Prophethood, Imamat, the Hereafter etc. The tone of that section which discusses Monotheism is rather philosophical for in this section Khwaja Nasiruddin has followed the style of the philosophers. A commentary on both the parts of this book has been written by Allama Hilli, whose name also must be familiar to you. He was not only one of the greatest Shi'ah jurists but also one of the greatest jurists of Islam. In logic, scholastic theology, philosophy, mathematics etc, he was a pupil of Khwaja Nasiruddin.

He learned jurisprudence from Muhaqqiq Hilli, the author of Sharaya, who was also one of the most distinguished Shi'ah jurists. Allama Hilli and Khwaja Nasiruddin are counted among the most talented scholars. Khwaja Nasiruddin is considered to be one of the world class mathematicians also. Recently newspapers have announced that some parts of the moon have been named after certain Iranian mathematicians, such as Umar Khayyam, Ibn Sina and Khwaja Nasiruddin, who centuries ago advanced some very sound theories about the moon. There is no doubt that Allama Hilli is a genius in his own field, that is jurisprudence. He is the author of many books, including one in two volumes named Tazkiratul Fuqaha. When one studies this book, one marvels at the mastery of its author.

Muhammad Qazwini says that when he was in Tehran he used to attend the lectures of Mirza Ashtiyani. Later when he went to Europe, and had a chance to meet several European scholars who were specialists in their subjects, he felt that Mirza Ashtiyani was a specialist in the real sense of the word.

The Tazkiratul Fuqaha is a book that deals not only with Shi'ah jurisprudence, but in regard to every rule of law it also mentions the opinion of the Sunni schools founded by the four Sunni Imams, namely Abu Hanifah, Shafi'i, Malik and Ahmad bin Hambal, as well as the verdicts of the most prominent jurists preceding the formation of these four Sunni schools. Dealing with every question, it says that Abu Hanifah says so, Shafi'i says so and we the Shi'ites hold such and such opinion. Sometimes he refutes an opinion. Sometimes, for example, he says that Shafi'i first said so and then changed his opinion and said so.

Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Qummi used to say that when it was decided to publish the Tazkirah, an expert of every Sunni school was called. These experts were astonished to find that Allama Hilli knew more than what they themselves knew about the teachings of their schools. Such an extraordinary man Allama Hilli was!

He compiled a commentary on the Tajrid. That part of it which deals with logic is known as al Jawharun Nazid. It is one of the best books on logic. The scholastic part of the book is named Kashful Murad and is now known by the name of Sharhut Tajrid. Both the parts of Allama Hilli's commentary on the Tajrid are quite brief in expression. That is why they have again been commented upon subsequently and explanatory notes written on them. Perhaps no book in the Muslim world ever attracted so much attention of the scholars as the Tajrid. This book has been refuted by some and supported by others.

No other book has been furnished with so many commentaries and annotations as this book. The reason is that when Khwaja Nasiruddin wants to describe a question from the Shi'ah point of view, he touches it only briefly. In most cases he hurriedly refers to it and then passes away. In the concluding part of the book he has described the question of Imamat in a manner that has been approved by all Shi'ah scholars, and hence from his description of the question it is easy to understand how the Shi'ah scholars think about this subject.

The book which I have at my disposal at present is Mulla Ali Qushchi's commentary on the Tajrid. Mulla Ali Qushchi is an eminent Sunni scholar. Naturally he puts forward the Sunni point of view and in most cases refutes that of Khwaja Nasiruddin. Thus in this book the Sunni view has been reflected side by side with the view of Khwaja which of course is the Shi'ah view.

Definition of Imamat

The first thing to be mentioned about Imamat is its definition, about which there is no difference of opinion. It is said that Imamat is the general charge of the religious as well as the secular affairs.

Khwaja Nasiruddin uses a scholastic expression and says that the Imam is a Divine favour (Lutf). What he means is that like Prophethood the question of Imamat is also beyond human control. Hence an Imam cannot be selected by a human decision. Like a Prophet he is to be appointed by Divine ordinance. The only difference is that the Prophet has a direct contact with Allah, whereas an Imam is appointed by the Prophet on receiving Divine instructions.

Rational Argument of the Shi'ah

In this connection Khwaja Nasiruddin does not put forward more than one sentence. Anyhow the basis of the explanation given by the Shi'ah scholars is the same as mentioned by us earlier. They first advance a historical argument and say if Imam Ali's Imamat is proved, that of the other Imams' can be based on the authority of a declaration made by the preceding Imam. The Shi'ah scholars say that they know that Islam is the final religion and that it would not be followed by any other religion.

It is the most comprehensive religion and a complete code of human life. Then they put a question and ask whether the account of the Holy Prophet's life shows that he got enough opportunity to impart all the teachings of Islam to the people in general. When we study Islamic history we find that during the 23 years of his Prophethood he did not get such an opportunity. Although he did not miss any chance which he could avail of and taught many things to the people, yet in view of his special circumstances and his preoccupations in Makkah and Medina, it is certain that a period of 23 years was not enough for him to pronounce all the laws of Islam to all the people.

At the same time it was also not possible for him to give in complete information about such a perfect religion. Therefore there must be one or more persons among the companions of the Holy Prophet who might have obtained complete knowledge of Islam from him and be in a position to explain the teachings of Islam after his demise exactly in the same manner as he himself would do, with the only difference that he received Divine revelation direct, whereas they were to acquire this knowledge through him.

The Shi'ah scholars say that the Sunnis do not acknowledge the existence of any person to whom all questions regarding Islam could be referred, which means that they regarded Islam as imperfect. That is the reason why they had to resort to the theory of analogy, which they have put forward because they say that in the case of the questions which have not been provided for in the Sunnah, they have no alternative but to compare one question with another and to depend on hypothetical similarities for the purpose of deducing rules of law. The Shi'ah naturally do not share such a view. Imam Ali in Nahjul Balagha has denounced such a view and so have all other Imams.

Imam Ali says: “Has Allah revealed an incomplete religion?” (Sermon 18). Does it need private judgement to complete? All the Imams have emphatically said that there is no question of Islam being imperfect and incomplete, and therefore no rule of law can be based on a personal opinion, a private judgement or conjecture.

There is a chapter in al-Kafi which is entitled: “There is nothing Permitted or Forbidden that is not provided in the Qur'an or the Sunnah”. At least the general principles covering every rule of law, have been provided. All that is to be done is to apply these principles to the particular cases. That is what is meant by ijtihad from the Shi'ah point of view. In other words, there is an adequate number of general laws in Islam, and the mujtahid (jurist) has only to provide details in their light. In contrast the theory of analogy implies that the number of the general laws is inadequate and therefore rules of law must be deduced on a hypothetical basis.

The Shi'ah scholars say that both the Shi'ah and the Sunnis admit that during the 23 years of his Prophethood the Holy Prophet could not make known to the people all the rules of Islam even in a general manner. The Sunnis say that the Holy Prophet left the matter as it was and departed this life. But the Shi'ah hold that it was not so. In order to complete his mission he selected certain persons who were inviolable and made known all the truths of Islam to the first one of them, namely Imam Ali. All these persons were fully equipped and competent to answer any question put to them. Imam Ali often said that he would answer any question put to him regarding Islam.

Imam Means An Expert in Religious Matters

Let us now explain this point in modern language. The Shi'ah scholars say that those who deny the existence of Imams with all their characteristics, in reality belittle Islam. An expert invariably accompanies a technical equipment when it is sent somewhere. When a country like America or the Soviet Union dispatches a technical equipment like a phantom or a combat aircraft to a country the people of which are not conversant with that equipment, it always sends some experts also along with it.

Of course in the case of such simple arms as the textiles experts are not required. Now what do you think about Islam which has come from Allah? Do you consider it to be a simple thing for which no experts are required or regard it as a complex equipment which when issued, is always accompanied by technical experts who train people at the receiving end till they become conversant with it.

An Imam means an expert in religious affairs - a real expert who does not make a mistake and does not fall into any error. The Holy Prophet brought Islam to the people. It was necessary that at least for some time Divine experts should be present among the people to acquaint them with it. The Holy Prophet appointed a competent person to undertake this responsibility. The Shi'ah scholars call this appointment a Divine favour, for it was beneficial for humanity. As humanity must proceed towards Allah, His benevolence requires that He should show His favour to it. Just as Prophethood is a Divine favour, similarly Imamat also is a Divine favour. This may be called a rational proof of Imamat, a cardinal principle of the Shi'ah creed.

Infallibility

Here the question of infallibility arises. The Shi'ah believe that an Imam is the custodian and protector of Islamic law. It is through him only that people can know Islam.1 The Shi'ah believe that an Imam is as infallible as the Holy Prophet, whose infallibility is beyond all doubts. If we know for certain that the Holy Prophet has made a particular statement, we can never doubt its veracity. We can never say that the Holy Prophet has made a mistake.

It is unimaginable that one sent by Allah for the guidance of the people needing guidance would ever make a mistake or commit a sin. A Prophet cannot disobey Allah knowingly and intentionally. For example, if Allah wants a Prophet to convey a certain message to the people, the Prophet cannot change it on the plea that it does not suit his personal interest. To do so would be against the very nature of Prophethood. If it is admitted that Imamat is something supplementary to Prophethood for the purpose of expounding religion, then it becomes certain that the existence of an Imam is a must, and that an Imam is infallible for the same reason for which a Prophet is infallible. If somebody says that the infallibility of an Imam is not so essential, because if an Imam makes a mistake, it is possible that some other person brings the mistakes to his notice, we would say that in that case that other person would again require somebody else to keep a watch on him, and so on. At the final end we would certainly need a protector of Islamic law who may be infallible. Further, should an Imam do something wrong, it would be the duty of others to guide him aright, while the people's duty is to follow him, not to guide him. These two things are not consistent with each other.

Divine Designation

The question of infallibility leads us to the question of Divine designation. The Shi'ah scholars say that Imamat is a favour of Allah, and as such it must exist. As this favour entails infallibility, an Imam must necessarily be infallible and for this very reason should be Divinely designated, for it is beyond the power of the people to determine who is infallible. As the people cannot choose a Prophet, they cannot choose an Imam also. As a Prophet is appointed by Allah, similarly an Imam is also appointed by Him. The only difference is that a Prophet is recognized by means of the signs which he shows and the miracles which he works, whereas an Imam is introduced by the Prophet. That is what we meant by designation. An Imam is to be designated by the Prophet and not appointed by the choice of the people. Thus the Shi'ah scholars have advanced from the question of infallibility to that of designation. Now the fourth step is the Imamat of Ali.

Khwaja Nasiruddin says that infallibility and designation are the two characteristics which are applicable to Imam Ali only. There is no difference of opinion about the fact that the Holy Prophet did not designate any other person. It is not that we say that the Holy Prophet designated Imam Ali and others say that he designated someone else. In fact the question is whether he did or did not designate anybody. If he did, the designated person can be none but Imam Ali.

All that we say is that the Holy Prophet must have designated someone to be an Imam after him, and if so, he cannot have designated anyone else, for no counter claim exists. The Sunnis deny the very designation. Even the caliphs did not claim to have been designated by the Holy Prophet. Their followers also make no such claim. Therefore this is not the point at issue.

The same is true of infallibility. Neither the caliphs claimed to be infallible, nor do their followers say that they were infallible. In contrast, the caliphs expressly confessed that they made mistakes. As we have already pointed out, according to the Sunni point of view the question of Imamat is exclusively tantamount to that of the administration of government. As such according to them the question of infallibility does not arise.

The Sunnis believe that although the caliphs were not infallible and made many mistakes, they were irreproachable to the humanly possible extent and were quite fit to lead prayers. The Sunnis do not claim that the caliphs held any position higher than this. They report, as affirmed by Mulla Ali Qushchi, that Abu Bakr used to say that he had a Devil which seized him occasionally. He asked the people to guide him aright if they found him going astray. Umar on many occasions, some say on 70 occasions, admitted that he would have been ruined if there had not been Ali. It is not a disputable point between the Shi'ah and the Sunnis that he said so many a time. On numerous occasions it so happened that he issued a wrong order and Imam Ali pointed out his mistake which he admitted. As such neither the caliphs ever claimed that they were infallible, nor do others claim that they were so.

If the question of Imamat is considered from this high level, that is the level of Divine favour, infallibility and Divine ordination, nobody other than Imam Ali can claim to be on this level. This is the scholastic form of the question, and in this case we begin from the top. We have said that as Prophethood is indispensable and at the same time a Divine favour, so should be Imamat also. Now let us see whether in actual practice also it is so, and whether the Holy Prophet has or has not designated Imam Ali. For this purpose let us look into the texts.

In this connection there is one more point worth mentioning. The question is why we should after all adopt a scholastic method and should begin from the top. Why should we not begin from the bottom, and discuss the position as it actually exists? The scholastic theologians begin from the top and then gradually come down to the position as it exists on the ground. But in this case the question arises what we have to do with such points as to whether Imamat is a Divine favour, and if so, an Imam should naturally be infallible and designated. These should actually amount to prescribing a duty for Allah.

Therefore we should better go after what actually exists. If it is proved that the Holy Prophet has made a designation, that is enough for us. It is not necessary to prove rationally that Imamat is a Divine favour and that an Imam must be infallible and designated. Let us see what arguments the Shi'ah have in this connection. It may be noted in this connection that the Sunnis either do not accept that such texts exist or interpret them differently. In many cases they do not deny the reports totally, but allege that they are isolated reports, not continuous or mutawatir.

Prophetic Texts Relating to Imamat of Imam Ali

Once the Holy Prophet addressing his companions said: “Greet Ali and address him as “Commander of the Faithful”. He said so on the occasion of Ghadir, but somehow or other this sentence is reported separately from the event of Ghadir. The Sunnis do not accept this report as continuous one but the Shi'ah scholars have proved that it is so. The Tajrid does not make any further comment on this tradition which it describes as reliable though disconnected in its chain of transmission. Mulla Ali Qushchi says that this tradition cannot be accepted as continuous, and that it must be an isolated one, for it has been quoted only by some, not all.

The books like the 'Abaqat and al-Ghadir have concentrated their efforts on proving that all the reports relating to Imam Ali's Imamat are continuous and mutawatir. In these two books, especially in al-Ghadir the transmitters of the tradition of Ghadir in every generation till the 14th century have been enumerated. It names more than 60 companions of the Holy Prophet who have reported this tradition. It is interesting to note that all these names have been collected from the Sunni books. Similarly this book mentions the transmitters of this tradition from among the successors of the companions. All these approximately belong to the first century. Then in the same way it names the transmitters of this tradition in every generation and every century.

A special feature of al-Ghadir is that it has cited literary sources also in support of this tradition. While 'Abaqat and other books have only mentioned the names of those persons who transmitted it in each age and century. The poets in every age reflect the main ideas current among the people during that age. Had it been true that the event of Ghadir was invented in the fourth century, it would not have been mentioned in the verses composed by the poets of the first, the second and the third centuries. In every century we find that the question of Ghadir is a part of the literature of that century.

Then how can we deny this tradition from historical point of view? We often go after men of letters to ascertain whether a subject existed over history. If it is found that many men of letters have referred to it in each century, it becomes certain that the idea has existed during their times. The author of the 'Abaqat has devoted a whole book to one single tradition and has critically examined all its transmitters. Seeing what a gorgeous bouquet he has arranged, one is filled with wonder.

There is another tradition which the Holy Prophet is reported to have pronounced addressing Imam Ali. He is reported to have said: “You will be the Caliph after me.”

Besides these two there are several other such traditions too.

Sirah Ibn Hisham is a book written in the second century. Ibn Hisham himself probably belonged to the third century, but this book was originally written by Ibn Ishaq, who lived in the second century. It was later summarized by Ibn Hisham in whose authorship it has come down to us. This book which is considered to be reliable by the Sunnis, recounts two events which have not been mentioned by the Tajrid. Anyhow, the events are relevant and as such we reproduce them here.

The Event of the Day of Warning

One of these events relates to the Day of warning, a name taken from the Qur'anic verse revealed in the early days of Islam: “Warn your close relatives” (Surah ash-Shu'ara 26:214).

Till then the Holy Prophet had not begun to propagate Islam openly. As we know, at that time Imam Ali was still a boy, and lived in the Holy Prophet's house. That is itself an event. The Holy Prophet asked Imam Ali to arrange some food and invite the descendants of Hashim and Abdul Muttalib to it. Imam Ali prepared a meal of meat and arranged some milk as a dessert. After the guests had taken food, the Holy Prophet said: “I am a Prophet of Allah, raised by Him as such. If you accept what I say, you will be happy in this world and the Hereafter.” As soon as the Holy Prophet's uncle, Abu Lahab heard these words, he was enraged, and said: “Have you invited us to tell us all this nonsense?” Abu Lahab raised so much hue and cry that the meeting ended in a fiasco.

The Holy Prophet asked Imam Ali to arrange another meeting. Imam Ali himself says that the number of the persons who attended the second meeting was more or less forty. The Prophet said to the audience: “Whosoever of you accepts my call first, he will be my legatee, vizir and successor.” He made this announcement several times, but nobody responded. At last Imam Ali rose from his place and accepted the offer. The Holy Prophet said: “You will be my legatee, vizir and caliph after me.”

Meeting of the Head of a Tribe With the Holy Prophet

This is another event found in the Sirah Ibn Hisham. It is still more significant. The Holy Prophet was still in Makkah. The Quraysh were not allowing him to propagate Islam. The situation was very tense. Anyhow, during the sacred months2 the Quraysh stopped harassing the Holy Prophet or at least did not harass him to the extent of inflicting any bodily injury, although even during these months they did not allow him to pursue any activity connected with the propagation of Islam. Anyhow the Holy Prophet always took advantage of this temporary truce. He called upon various tribes who assembled at the 'Ukaz fair and at Arafat, (The pre-Islamic Arabs also performed Hajj, although they had their own style of it.) and invited them to Islam. While the Holy Prophet went round the tribes, Abu Lahab chased him, and contradicted and belied him. The head of a tribe was very shrewd.

He talked with the Holy Prophet for a little while and they said to his people: “Had this man been of my tribe, I would have devoured the Arabs with his help.” What he meant was that the Holy Prophet was so multi-talented that with his help all the Arabs could be subdued. Then that man turned to the Holy Prophet and said: “I and my people are ready to have faith in you provided you give us your word to appoint me or one of my people to be your successor.” The Holy Prophet said: “It is not up to me to say who would succeed me. It is with Allah.” This is an event mentioned in the books of the Sunnis.

The Tradition of Ghadir and Its Continuity

Another argument of the Shi'ah is the tradition of Ghadir. Khwaja Nasiruddin says that the Tradition of Ghadir is mutawatir. Mutawatir is a technical term. A tradition may either be mutawatir (continuous) or khabar wahid (isolated). An isolated tradition does not mean that it has been reported only by one person. It is a tradition which has not been reported in a convincing way. It is immaterial whether it has been reported by one person or by ten. For example, somebody says that he has heard such and such report from the radio.

You think that he is right, but you still want to see what others say. If the report is confirmed by someone else, you are a little more convinced. When you see that many others say the same thing, you become sure that there is no chance that all of them may be telling a lie. The number of the reporters of a continuous tradition must be so large that there should be no possibility of their conspiring. In the above example it is possible that ten persons conspire to say that they have heard the particular report from the radio. Even 200 persons may combine. But there are cases in which there is no such possibility. For example, you go to South Africa and find a person saying that the radio has broadcast such and such report.

Then you go to East Africa and again find some persons reporting the same thing. Then you go to West Africa and the same story is repeated. In this case you cannot say that all these persons have conspired to tell a lie. This is called tawatur or continuity. The Shi'ah claim that the tradition (hadith) of Ghadir has been reported by so many people that any conspiracy is out of question. For example in the case of the tradition of Ghadir we cannot say that 40 companions of the Holy Prophet had conspired to tell a lie, especially when we see that many of them were hostile to Imam Ali, or at least were not friendly with him.

Had these reporters been of the type of Salman, Abuzar and Miqdad, who dearly loved and followed Imam Ali, it would have been possible to suspect that because of their excessive attachment to Imam Ali they combined to invent a story. The people like Qushchi allege that this tradition is an isolated report, but the Shi'ah say emphatically that it is continuous. According to this tradition, the Holy Prophet addressing the audience, said: “Do I not have more authority over you than you yourselves have?”3 All said: “Yes, you have.” Then he said: “This Ali is the master of him, whose master I am”. The Holy Prophet wanted to affirm that Ali was as superior to others as he himself was.

There is another tradition, which is also continuous according to Khwaja Nasiruddin, but Mulla Ali Qushchi says that it is isolated, although even he does not deny its substance. Regarding this tradition also scholars like Mir Hamid Husayn, the author of the 'Abaqat and Allama Amini, the author of al-Ghadir have paid much attention. Mir Hamid Husayn has devoted one full book to it. This tradition is known as the tradition of Manzilat. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said to Imam Ali: “In relation to me you occupy the same position as Harun occupied in relation to Musa with the exception that there will be on prophet after me.”

The Holy Prophet said that when he was proceeding for the Tabuk operation, which was only a campaign, not a battle. It took place after the Battle of Mu'tah, which was the last battle fought by the Arabs against the Romans during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. This battle took place to the east of Medina. Istambul (Constantinople) was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. Syria was also under the Romans. Brisk preparations were going on there to launch an attack against Medina. The Holy Prophet deemed it advisable to take troops up to the border of the Romans and he successfully accomplished that mission.4

The Holy Prophet, as the politicians put it, wanted to make a show of his power. The Muslims went up to the Roman border and then came back. In this expedition the Holy Prophet did not take Imam Ali with him. He left Ali as his successor in Medina. The Shi'ah scholars say that this action of the Holy Prophet shows that he knew that fighting was not going to take place. Naturally Imam Ali did not like the idea of being left behind. As he felt dejected, he said to the Holy Prophet: “Would you not take me with you? Do you leave me here with the women and the children?” The Holy Prophet said: “Do you not like to occupy the same position in relation to me as Harun occupied in relation to Musa, except that there would be no prophet after me?” The Holy Prophet meant to say that what ever relationship Harun bore to Musa, Imam Ali bore to him with the exception of Prophethood. Now let us refer to the Qur'an to find out what relationship existed between Harun and Musa. We find that the Qur’an reports that in the beginning of his mission Musa asked Allah:

“My Lord! Relieve my mind and ease my task for me; and elaborate my tongue, so that they may understand my saying. Appoint for me a Vazir from my folk, Harun, my brother. Strengthen my back with him. And let him share my task, so that we glorify you much, and much remember you.” (Surah TaHa, 20:34)

The word Vazir is derived from the root, Vizr which means a burden or a responsibility. A Vazir is the person who relieves the burden of his master and shares his responsibility. Later this word, came into use in the sense of the minister of a king.

Hence, Prophet Musa asked Allah to appoint a person to help him and share his task. For this purpose he suggested the name of Harun.

At another place in the Qur'an we see that Prophet Musa says to Harun: “Harun, take my place among my people.” (Surah al-A'raf, 7:142 )

Thus we find that according to the Qur'an Harun was Musa's Vazir, his chief supporter, his partner in his task and his successor among his people.

That was the relationship between Prophet Musa and Harun and the same should be the relationship between the Holy Prophet and Imam Ali. Had the Holy Prophet not said, “Except that there would be no prophet after me”, We could say that the Holy Prophet had some particular likeness in mind, but when he excluded Prophethood, it became clear that this relationship existed in all other fields (of course social, not physical). It appears as if the Holy Prophet wanted to say to Imam Ali: You occupy the same position in relation to me as Harun occupied in relation to Musa in all Divinely appointed fields.

The answer which the Sunnis give to this argument is that they could accept this tradition, if it had been continuous, but it is an isolated one. But as we said earlier, the scholars like Mir Hamid Husayn have proved in their books that this tradition is continuous.

Question and Answer

Question: The impression which I have gathered from the foregoing discussion is that there exists to a certain extent a frontier between Imamat and the administration of government. You have (Ayatullah Mutahhari) said that Imamat involves certain duties and functions, and the administration of government is only one of them. I do not know what the other duties are which do not imply administration in any way.

What so far we know of Islam shows that there is no frontier between this world and the Hereafter or between this worldly and the next worldly activities. The deeds relating to the Hereafter have a bearing on this worldly life and the deeds relating to this world are meant to improve and perfect social life and to help establishing a just system of government. We see that the Qur’an puts forward as a model the life of those whose devotional acts were directed to improving this worldly life and establishing just administration. It attaches greatest importance to Jihad.

We find that all the efforts and the life style of the Imams were directed to regaining their right of rulership and administering the government. In this respect there was no difference between those who made open struggle and those who organized their campaign secretly in their prison or their hiding places. I am not aware of any duties other than the administration of government which can justify the institution of Imamat, for it is the administration of government alone which can justify all the activities relating to Imamat.

Answer: The question of frontier has been raised by you only. I never used this word and I do not think that it is proper to use it. As I have said the Shi'ah believe that the level of Imamat is higher than that of the government, which is only one of its functions., Another function which is of a higher level is the duty of an Imam to expound and explain Islam. Furthermore, an Imam is the infallible authority on religious laws.

We say that one of the functions of the Holy Prophet was the administration of government. But the right to administer government was not given to him by the people. It was a right given to him by Allah, by virtue of his being superior to all other men. In other words the Holy Prophet ruled because he was the expounder of the Divine laws and had a spiritual contact with the hidden world. I never wanted to say that there was a frontier between this world and the Hereafter, nor did I mean to set apart the functions of an Imam and a ruler. I did not say that an Imam looks after those affairs of the people which relate to the Hereafter and a ruler looks after those affairs of the people which relate to this world. If I had said so, your criticism would have been justified. The Shi'ah have a theory. If it is proved, the question of rulership, is automatically settled.

We believe that Imamat is next to Prophethood. As in the presence of a Prophet, the question of the rulership of anybody else does not arise, similarly in the presence of an Imam also this question does not arise. The question of the form of government in the modern sense arises only when we suppose that no Imam exists or when the Imam is in occultation as the position is during our times. Otherwise in the presence of an Imam of that level in which the Shi'ah believe, the position is quite clear.

Question: Which of the two reports according to Sunnis is isolated, the report relating to the Ghadir al-Khum or the report which you have quoted and according to which the Holy Prophet has said: “Greet Ali; he is your Amir”?

Answer: Perhaps even the Sunnis cannot deny the continuity of that part of the tradition of Ghadir which says: “Ali is the master of him whose master I am”, although Mulla Ali Qushchi says that even this part is an isolated report.

Anyhow it has been reported by so many traditionalists that it is not possible to deny it.5 A very large number of persons have even reported the first part of this tradition, which says: “Do I not have more authority over you than you yourselves have.” The Shi'ah believe this part of the tradition also to be continuous. But as far as the other tradition: “Greet Ali and address him as the Commander of the Faithful” , is concerned, the Sunnis do not at all admit that it is a continuous report. Perhaps we also cannot prove that it is continuous. Anyhow that makes no difference. From our point of view the continuity of the following tradition, which is of basic importance, is obvious: The Holy Prophet said: 'Do I not have more authority over you than you yourselves have? The people said: “Yes, you have.” Then the Holy Prophet said: “This Ali is the master of him, whose master I am. My God! be friendly to him who is friendly to Ali and be hostile to him who is hostile to Ali.”

Furthermore, the Sunni scholars are not unanimous as to whether this tradition is continuous or isolated. Some say it is isolated and others admit that it is continuous, but say that it does not mean what the Shi'ah claim. The Holy Prophet has only said: “Whoever is my friend, let him be Ali's friend also.” We say that it does not make sense that the Holy Prophet assembled people at Ghadir al-Khum only to ask them to make friends with Imam Ali, especially in view of the fact that he also added: “Do I not have more authority over you than you yourselves have.” It also may be noted that the word Mawla is not used in the sense of friend.

Question: Was the verse: “This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour to you, and have chosen Islam for you as religion” revealed after the event of Ghadir al-Khum?

Answer: No, it was revealed at Ghadir al-Khum.

Notes

1. The Shi'ah attach great importance to the religious aspect of Imamat. As we said earlier in our times Imamat who mostly considered to be tantamount to the administration of government, but that was a wrong notion. Imamat is mostly a religious question and the administration of government is only a function which it involves. In a sense Imamat and administration of government are two terms which in certain respects overlap each other. But basically Imamat is one question and administration of government, although a part of the functions which an Imam should discharge, a different question.

It is funny that during the period of occultation we talk about the administration of government, but keep quiet about the real significance of Imamat, which must not be considered to be equivalent to the administration of government. According to the terminology of the Shi'ah scholars an Imam is in charge of religious as well as secular affairs. Being in charge of religious affairs, he automatically holds the charge of worldly affairs also, just like the Holy Prophet, who being the religious head, was the head of the government too. If we suppose hypothetically that no Imam existed at any time or if we know that the Imam is in occultation, in both these cases no religious head would be present. Therefore in these cases the question would of course arise how should be the head of the government.

2. The months of Zil Qa'dah, Zil Hijjah, Muharram and Rajab are the sacred months, during which fighting was kept suspended and vengeance was not sought. Routes were safe during these months and coming and going of persons and goods normal. An annual fair was also held at a Place near Makkah named 'Ukaz.

3. The Holy Prophet referred to the following verse, “The Prophet has more authority over the believers than they themselves have.” (Surah al Ahzab 33:6) Being a Prophet of Allah, the Holy Prophet had authority over the life, property and everything of the people. He had more authority over the people than the people themselves had. Of course he never exercised this authority for his own selfish ends. Allah appointed him the representative of the whole Muslim society and as such he had authority over the life and property of the Muslims on behalf of Muslim society as a whole.

4. Last year we had a chance to go to Khayber. Till then we had no idea how far Khayber and Tabuk were from Medina by the direct route via Shusa. The whole distance was found to be exactly 600 kilometers. By the ancient routes the distance might have been greater. The distance between Medina and Khayber is 360 kilometers. We were really astonished by the courage and resolution of the Muslims who traversed this long distance with the poor means available to them at that time.

5. The reason why it has been reported by a very large number of transmitters is that at that time the sayings of the Holy Prophet were only remembered and not written. Naturally the traditions containing Imam Ali's name could be remembered by more people than any other traditions.

Chapter 12: Does Christ Suffer For Our Sins?

"And no bearer of burden can bear the burden of another..." (The Holy Qur'an 17:15) One thing that is becoming increasingly dear with the rapid progress of science is the need to observe divine precepts. Although man has greatly benefited from the thoughts of scientists and wise men in the past, he acknowledges that he cannot fully unveil the mysteries of creation with the help of his finite mind and offer and express comprehensive, useful and unchangeable considerations regarding the problems of life.

He realizes that many laws and theories that are postulated around the globe would, after a time, display their flaws, so that the legislators and theorists are forced to abandon them.

Fortunately, some scientists have confessed that divine laws originating from the Creator of the universe, i.e. the Omniscient God, form the only program that can lead humanity towards absolute prosperity and perfection. Therefore, prophets have tried to introduce people to this progressive program and have always seriously fought with the belief that another person will be punished or sacrificed instead of the guilty party, and have openly declared that everyone is responsible for his own deeds.

In the Book of Ezekiel one can still read: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezek. 18:20).

Belief in suffering punishment and paying ransom instead of somebody else would have made a great number of people refuse abiding by divine precepts, for, in their opinion, another person would receive punishment in their stead. Thus apart from being prevented to develop themselves towards perfection, they would have also dealt an irreparable blow to the interest of the society.

Jesus Christ, as soon as he received his divine mission, followed the same rule and drove people towards religious obligations and stressed: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heavens and earth pass, one jot or one brittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

"Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these last commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:17-19)

But in the tide of the events, and harmful publicity launched by the Roman emperors in the early days of Christianity, the Christians, like Buddhists and Hindus, following the example of St. Paul, said: "The only Son of God, or the Lord Himself descended upon earth to expunge people from sin by dying on The Cross." They stated: "Jesus Christ was put on the Cross in order to shoulder the burden of our sins. He thus took the curse, so as to deliver us from the curse of the canon and the holy laws that we deserve."

In his epistle to Galatians, Paul writes: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of law, being made a curse for us; for it is written cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" (Galatians 3:13).

Furthermore, in the same chapter he adds: "Before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith, which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:23 - 26).

In brief, they had thus fulfilled their last wish and said: "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Ephesians 2:15)

Obviously, they had nothing else in their minds than achieving their evil desires and irresponsibility!

Sometimes, in order to avoid any scandal, Christians base their arguments on parts of unreliable old books. For instance, they say: "When they put Christ on The Cross, he drank vinegar, just as David had foretold in Psalms, 69. So it is clear that the story of the putting Christ on The Cross in order to redeem us from our sins is based on reality."

Studying David's Psalms, Chapter 69, we notice that the verses therein do not deal with Jesus Christ at all, but with David himself. The verses are: "God save me... Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonor. Mine adversaries are all before thee. Reproach hath broken my heart and I am full of heaviness; and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst, they gave me vinegar to drink."

You will notice that the above passage has nothing to do with Christ's Crucifixion to save the Christians from the restraints imposed by the canon. But since there is a mention of vinegar, and since in their belief, Christ, too, had drunken vinegar in the last hours of his life, Christians have taken them as forecasting Crucifixion and atonement. Truly, are such inferences not ridiculous?

From what has been said so far, it becomes evident that observance of divine commandments is among the most important and necessary issues; belief in shouldering someone else's sins is the greatest superstition and it is never correct to accept it just because it has been mentioned m the New Testament. Rather, one must say that the New Testament is not compatible with the Old Testament and the conduct of the prophets and Jesus Christ. This incompatibility is yet another proof of its erroneousness.

As a German author, named Ernest Die Bunsen writes:

"The Crucifixion and atonement for sins are but mere fabrications made by St. Paul and his disciples who had never seen Jesus Christ with their own eyes. Therefore one cannot maintain them as the fundaments of true Christianity." Furthermore, Barnabas flatly denies The Crucifixion of Jesus in his Gospel and states: "Judas of Iscariot, mistakenly taken for Christ, was crucified." * * * Now if you ask: "How could one discover the comprehensive divine laws that could guide human beings to happiness and prosperity?" our answer is: "by studying The Holy Qur'an, along with the words of the Holy Prophet of Islam and the impeccable leaders who succeeded him. These words and maxims are available in authoritative Shi'ite books.

The Qur'an is the only book that has addressed the basic issues and problems of life, so that it never grows out-dated and obsolete and fulfills the needs of its followers thereof. In this respect, The Qur'an is unlike the present Old and New Testaments which, apart from being distorted and containing many mistakes and superstitious passages, are short of providing precepts and would never be able to fulfill all the needs of human beings and be considered the sources of guidance and rule for life.

Briefly, what has been mentioned so far makes it clear that the subject of Christ's atonement and suffering for our sins would prevent man from his individual and social development. Inasmuch as man moves forward, he would become aware of the superstitious nature of this belief.

Chapter 13: Christmas!

Every year when the Christian New Year begins, Christians hold a celebration which is called Christmas. On Christmas, they go to nightclubs and spend a night of debauchery.

The motive behind this celebration is plausibly to mark the anniversary of the birth of Christ and to glorify that great divine man, but in reality the Christians hold the celebration in order to quench their sensual thirsts. Thus they take to actions which Christ himself detests very much.

On the Christmas evening, the Christians spare no pleasure and avoid no obscene actions including dancing, singing, drinking, sex etc. Obviously these actions have nothing to do with the glorification of the memory of Christ, the divine man. Now we can see what is Christmas Day and how it is celebrated.

After the death of Christ, his divine system became subject to alterations by profit-making Church officials who hid the real face of Jesus Christ behind the veil of obscurantism myths and superstition such as the concept of "The Father and The Son" and Christ's "Divinity". Certain traditions were established by the Holy Fathers, which resulted in nothing but shame for the Christians. Christmas, too, is one of these artificial traditions carried out in such a way.

All prophets of God, including Jesus Christ himself have banned drunkenness, debaucheries and orgies. Even in the altered Bibles there are phrases which ban such obscene actions.

The book of Isaiah, 5:11-12, says: "Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them! And the harp, and the viol, the tablet, and pipe, and wine are in their feasts."

But, unfortunately, with such an explicit ban, the Christians bring wine and music into their religious services, consecrating Christ in such a way. Although we have faced some facts in above lines and realized a truth, we do not intend to prevent the Christians from evil acts and disillusion them.

The intellectual Christians themselves have long abandoned the superstitious aspect of their religion and discarded it. Their leaders, however, have not stopped their desperate efforts...

Now it should be asked what name we are going to give to these acts. Is such a vain feast held in order to gain a national honor? Is it a step made towards social progress? The answers to these questions will undoubtedly be negative.

These extravaganzas at the end of the Christian year are a submission to frivolities and wantonness and a confession to a kind of defeat by unjust sensual desires. These are reactionary and incorrect imitations, the repetition of which is painful and shameful in the eyes of the far-sighted Muslims. In other words, these actions are the most vulgar "Western-orientedness" with grave consequences, exposing all our religious authorities and tradition to utter destruction and permanent extermination.

It is worthwhile explaining about the nature of Western-mindedness or Western-intoxication. It is something like being afflicted with a malady, which rots the Organism from within. You can imagine a butterfly whose shell and wings have remained intact but whose interior body is worn away.

Yes, Western-mindedness or Western-orientation is a dangerous disease the grave consequence of which is deadlier than cholera. One must attempt to avoid it because it has unfortunately spread among many people. Under the banner of Westernization, we are succumbed to estrangement from our traditional clothes, houses,

foods, and literature, press and, more dangerously of all, from our culture. We bring up Western-minded people, think Western-mindedly and look for a solution for our problems in a Westernized manner.

So every far-sighted Muslim, who has preserved his Islamic personality and mind, knows well that his participation in such feasts only results in disaster for the Muslim community.

Do our Islamic conscience and sentiment and our brotherly love allow us to cooperate with a Christianity which for centuries has been the great enemy of the Muslims, killed millions of our brothers and still continues to do so? Should we still take part in their luxurious feasts?

Finally we ask our Muslim brothers and sisters to avoid holding Christmas celebrations and any actions which are dominated by Western-mindedness and superstition and preserve their Islamic personality and purify themselves from the shameful Western- intoxication.

Imam Ali, peace is upon him, said: "He, who prevails over his sensual desires, will have preserved his real personality."

Chapter 14: Wine-making, The First Miracle of Christ

Scientific discoveries explicitly show the countless harm of alcoholic drinks. Before these discoveries, however, the divine religions, inspired with the eternal source of knowledge, that is, God the Omnipotent and the Omniscient, warned their followers against alcoholic drinks and enumerated their evils and harms.

Unfortunately, during long period of time, the Christian Holy Fathers, for various unspecified reasons (!), not only have actually prescribed the use of alcoholic drinks, but have also, by altering some passages of the Bible, fabricated verses concerning the drinking of the old prophets, which makes ashamed every wise and faithful person.

Regretfully, winemaking and wine drinking are already not only allowed and practiced among the Christians, but also have entered their rituals and religious services.

As described in Chapter 11, The Eucharist (Holy Communion), being a religious and sacred service to the church authorities, is celebrated with the taking of bread and wine and the world Christians drink in their greatest religious service millions of liters of wine for the love of Jesus, the innocent prophet of God.

The Wine and the Miracle

Worst of all, the Christians' Holy Bible considers winemaking the first miracle of Christ. The Gospel according to John, chapter 2, verses 1-11, says: "And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.

His mother saith unto the servants, whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were sent there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them; fill the water pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear into the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants, which drew the water, knew ;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed in him."

We read in the Old Testament, Genesis, and the following lines about Noah: "And Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine and was drunk; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."

Again the Old Testament says about Lot whom his two daughters made drink wine. When he was drunk, he lay down with his daughters and conceived them who bore him two sons.

Contradictory Sentences

This is the way the Bible of the Christians introduce the divine prophets who, in reality, were the guiding lights of humanity and thus had to be pure of any corruption and evil.

Of course we do not expect more than this from these fabricated books, but what is surprising is that in these very books we come across phrases which forbid the drinking of wine. In Leviticus, Chapter 10, verses 8 and 9, we read:

"And the Lord spoke into Aaron, saying: Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, or the sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest thee die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations." The book of Isaiah, chapter 5, verse 11, says:

"Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue till night, till wine inflames them!" In the same book, chapter 28, verses 7 and 8, we also read: "But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. Tables become full of vomit and filthiness; so that no place will be left clean."

With these explicit sentences being written in the Old Testament, forbidding alcoholic drinks, it is not clear why the Gospels represent the Prophets of God as wine-makers and wine drinkers.

As for Islam

Now the world prostrates itself before the Holy Qur'an, for this Divine Book has forbidden the alcoholic drinks and devoted a special campaign against them: "O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and diving arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed. Satan seeketh only to cast among you enmity and hatred by means of strong drink and games of chance, and to turn you from remembrance of Allah and from His worship. Will ye then have done?43"

Now it is worthwhile giving a summary of the medical theories of the twentieth century on the dangers of alcoholic drinks and then examining world religions to see which of them guarantees the happiness of mankind. Is it a religion which prohibits alcoholic drinks or a religion the precepts of which have undergone many alterations and in which winemaking is considered one of its miracles and even a religious ritual;

According to the reports made by medical and health centers and the experiences of the researchers especially the physiological and biological experts, when the alcohol enters the body, only a small portion of it dissolves and disappears and the bulk of it enters the blood circulation which sends it to all organs.

Since alcohol is a poisonous substance and, unlike nutritious elements, is extraneous to the body, it harms every body organ and attacks them in various harmful ways. Because of its evil effects especially because it coagulates albuminoid substances, it reduces perceptibly the sensitivity and activities of the cells and tissues of the body organs, corrupting as a whole the kidneys, the stomach, the liver the mouth, the gullet and the intestines.

The digestive canal and its mucous membrane are most damaged. Alcohol deprives the user's offspring from good health. It has also bad effects on respiratory organs and blood circulation, especially on the heart and the veins.

It indiscriminately results in arterio-sclerosis (which is the main cause of heart attacks and brain damages) and hardens and spoils the liver tissues. The stomach pain and intestinal pain occur in alcoholics (even those who drink beer much more than in non-alcoholic people. The nerve center, being most sensitive to alcohol, is worst damaged.

In brief, alcohol and all kinds of liquor are effective narcotic drugs, which cause nervous insensibility, destroy health, and kill the sense of honor and galantry. As a result, a person addicted to alcohol gives in to every state of humiliation and is ready to do every evil act and ends in wretchedness and misery.

It is quite right to say that the alcoholic drink is one of the major causes which have annihilated the independence, freedom, natural wealth and resources of the nations, because it diminishes the mental power and the sense of understanding of the addicted people who are led to sell their precious resources and their national and spiritual wealth and honor to a cup of wine.

There is abundant evidence to this fact, which cannot be mentioned in this book because of limited space. It was this deadly poison, which brought to an end the glory of the Spanish Muslim community.

Chapter 15: Contradictory Statements in the Gospels

Since man is liable to forgetfulness and error, his statements are not free of contradictions and thus now and then he says and writes something which contradicts his previous statements.

There are many subjects which he discusses with plausible precision, but after a time he makes suggestions opposing his previous ones.

This failure is limited to mankind as a creature who cannot avoid forgetfulness and it is utterly impossible to attribute such a failure to the creator of the universe, the Almighty God, who is omniscient and omnipotent.

A Book sent by God to guide humanity is, therefore, bound to be entirely free from contradictions and errors. A perfect example of such books is the Holy Qur'an, throughout which a single contradiction and reasoning is not found.

Therefore, we can consider this fact a sign of the heavenliness of this great Book, for, logically speaking, it is impossible for an ordinary man who has not been educated to read and write, but has been busy leading a sweeping movement and facing countless difficulties, to compose such a book without being in association with God.

Unfortunately, Christian religious Scripture, unlike the Qur'an, includes numerous contradictions and we wonder how the Holy Fathers ascribe the so- called Holy Bible to God.

What Are Contradictory Statements?

As we all know, contradictory statements are two propositions on a singe point which disagree with each other and those who speak in the language in which these statements are made cannot justify both of them. If, for example, we say: "Man has traveled to the moon" and then we say:

"Man has not traveled to the moon"; these are two contradictory statements. Wherever you come across such opposing sentences, you should realize that you are faced with contradictions. Now, let us make a brief study of the Four Gospels to see whether or not they contain contradictory statements.

1-The Abuses Made by the Thieve

The Gospel according to Matthew describes the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ as follows: "Then were two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself.

If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.... The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth." (Matt. 27:38- 44).

As you see, according to the Gospel of Matthew, the two thieves, being crucified, abused Jesus Christ. The Gospel according to Luke, on the other hand, writes: "And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Doth not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss." (Luke, 23:39-41).

It is true that Matthew and Luke both want to mention the crucifixion of two thieves with Jesus, but the formers statement, "Both of the thieves abused" is contrary to the latter's statement: "One of the wrong doers abused Jesus, the other rebuked him". So these two statements are considered contradictory.

2-The Staff

Recounting Christ's advice to his disciples, Mark writes: "And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats."

(Mark, 6:7-9). Take note that Mark quotes the advice concerning taking a staff and wearing shoes and does not disapprove of taking them. But the Gospel of Matthew frankly forbids this, saying: "And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, (saying to them :). Provide neither gold, nor silver,

nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat." (Matt, 10:1-10). It is obvious that the two above statements do not correspond each other.

3-Peter being investigated

Having narrated the story of Peter's escape, the Gospel of Matthew says: When Peter went among the enemies of Christ, he was suspected by them, who asked him three times whether or not he had been with Christ. He persistently denied this.

The Gospel of Matthew states that the first and the second times he was questioned by two maids. But the Gospel of Mark, contrary to Matthew's statement, says that only one maid (not two maids) asked him such a question for the first two times.

Mark writes that "as Peter was beneath in the palace, there came one of the maids of the high priest. And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him and said, and thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. But he denied saying I know not, neither understands I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch, and the cock crew. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, this is one of them, and he denied it again…"

Moreover, the contradictions between these two Gospels and the Gospel of Luke is even more remarkable, because if these two Gospels are in disagreement with each other on the subject of the investigation made by one or two maids, they correspond in the fact that the investigators have been women not men. But the Gospel of Luke suggests that the second time a man, not a man, has questioned Peter.

(Luke, 22:55-59). It should be born in mind that Peter, as prophesied by Jesus, did not deny Jesus more than three times. So this contradiction cannot be justified by saying that different people posed this question to Peter,

who denied Jesus once in each answer to each person and that at the second time a number of people questioned him and he made a single denial in the presence of all of them, because judging from the statement, after the second question has been made,

that "the maid began to say to them that stood by", we understand no one besides the maid knew the matter, but other people became aware of the fact only after the question was made for the second time. It is true that the three Gospels intend to point out that Peter denied Christ before the cock crew, but they contradict each other in the details.

4-The Time of Mary's Arrival

The Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John specify the rime when Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Jesus, came to his grave as follows: "They arrived at dawn, when it was still dark." But unlike these Gospels, the Gospel of Mark says: "Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother and Jacob came to the burial place of Jesus Christ at sunrise". It goes without saying that the dawn when it is still dark is perceptibly different from the sunrise when it is already bright and therefore they cannot be the same.

5-How long did Christ remain in the grave.

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Christ said that like Jonas, who remained three days and three nights in the Whale's belly, he, too, would remain three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (St Matthew; 12, 40).

Whereas, Mark states that Jesus stayed in the grave for two nights and one day, adding that he was buried on Friday evening, the day before the sabbath, and when Mary Magdalene came to his sepulchre at the rising of the sun on Sunday, she saw that Christ had already risen from the grave. (Mark; 15:42 and 16:1-5).

At this stance, besides the contradiction between the narratives of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, we are confronted with the attribution of a lie to Jesus Christ, who said that he would stay three days and three nights in the grave!

At any rate, these contradictions and mistakes in the Gospels are enough to convince us that the Christian's present religious literature cannot have drawn its inspirations from divine revelations; otherwise, these differences and contradictions would never have occurred.

Accordingly, the authors of these writings cannot be considered divinely inspired, since they would have been expected to be in agreement in their statements and such misrepresentations would have never occurred, had they been in contact with the Omniscient God. For this valid reason, we affirm that the Christians' existing Bible is (edited) interpolated without any shadow of doubt. It is a fake and far from proving a heavenly book.

Chapter 16: What is The Religion of the Sword?

The calumny

A malicious charge made against Islam by Christian preachers is that; "Islam has spread by the sword". They also claim that "it was the Muslims' sword which converted African and Asian peoples one by one into Islam."

It is impossible for us in this short treatise to demonstrate the actual reality as clear as possible by referring to historical events and by making a complete study of the sacred verses of the Holy Qur'an and the Bible. But we may briefly point out that the Christian preachers, without having studied the Quranic verses, he made this accusation and have not noticed that in what context Islam orders the Jihad (holy war) and what it means by making it.

In principle, war in Islam is not waged for the purpose of expansionism, conquests and blood shed. It is, however, designed to save oppressed and helpless people who have been denied their legitimate rights and are being burned in the fire of oppression, corruption, paganism, dictatorship and civil deprivations.

God says in the Qur'an: "And how should you not fight for the cause of Allah, and for the helpless old men, women and the children who say: 'Deliver us, Lord, from this city of wrongdoers; send forth to us a guardian from Your presence; send to Us one that will help us'?" (Sura "Women" verses 75).

War in Islam is also waged in order to remove wickedness and establish social justice and general peace. How gloriously are the words of God saying: "And fight against them [the unbelievers] as long as no wickedness will- remain and the religion will be for God . ." (Sura "Spoils of War", verse 39). It is evident that the Holy Qur'an prescribes a war effort for the sake of God and for the salvation of deprived masses and abolition of malignity's.

Islam is not a forced religion. The Jews and Christians can adhere to their own religions, but they have to observe conditions necessary for mutual peace and coexistence.

In Islamic warfare, poisoning, killing of women, children and old men are forbidden and even cutting down of trees and destroying of buildings are disapproved under Islamic law.

The question is whether or not it is a good deed to fight in order to end wickedness, liberate deprived masses and establish social justice. Is it, then, correct to say that in Islam the sword has been used to impose a certain belief on other people?

The answer to these questions are negative and the Christian preachers who make accusations against Islam should know that the spread of Islam is due to its simplicity, practicability sand comprehensiveness and because of these characteristics it continues to advance without possessing propaganda means and possibilities.

God sent His Messenger, the Prophet of Islam, as an act of benevolence, to the whole people of the world. As He vividly says in the Holy Qur'an: "We sent you only to be a favor to the worlds." Invitation to Islam was not made from the beginning by force and the sword, as claim the holy fathers. On the contrary, it was made by the aid of reasoning, argument, philosophy and preaching.

As God says: "Invite to the path of thy Lord God through philosophy and benevolent preaching." (Sura "The Bee" verse 125). If the Christian preachers had studied the Torah and the whole Bible, they would not have made such irrelevant assertions. In Dueteronomy we read: "Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.

And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain" (Deuteronomy, 2:32-34).

Is the murder of women and children a justifiable action? Has this war been waged in favor of humanity and justice? Is such a war policy comparable with the war policy of Islam? Is such cruelty not based on the religion of the sword? There is no doubt that the murder of women and children is inconsistent with the principles of co-existence and humanitarianism.

Such a brief comparison makes it clear that by Jihad for God, Islam does not aim to make bloodbath, revenge and imposition of faith, but, unlike Crusaders who waged wars solely to make conquests and colonize other lands, the Muslims have sought peace, stability and welfare for the deprived people all over the world.

People embraced Islam and continue to do so because Islam fulfills their innermost needs and inherent inclinations. However, with all these freedoms offered to non-Muslim people in different countries and despite the fact that there are currently no propagating organization in Islam, the religion of Islam advances continuously in Asia and Africa, especially at a time when there have been increasing perceptible signs of decline in religious faith in recent years.

Today, it is impossible to claim that the conquerors' swords are paving the way for the spread of Islam. As a matter of fact, in the regions, which were once ruled by Islam and are now governed by non-Islamic rulers, powerful non- Islamic propagating institutions have been operating for long years among Muslim inhabitants. Nevertheless, these institutions shave not been able to detach Islam from the social and individual life of those people.

What miraculous force does underlie this religion? What inherent force of persuasion has been mingled with this religion so that thoughtful and freethinking people embrace it with great enthusiasm?

Those who say: "Islam has advanced by the sword" have no intention except malice and vindictiveness and historical facts and current events disprove such a wicked assertion.