Shiite Islam :Orthodoxy Or Heterodoxy?

Shiite Islam :Orthodoxy Or Heterodoxy?23%

Shiite Islam :Orthodoxy Or Heterodoxy? Author:
Translator: John Andrew Morrow
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
Category: Debates and Replies

  • Start
  • Previous
  • 27 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 20982 / Download: 12676
Size Size Size
Shiite Islam :Orthodoxy Or Heterodoxy?

Shiite Islam :Orthodoxy Or Heterodoxy?

Author:
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
English

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought

Chapter 2: Towards a Definition of Shī‘ism

As we have seen before, “election,” “option,” and “inclination” are some of the comprehensive meanings the Greek language gave to the term hairesis. These meanings were passed into Latin, with the necessary etymological adjustments, as hoeresis which conveys the ideas of “opinion,” “dogma,” “party” and “sect.” Dictionaries define the meaning of “sect” as a “body of people sharing religious opinions who have broken away from a larger body.”

It is often used as a term of disapproval and is thus inconsistent with its original meaning of “doctrine of a particular teacher who developed it and explained it and which is accepted and defended by a group of followers.” By straying from their original meanings and etymological roots, the words “heresy” and “sect” have been applied for centuries to those who professed “false” beliefs worthy of excommunication. In this limited sense, the word “heresy” has more in common with the Hebrew term herem, meaning excommunication and anathema, and the Arabic word harām, from the root harrama, which means to deprive, to anathematize, to remove and to excommunicate.

The words “heresy” and “sect” were used in ancient times to describe various schools of philosophy. Over the course of centuries, however, the terms acquired pejorative connotations which eventually came to dominate and replaced their original meanings. The terms “heresy” and “sect” came to be commonly applied to all religious groups which broke away from an original doctrine and who were in disagreement with the dogmas and rituals which were officially orthodox.

For the Roman Catholic Church, all protestant sects born from the Reformation were, in a strict sense, “heretical” and “heterodox” from the moment they broke away from the Vatican. From around 1971, the term “heretic,” with all of its connotations, was suppressed from the Catholic ecclesiastic lexicon.1

Consequently, there are no longer any “heresies,” these having been replaced with “mere doctrinal errors” which do not merit excommunication. The modern mentality was evidently unsatisfied with its classical lexical heritage and along with the older terminology it developed a wide body of new definitions. The Western world uses these terms in so many contradictory ways that they do not have a constant meaning.

They apply them to religious phenomenon which they view with suspicion but which they rarely try to understand. This state of confusion is created by the modern habit of calling everything into question.2 It is also a reflection of the total failure of the “opinion-makers” who insist on taking the concept of “sect”-as vague as it may be as their sole starting point.

As Rudolf Otto has explained, the use and misuse of terms likes “sect” and “fundamentalism” quickly reaches an irrational point. What is most surprising, however, is that this feeble conceptual chain has been forged and molded to subject the same unknown enemy who frequently changes forms like a many-sided proteose. The multitude of contradictory definitions proposed by the “opinion-makers”-in a dry attempt to describe diversity-actually impede proper classification.

The situation further complicates itself when some Orientalists, rather than researching thought, move on to studying ideological struggles. As a result, they divide themselves between scientific and political work. If we focus so much on this issue, it is because our critical stance requires us to do so. We are well within our rights to criticize the attitude of those who, deliberately or involuntarily, by a mere concession to modern language, spread falsehood and error.3

It is as if the terms “sect” and “fundamentalism” were merely simple theological references or epithets without any moral implications. We must ask ourselves: Is it really possible that the richness of classical definitions and terminology has been reduced to the point of describing general ideological types?

It should be noted that the term “sect” is unduly applied to Shī'ite Islām without doctrinal justification and without paying attention to whether such a definition is actually compatible with its perfectly orthodox and traditional spirit. If this is not a case of terminological standardization, then what is the point of insisting on its application? Should the generic sense of “sect” be applied by default to every religious minority on the basis of the same rigid and arbitrary interpretation?

We refer, of course, to those scholars who fancifully turn every minority tradition into a “sect” without considering the true meaning of its definition. In fact, these scholars often label certain religious groups as “sects” when their followers are numerically equal to the main groups within their tradition. Certain religious minorities which are considered as “sects” in the West are perfectly orthodox religious expressions.

Such is the case with Shī'ite Islām in the Middle East, Buddhism or Taoism in the Far East, to mention some of the most common examples. But, as we have seen, the tendency to give Shī'ite Islām the stigma of “sect” is premeditated. It is not by chance that some “opinion-makers” and Orientalists have agreed on applying this term. The definition of “sect,” as they know better than anyone else, can conveniently be substituted-in a theological and philosophical sense-by the more insidiously political and provocative one which defines a sect as a “group of partisans with extreme and violent ideas.”

Faced with simplistic and reductionist interpretations which are obsessed with grouping all religious minorities under one general label, the indiscriminate application of the term “sect” continues to be accepted. This is despite the fact that the commonly accepted meaning of the term is nothing more than a convention or a deep-rooted prejudice accepted by all without reserve.

Even among educated people, the very idea of “sect” always presupposes a deep-rooted reactionary and intolerant attitude, which is how the factio [sect] can be recognized and differentiated from the other majority “factions.” If anything novel is added to this connotation, it reduces itself to concrete applications that are called upon by the same semantic concessions of language that adapt to changing circumstances. We refer specifically to the neologism “fundamentalism” which implies an entire axiological classification which, when dealing with Shī'ite Islām, even descends to the basest contempt.4

The term “fundamentalist” can be correctly applied to American Protestantism since its attitude and behavior is consistent with such a definition. However, the new tendency is to give the term a political sense linking it even more strongly with Shī'ite Islām. The use of the term “fundamentalist” in a political sense is really a recent development. It traces back to the famous controversy between American Protestants and the supporters of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

The dispute centered on the question as to whether state education should be separated from religion as a means to promote the atheist doctrine of evolution which is incompatible with the idea of God and divine creation.5 At that time, the use of the term “fundamentalist” was far from commonplace.

The term “fundamentalist” has acquired a political connotation which every day is more effectively integrated into the vernacular, becoming normal in English and standard in other Western languages. It is applied to a series of Islāmic groups which resist and reject any type of Western interference. It should be noted that the French prefer the term intégriste and the Spaniards the word rigorista when they try to define the same phenomenon.

Due to limitations of time and space, we cannot examine in depth the reasons why the Western world insists on applying “sectarian” and “fundamentalist” labels to Shī'ite Islām. For the sake of brevity, we will limit ourselves to saying that the application of such terms to Shī'ism is a form of reductionism which attempts to tarnish an entirely orthodox expression of Islām. Not only do such labels impoverish understanding and distort definitions, what is worse today is that they are used without any conceptual contact with the true reality of its thoughts and doctrine.

Such definitions are often taken “lightly” because they do not destroy the doctrines of Shī'ite Islām. Nonetheless, we must avoid indiscriminately applying such labels to Shī'ism and other schools of thought since they imply inclusion or exclusion of Islāmic doctrines on the basis of the one and only orthodoxy.

The same definition of “sect,” with some slightly different shades, prevails among the Orientalists who wrote about Sūfism and Islāmic gnosis in the nineteenth century. Likewise, certain Orientalists have applied the label of “sect” to Shī'ite Islām. They were fond of giving a Christian character to certain Shī'ite beliefs and practices rather than recognizing them as entirely Islāmic in origin. These Arabists preferred the term “sect” to that of “heresy.”

They categorized Muslims on the basis of Christian standards. For them, the “heretics” were those Muslims who broke away from the doctrinal unity of the Islāmic “Church” while the “sectarians” were those who broke away from its socio-political hierarchy. In this respect, it is important to remember that, Saint Augustine, particularly in his admonitions against the Pelagian, Manichaean, and Donatist heresies, rejected reductionism.6 He categorically warned how difficult, if not impossible, it was to give a definition of “heresy” that corresponds exactly to its essential characteristics. For that reason, he warned against the temptation of labeling doctrines as “heretical” considering how harmful the label of “heretic” can be.7

From a subjective psychological perspective, the characteristics of heretics include intolerance, obstinacy, rebellion, and unsociability. Those who hold erroneous, misguided or false ideas, yet believe with good faith that their doctrine is the same as taught by the Church, cannot be labeled as heretics or sectarians.8

Imbued with such ideas, some Orientalists use the Catholic concept of heresy as their theoretical framework. As a result, they labeled the Sūfis as heretics because they were “mystics” who believed in doctrines which differed from those of the majority orthodox Sunnī “Church.” Despite the fact that they profess the same fundamentals of faith, the Shī'ites were labeled as sectarian because they broke away from orthodox Sunnism.

After drawing these dogmas from Christian doctrine, Orientalists rushed to apply them to Shī'ism, labeling it as “heretical,” “schismatic” and “sectarian” merely because it represented a minority tradition, a fact which in se and per se [in and of itself] does not constitute heresy. They failed to heed Saint Augustine's warning that appearances can be deceiving.9

They reduced Shī'ism to the level of a “heretical sect” despite the fact that there are no doctrinal differences between Sunnī and Shī'ite Islām. Unfortunately, some contemporary Orientalists-the heirs of the old mentality-continue to stubbornly label Shī'ism as a “sect” outside the fold of Islām. Although Shī'ites profess to be Muslims and share the same beliefs as Sunnis, they are, in the eyes of these specialists, openly sectarian extremist heretics.10

In short, the tendency of some Orientalists to separate Shī'ite Islām's visible or exoteric aspects-social and political-from its esoteric aspects- mystical and metaphysical-started in the nineteenth century and intensified in the twentieth and early twenty-first century. According to Alessandro Bausani, the increasingly radical differentiation between a political and religious Shī'ism provides an opportunity for Arabists and Orientalists to eclipse the West from the spiritual, metaphysical and esoteric aspects of a formal traditional expression (4: 112-15).

We have reason to fear that this initiative is a last ditch effort on the part of the West to subject one of the last genuine reserves of traditional thought into an indefinite zone of relative obscurity and of temporal oversight. In other words, when some Orientalists and “opinion-makers” take interest in Shī'ite Islām, these professional polemicists are motivated by a desire to create a false and distorted image of Shī'ism, isolating and stressing its exclusively political aspect.11 Is this not a most extreme case of ideological “fundamentalism?”

The one thing these theories-and others which are even more groundless and fanciful-have in common is a desire to single handedly understand the global reality of Shī'ite Islām in all of its dimensions: exoteric and esoteric, political and religious, metaphysical and spiritual. But in fact, the only thing they want to retain from their research is that Sunnī Islām is the rule and Shī'ite Islām is the exception.

The Shī'ites, they claim, view themselves as a small flock of chosen ones. They are those who split from the orthodox majority, those who were schismatic, who sought to foment dissent, spread discord, and provoke division, because of some political question related to the succession of the Prophet.12 As will be seen, these claims made by scholars are based exclusively on Sunnī sources.13

And it is these Sunnī scholars who brought the idea to Western scholars that, like the councils of the Christian Church, the election of the Caliph or successor of the Prophet can be decided “democratically” by means of consensus [ijmā'].

Notes

1. Editor's Note: This was an extension of the innovations agreed upon by the Second Vatican Council which was held between 1962 and 1965. It included liturgical reform, called for mass to be held in the language of the people and not Latin, removed the requirement for religious dress for nuns as well as the need for women to cover their hair while in Church.

2. Editor's Note: Modern popular thought is characterized by cynicism and contradictory reasoning. This attitude can be traced back to Descartes who, by calling everything into doubt, laid the foundations of modern philosophy.

3. Editor's Note: The author alludes to the Qur'ānic verses:

There will every soul prove [the fruits of] the deeds it sent before: they will be brought back to Allāh their rightful Lord, and their invented falsehoods will leave them in the lurch. (10:30)

[In such falsehood] is but a paltry profit; but they will have a most grievous Penalty. (16: 117)

These our people have taken for worship gods other than Him: why do they not bring forward an authority clear [and convincing] for what they do? Who doth more wrong than such as invent a falsehood against Allāh (18:15).

4. Author's Note: Recent studies fully illustrate the changes the term “fundamentalism” has undergone from a theological sense to an ideological one. See E. Patlagean and A. Le Boulluec, Les retours aux Écritures: Fondamentalismes présents et passés (Louvain: Paris 1993); especially J. Bauberot, “Le fondamentalisme: Quelques hypothèses introductives, ibid, 13-30 ; J. Séguy, “Le rapport aux Écritures dans les sectes de terrain protestant” ibid 31-46; and tracing the modern misguided aberations we already denounced, we must also present the contrasting opinion of M.A. Amir-Moezzi,”Réflections sur une évolution du shī'isme duodécimain: tradition et idéologisation.” Ibid 63-82.

5. Editor's Note: For a scientific attempt to refute of the theory of evolution, see Hārūn Yahyā's Evolution Deceit.

6. Editor's Note: Pelagianism is the “heresy” originated by Pelagius. It denied original sin and the need for baptism, and held that grace was not necessary for salvation. It asserted that free will and the law are sufficient for man to live without sin. It arose in a reaction to Gnosticism and Manichaeism, in the interests of a higher morality which Pelagius found lacking in Rome.

Originally, an attempt to heighten human responsibility, it fell into the extreme of diminishing divine grace. Opposed by Saint Augustine of Hippo, the “heresy” and Pelagius were condemned by several synods (411-18). A form of the “heresy,” with emphasis on free will, arose briefly (late 5th c.) in France but was condemned (528-9). Pelagianism long continued as a trend in Christian philosophy.

Manichaeism is the religion founded by Mani (c. 216-c.276), a Persian who held that the universe is dually controlled by opposing powers of good and evil, which had become intermingled in the present age, but at a future time would be separated and return to their own realms. Mani's followers were to aid this separation by leading an ascetic life. The religion spread widely in Asia and around the Mediterranean, but died out in the West by the 6th c., although it was a major religion in the East until the 14th c. It influenced several early Christian heresies.

Donatism is a 4th century schism in the North African Church which followed the apostasies during the Diocletian persecutions. Donatists held that sacraments were invalid outside the one visible Church, that sinners should be excommunicated, and that the State had no rights in ecclesiastical matters. It is named after one of its leaders, Donatus, who was bishop of Carthage. The schism drew from Saint Augustine his lasting definition of the nature of the ministry and sacraments of the Church.

7. Editor's Note: The Prophet has condemned the practice of takfīr, namely, accusing Muslims of being infidels and unbelievers. The Messenger of Allāh has said that: “If a Muslim calls another kāfir, then if he is a kāfir let it be so; otherwise, he [the caller] is himself a kāfir” (Abū Dāwūd); “No man accuses another man of being a sinner, or of being a kāfir, but it reflects back on him if the other is not as he called him” (Bukhārī).

Likewise, the scholars of ahl al-sunnah have warned against the takfīr of Muslims. Imām Abū Hanīfah said that he did not consider anyone who prays facing the qiblah [Makkah] to be a kāfir and that this was the consensus of the majority of 'ulamā'. He wrote in his will that “The followers of Muhammad can be sinners but they are believers, not kuffār.”

Imām Shāfi'ī said: “I do not consider anyone who prays to be a kāfir on account of his sins.” For more on this, see “Who is a Believer and who is an infidel?” in Nasr's The Heart of Islām. The general rule in Islām is to treat as Muslims all those who assert that they are Muslims unless their words, beliefs or actions clearly demonstrate the contrary. Abū Sufyān, Mu'āwiyyah and Yazīd in days of old; the Shah of Iran and Saddam Husayn in recent times all claimed to be Muslim while waging war against Islām.

8. Editor's Note: Likewise, in Islām, God judges people according to their intentions: “Allāh will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing” (2: 225). While there are certain beliefs that lead to disbelief-for example, believing that the harām is halāl or the halāl is harām-this does not apply to those who do so out of ignorance.

9. Editor's Note: Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430) is known as the African Latin Church Father. He converted to Christianity through the influence of his mother, St. Monica. His speculation on freedom, history, time and the nature of man give him a prominent place in the history of philosophy. The profundity of his thought was such that both Catholics and Protestants look to him (esp. to his treatise on grace) for doctrinal authority. His De civitate Dei (413-26) has been the basis of much political theory. He sought to reconcile Platonic thought and Christian dogma, reason and faith.

10. Author's Note: For example, the Spanish Arabist D. Cabanelas, professor at the Universidad de Granada, believes that the label “sect” “must only be applied to those groups who are opposed to consensus on fundamental issues, who separate themselves from the orthodox Sunnah and form a dissident community… The faithful followers of 'Alī, on the other hand, were given the name of Shī'ites, openly dividing themselves into various sects, some of a markedly extremist character.” D. Cabanelas, “No hay más Dios que Allāh,” apud J. Samso, J. Vernet, D. Cabanelas and J. Vallve, Así nació el Islām (Madrid 1986) fasc 2, 23.

11. Editor's Note: This equally applies to some orientalists who take interest in Islām in general.

12. Editor's Note: As Fyzee explains, “earlier orientalists believed that Shī'ism was a pernicious corruption of Islām, concocted mainly, if not solely, for political reasons. Also that the Sunnī faith is the 'orthodox' faith and the Shī'ite, the 'heterodox' one” (3).

13. Editor's Note: The general acceptance of Sunnī views over “heterodox” Shī'ite views by orientalists demonstrates ”[t]he profound Sunnī bias of Western scholarship on Islām” which Richard W. Bulliet observes.

Nazr: A Vow With Allah To Be Fulfilled

Imam Hasan (a.s.) and Imam Husain (a.s.) were still very young probably in their fifth or sixth year of age. Once, both of them fell sick and their parents, Imam Ali (a.s.) and Bibi Fatima (a.s.) were grieved to see them in unhealthy condition.

The Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (s.a.w.) came to see them. He loved them very much and on seeing them sick, he also was much grieved. They all prayed for their quick recovery. The Holy Propht suggested to the parents to keep a Nazr for the restoration of the health of the children. Thereupon, Hazrat Ali (a.s.) and Bibi Fatima (a.s.) made a Nazr (a vow) that they would fast three days upon the recovery of the children.

Allah accepted their prayers and granted their wish. Both the children recovered from their illness. Hazrat Ali (a.s.) and Bibi Fatima (a.s.) decided to fast in fulfilment of the Nazr. When the two children came to know of this, they too decided to fast. The maid-servant in the house, Bibi Fizza, who loved the children very much also decided to join in the fast on the happy occasion of their recovery.

On the first day of the fasting, Hazrat Ali (a.s.) went out in the morning and brought 3 saa wool for spinning and 3 saa barley as its wages. Bibi Fatima (a.s.) spinned 1 saa wool, then ground 1 saa barley, and prepared five loaves of bread. In the evening, all of them gathered to break the fast and each of them had a loaf placed before him. When they heard the Adhan (call to prayers), they prayed and sat to break the fast.

Suddenly, a poor man knocked on their door and asked for something to eat. All of them, one by one, passed their loaves to the beggar. There was no other food in the house, so all of them had to be content with water. They went to bed and slept without food. The next day they fasted again in fulfilment of the Nazr, but yet with almost empty stomach.

Second day, Bibi Fatima (a.s.) again spinned 1 saa of wool, ground 1 saa of barley, and again backed 5 loaves. Again they sat together to break the fast with the usuai one loaf of bread for each. As they were about to break the fast, an orphan came all of a sudden to their door and asked for food saying he was very hungry.

Although the inmates of the house were themselves hungry for two days, they were happy to feed the boy. Everyone gave his or her bread to the orphan. They again slept without any food.

On the third day as they sat down to break the fast, a prisoner knocked at their door asking for something to eat. Although the people of the house of the Holy Prophet had been suffering from near starvation for the last three days, they again gave away all the bread to the prisoner and contented themselves only with water for the third day in succession.

It was in appreciation of these sacrifices, that Almighty Allah revealed the whole Sura 'Ad-Dahr', which contains, among other things, the following Ayat:

"They fulfill vows and fear a day the evil of which shall be spreading far and wide. " (76:7) This is how Ahle-Bait, the people of the household of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.), kept and fulfilled their Nazr (vow). They also set example of sacrifice by feeding the poor and caring for those who were in need.

The tradition of Nazr is a very old one. During the time of Bani Israel, centuries back, in the name of God, people used to present their sons at Baitul-Muqdas, in the service of the pious people there. They used to stay within the walls of the mosques.

Once Imran, the father of Hazrat Maryam (Mary) got the good news that Almighty would bless him with a child. The child would be so gifted that with the command of God, he would cure the sick, restore sight to the blinds, bring life back unto the dead and he shall also be a Prophet of God. When Bibi Hanna, the mother of Hazrat Maryam, heard this news, she vowed that she would free the child from the worldly attachments (to spend life in the service of Allah). The following Ayat in the Qur'an refers to this event:

"When a woman of Imran said: My Lord! surely I vow to Thee what is in my womb, to be devoted (to Thy service); accept therefore from me, surely Thou art the Hearing, the Knowing" (3:35)

Over 2000 years ago people worshipped idols in Arabia. There was a King by the name of Hassan who decided to destory the Holy Kaaba. Because of this evil intention, he fell sick and ended being a leper.

Upon realising his mistake, he begged pardon from God and vowed that if his health was restored, he would place Ghilaf (Covering) over the Holy Kaaba. This wish of his was fulfilled and he, in turn placed the Ghilaf made of palm leaves. For many years a new black cover made of thick cloth is being placed on Kaaba every year.

Thus Nazr is a media by which a human being seeks assistance and pleasure of God. Whenever one prays to God for assistance, it is recommended that one uses a media which can take him to God. Nazr is one of such medias.

Whenever a person keeps a Nazr and prays for something from God and upon being granted his wish when he fulfills the Nazr which he had pledged, his faith in Allah is enhanced. As faith increases, one tries to refrain from sins and endeavours to do more virtuous deeds in order to please and be nearer to Allah.

For The Sake Of Allah Only

During the time of Hazrat Musa, there was a pious man, who used to pray day and night on the roof of his house. One day some people came and told him that there was a garden where a tree was being worshiped by a group of people. On hearing this, the pious man picked up an axe and went to the tree with the intention of cutting and uprooting the tree.

Satan (the devil) came to him in the form of an old man and asked "What are you aiming to do?" The pious man explained what was happening and his intention to cut the tree. The satan said "what have you to do it? If God wished the tree to be cut, he would have sent his prophet to do it"

The pious man did not listen. The two went on arguing and quarelling till they came to blows. He managed to knock the satan down on the floor and sat in him, aiming at cutting at his troat. The satan begged him for his pardon and release saying, "Let me sugest you one thing which would help you in this world as well as in the next world. I shall pay you two dinars everyday. You can pay partly to the poor and partly spent on yourself. Leave this ree uncut till God commanded whether it was right or wrong to cut it"

The pious man was misled by satan. He thought the sugestion was right and returned home. On the second day, he saw two dinars under his pillow. He was delighted with the money and spent some after the poor.

But on the folllowing day he did not see the money again as expected, so he again took over his axe and came at that tree. Again satan came to him in the form of an old man and asked him "what do you want to do?" He said, "I want to cut that tree".

Satan told him that he had no power to do it so it was better he went home. He did not agree and again they fought. This time the satan succeded in overpowering the pious man and knocked him down on the floor.

The pious man was suprised at this and asked satan why it so happened that he could not overpower him this time. The satan replied: "whoever does a good deed purely for the pleasure of God, no one can face him but if he does it with an aim of worldly gain then he looses strength and stands to fail.

Why did the pious man win on the first day and lose on the second in his fight against the Satan? Because his first intention to cut the tree, was to please God and nothing else. But the second day, his good intention had changed and it had become for the sake of money. So the God given spiritual strength which he had on the first day had then disappeared and so he lost.

During the time of Prophet Mohammad (S.A.W.), his enemies - ten thousand strongmen, once planned to attack him. The Muslims were then but very few. Having received the secret news of what was about to happen, the Muslims dug a very wide ditch around them for their defence so that the enemy may not attack them all of a sudden.

From the enemy side, a warrior by name 'Amr Bin Abdiwadd' who was very famous for his strength, courage and art of fighting, landed in the midst of these Muslims by jumping over the ditchl The Muslims lacked the courage to face him. Only the lion of Allah, Hazrat Ali (A.S.) came forward to challenge the intruder! Both drew their swords and were soon locked, in a fierce duel to death against each other.

At last, Allah bestowed victory to Hazrat Ali (A.S.) who threw Amr down on the ground and mounted on his chest ready to kill the arch-enemy of Islam, but before Hazrat Ali (A.S.) could do this, Amr spat in the face of our Imam.

Everybody around was certain that as a result of this insult, Amr would meet his death even faster still. But instead Hazrat Ali (A.S.) moved from Amr's chest and walked away! People around were too surprised to see why he left loose such a dangerous enemy after overpowering him. Amr attacked again and after a short while, Hazrat Ali (A.S.) again got control over him and this time he killed the enemy of Islam.

After the battle was over, people asked Hazrat Ali (A.S.) about the reason why he had spared Amr's life when he first got control over him. Hazrat Ali (A.S.) replied, "I wanted to kill him for the sake of Allah only. He spat on me and thus made me angry. Had I killed him at that moment, it would not have been for the sake of Allah only. It would have also been for the satisfaction of my anger. So I let him free. When I controlled my anger, I killed him purely for the sake of Allah."

This is how the Ahle-Bait - people of the household of our Holy Prophet, have set examples of sincere intention. Before any action we take, we must be clear in our minds that the action is in accordance with the commands of Allah. That, it is for his sake and pleasure alone.

To keep away from insincere and impure intentions is indeed difficult but not impossible. This can be done by constant thinking and true understanding of the aim of our life. We have to understand what Allah really wants from us.

Immamate - Is Guidance We Need

Basra is a big city and the main port of Iraq. It is situated at the mouth of river Euphrates. There, in a big mosque, people used to assemble to discuss various subjects on Islamic rules and laws. A famous learned Priest of Sunni Sect by name Amr Bin Ubeid was once preaching on the subject of Immamat. He was surrounded by a big crowd of people who were asking various questions on the subject.

Suddenly, a young and intelligent student of Islam by name of Hesham, entered the gathering and sat down in the first row. He addressed the priest saying that he was a stranger and would like to ask some questions. On getting the permission to do so, he asked the following:

First, Sir, may I please know if you have eyes?

Young Boy! is this a question to be asked?

Whatever it may be, this is my question to which I shall appreciate your answer. Alright! you are at liberty to ask, even though it is a foolish question.

As I have already asked, Sir, may I please know if you have eyes? Yes, I have.

For what use are they?

With eyes, I can see faces of people and colour of various things. And you have a nose also?

Yes, I do have one.

What is its function?

I smell the scent and odour by it.

And do you have a mouth?

Yes I do have.

For what use is it?

I can talk to people or taste food and drinks with it.

Do you have ears?

Yes, I have two ears.

What is their function?

I can hear voices by them.

And do you have a mind?

Almighty has bestowed me with that also. What is its use?

With that I am able to distinguish things whatever is felt by the other senses like hands, eyes, ears, nose, tongue etc. In case of a difference, I am able to solve with its help. In case doubt, I can dispel with it and be sure.

So, does it mean that despite being sound and healthy, all these organs cannot function independently without the help of the mind.

No, No! none of the organs can function independently without the help of the mind. Why is it so? After all, are the organs perfect and strong enough to differentiate between things?

Young Boy! when any organ has some doubt about a thing which it smells, sees or tastes, it brings the matter to the mind and it is the mind which confirms the truth and removes the doubt.

So, from what you have said, do you want me to understand that God Almighty has created and designed the mind to guide the organs and remove doubts. Yes! It is so.

So the mind is a necessity, otherwise the organs could not work independently. Yes.

Please Sir! proclaim your opinion with fairness and justice on this point also. If Almighty has not left the organs of mans body without the guidance of the mind, how is it possible that Almighty God could leave millions of His creatures without an IMAM to guide and solve their problems arising out of doubts and conflicts? Should not our common sense accept this fact?

On hearing this logic argument, and having no answer to give, Amr Bin Ubeid kept silent and went into deep thinking.

Hesham was a deeply learned person and one of the closest companions of Imam Jaafer Sadiq (A.S.) from whom he had obtained his knowledge.

'IMAM' is an Arabic word which literally means 'Leader'or 'Guide! Any leader or guide can be good or bad, true or false. Therefore, it is essential for every Muslim to know what makes and who is a true and good Imam. The Holy Prophet has said: "If a man dies without recognising the Imam of his time, he dies the death of ignorance."

It is of utmost importance that the Imam must be appointed by a Prophet under the command of God, nobody can be an Imam either by claiming to be so, by inheritance or by the wealth or power which he may have.

It is essential that an Imam possess certain characteristics and qualities so that a clear distinction can be made between a true and false Imam. Some of these are as under:

1. An Imam must be free from every defect -Physical as well as Mental;

2. He must be born of Legal Marriage;

3. He must be Ma'sum (Infallible-Sinless) like the Prophet - from birth to death;

4. He must possess all knowledge and be the wisest of all human beings of his time;

5. He must know all the languages including those of animals also;

6. He must be able to perform miracles;

7. He must be Bold, Brave and Most Courageous;

8. He should be most generous and be able to help needy and weak persons.

In short, an Imam is the Holiest, most Pious of all - after the Holy Prophet Mohammad (S.A.W.)

The Learned Man and The Hungry Dog

Isphahan is a beautiful city in Persia. In this lovely city there once lived a very great learned man. He was also very poor. His name was Mohammad Baqar. Because he lived in tsphahan he is known as Mohammad Baqar - e - Isphahani which means Mohammad Baqar of Isphahan city.

Mohammad Baqar - e - Isphahani was poor and therefore he could not afford good food. He had no money to buy rich food. For many years he had been living on simple food. Once he felt like eating liver. Food made from liver is tasty and rich in strength. So he began to save money each day from his small earnings so that he could buy a pound of liver and thus satisfy his desire.

After many days he saved enough money to buy a pound of liver He was happy. He went to the bazaar and bought a nice piece of his favourite liver.

Feeling very very happy he was returning home from market with the parcel in his hands. On the way home, near a ruined house, he saw a bitch with her puppies. The dog with her young ones looked very hungry. Her stomach had gone deep inside. She was not able even to give milk to her little ones and feed them. The bitch and her puppies were also shivering from the cold climate.

Mohammad Baqar - e - Isphahani felt sorry for the poor animals. He went near them and stroked them kindly. Then he opened his parcel of liver and cut small pieces and then piece by piece fed them. The bitch while eating looked thankfully at Mohammad Baqar - e - Isphahani and then at the sky, as if she was thanking Allah for the favour and praying for the generous and kind man.

Having fed the animals Mohammad Baqar - e-Isphahani went home. Tired and hungry he slept that night shivering in the cold. But, somehow he felt happy.

Soon after this incident the learned man began to get rich. Gradually he became richer and richer until he was a millionaire. He became so rich that once when the King of Isphahan was in need of money, Mohammad Baqar - e - Isphahani gave him a loan of 20,000 dinars.

Moral: Kindness is never wasted.

The Five Loaves

Zarr Bin Hobeish relates this story. Two travellers sat together on the way to their destination to have a meal. One had five loaves of bread. The other had three. A third traveller was passing by and at the request of the two joined in the meal. The travellers cut each of the loaf of bread in three equal parts. Each of the travellers ate eight broken pieces of the loaf.

At the time of leaving the third traveller took out eight dirhams and gave to the first two men who had offered him the meal, and went away. On receiving the money the two travellers started quarelling as to who should have how much of the money.

The five-loaf-man demanded five dirhams. The three-ioaf-man insisted on dividing the money in two equal parts.

The dispute was brought to Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (the Caliph of the time in Arabia) to be decided. Imam Ali (a.s.) requested three-loaf-man to accept three dirhams. The man refused and said that he would take only four dirhams. At this Imam Ali (a.s.) returned, "You can have only one dirham. You had eight loaves between yourselves. Each loaf was broken in three parts. Therefore, you had 24 equal parts.

Your three loaves made nine parts. Out. of which you have eaten eight portions, leaving just one to the third traveller. Your friend had five loaves which divided into three made fifteen pieces. He ate eight pieces and gave seven pieces to the guest. As such the guest shared one part from your loaves and seven from those of your friend. So you should get one dirham and your friend should receive seven dirhams."

LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED TO:

The Holy Quran by Mir Ahmedali;

Rehnumai Bahesht Part Five - Tehran;

Payame Shadi 3-1;Qum

Payame Shadi 3-9;Qurn

Payame Shadi 4-2;Qum

LIGHT - April 1975; Dar-es-Salaam.

Golden Crescent Group Fifth Seminar Report - 1975;

All rights reserved for Al-Hassanain (p) Network, ImamHussain (p) Foundation

Alhassanain (p) Network for Islamic Heritage and Thought

www.alhassanain.org/english

Nazr: A Vow With Allah To Be Fulfilled

Imam Hasan (a.s.) and Imam Husain (a.s.) were still very young probably in their fifth or sixth year of age. Once, both of them fell sick and their parents, Imam Ali (a.s.) and Bibi Fatima (a.s.) were grieved to see them in unhealthy condition.

The Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (s.a.w.) came to see them. He loved them very much and on seeing them sick, he also was much grieved. They all prayed for their quick recovery. The Holy Propht suggested to the parents to keep a Nazr for the restoration of the health of the children. Thereupon, Hazrat Ali (a.s.) and Bibi Fatima (a.s.) made a Nazr (a vow) that they would fast three days upon the recovery of the children.

Allah accepted their prayers and granted their wish. Both the children recovered from their illness. Hazrat Ali (a.s.) and Bibi Fatima (a.s.) decided to fast in fulfilment of the Nazr. When the two children came to know of this, they too decided to fast. The maid-servant in the house, Bibi Fizza, who loved the children very much also decided to join in the fast on the happy occasion of their recovery.

On the first day of the fasting, Hazrat Ali (a.s.) went out in the morning and brought 3 saa wool for spinning and 3 saa barley as its wages. Bibi Fatima (a.s.) spinned 1 saa wool, then ground 1 saa barley, and prepared five loaves of bread. In the evening, all of them gathered to break the fast and each of them had a loaf placed before him. When they heard the Adhan (call to prayers), they prayed and sat to break the fast.

Suddenly, a poor man knocked on their door and asked for something to eat. All of them, one by one, passed their loaves to the beggar. There was no other food in the house, so all of them had to be content with water. They went to bed and slept without food. The next day they fasted again in fulfilment of the Nazr, but yet with almost empty stomach.

Second day, Bibi Fatima (a.s.) again spinned 1 saa of wool, ground 1 saa of barley, and again backed 5 loaves. Again they sat together to break the fast with the usuai one loaf of bread for each. As they were about to break the fast, an orphan came all of a sudden to their door and asked for food saying he was very hungry.

Although the inmates of the house were themselves hungry for two days, they were happy to feed the boy. Everyone gave his or her bread to the orphan. They again slept without any food.

On the third day as they sat down to break the fast, a prisoner knocked at their door asking for something to eat. Although the people of the house of the Holy Prophet had been suffering from near starvation for the last three days, they again gave away all the bread to the prisoner and contented themselves only with water for the third day in succession.

It was in appreciation of these sacrifices, that Almighty Allah revealed the whole Sura 'Ad-Dahr', which contains, among other things, the following Ayat:

"They fulfill vows and fear a day the evil of which shall be spreading far and wide. " (76:7) This is how Ahle-Bait, the people of the household of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.), kept and fulfilled their Nazr (vow). They also set example of sacrifice by feeding the poor and caring for those who were in need.

The tradition of Nazr is a very old one. During the time of Bani Israel, centuries back, in the name of God, people used to present their sons at Baitul-Muqdas, in the service of the pious people there. They used to stay within the walls of the mosques.

Once Imran, the father of Hazrat Maryam (Mary) got the good news that Almighty would bless him with a child. The child would be so gifted that with the command of God, he would cure the sick, restore sight to the blinds, bring life back unto the dead and he shall also be a Prophet of God. When Bibi Hanna, the mother of Hazrat Maryam, heard this news, she vowed that she would free the child from the worldly attachments (to spend life in the service of Allah). The following Ayat in the Qur'an refers to this event:

"When a woman of Imran said: My Lord! surely I vow to Thee what is in my womb, to be devoted (to Thy service); accept therefore from me, surely Thou art the Hearing, the Knowing" (3:35)

Over 2000 years ago people worshipped idols in Arabia. There was a King by the name of Hassan who decided to destory the Holy Kaaba. Because of this evil intention, he fell sick and ended being a leper.

Upon realising his mistake, he begged pardon from God and vowed that if his health was restored, he would place Ghilaf (Covering) over the Holy Kaaba. This wish of his was fulfilled and he, in turn placed the Ghilaf made of palm leaves. For many years a new black cover made of thick cloth is being placed on Kaaba every year.

Thus Nazr is a media by which a human being seeks assistance and pleasure of God. Whenever one prays to God for assistance, it is recommended that one uses a media which can take him to God. Nazr is one of such medias.

Whenever a person keeps a Nazr and prays for something from God and upon being granted his wish when he fulfills the Nazr which he had pledged, his faith in Allah is enhanced. As faith increases, one tries to refrain from sins and endeavours to do more virtuous deeds in order to please and be nearer to Allah.

For The Sake Of Allah Only

During the time of Hazrat Musa, there was a pious man, who used to pray day and night on the roof of his house. One day some people came and told him that there was a garden where a tree was being worshiped by a group of people. On hearing this, the pious man picked up an axe and went to the tree with the intention of cutting and uprooting the tree.

Satan (the devil) came to him in the form of an old man and asked "What are you aiming to do?" The pious man explained what was happening and his intention to cut the tree. The satan said "what have you to do it? If God wished the tree to be cut, he would have sent his prophet to do it"

The pious man did not listen. The two went on arguing and quarelling till they came to blows. He managed to knock the satan down on the floor and sat in him, aiming at cutting at his troat. The satan begged him for his pardon and release saying, "Let me sugest you one thing which would help you in this world as well as in the next world. I shall pay you two dinars everyday. You can pay partly to the poor and partly spent on yourself. Leave this ree uncut till God commanded whether it was right or wrong to cut it"

The pious man was misled by satan. He thought the sugestion was right and returned home. On the second day, he saw two dinars under his pillow. He was delighted with the money and spent some after the poor.

But on the folllowing day he did not see the money again as expected, so he again took over his axe and came at that tree. Again satan came to him in the form of an old man and asked him "what do you want to do?" He said, "I want to cut that tree".

Satan told him that he had no power to do it so it was better he went home. He did not agree and again they fought. This time the satan succeded in overpowering the pious man and knocked him down on the floor.

The pious man was suprised at this and asked satan why it so happened that he could not overpower him this time. The satan replied: "whoever does a good deed purely for the pleasure of God, no one can face him but if he does it with an aim of worldly gain then he looses strength and stands to fail.

Why did the pious man win on the first day and lose on the second in his fight against the Satan? Because his first intention to cut the tree, was to please God and nothing else. But the second day, his good intention had changed and it had become for the sake of money. So the God given spiritual strength which he had on the first day had then disappeared and so he lost.

During the time of Prophet Mohammad (S.A.W.), his enemies - ten thousand strongmen, once planned to attack him. The Muslims were then but very few. Having received the secret news of what was about to happen, the Muslims dug a very wide ditch around them for their defence so that the enemy may not attack them all of a sudden.

From the enemy side, a warrior by name 'Amr Bin Abdiwadd' who was very famous for his strength, courage and art of fighting, landed in the midst of these Muslims by jumping over the ditchl The Muslims lacked the courage to face him. Only the lion of Allah, Hazrat Ali (A.S.) came forward to challenge the intruder! Both drew their swords and were soon locked, in a fierce duel to death against each other.

At last, Allah bestowed victory to Hazrat Ali (A.S.) who threw Amr down on the ground and mounted on his chest ready to kill the arch-enemy of Islam, but before Hazrat Ali (A.S.) could do this, Amr spat in the face of our Imam.

Everybody around was certain that as a result of this insult, Amr would meet his death even faster still. But instead Hazrat Ali (A.S.) moved from Amr's chest and walked away! People around were too surprised to see why he left loose such a dangerous enemy after overpowering him. Amr attacked again and after a short while, Hazrat Ali (A.S.) again got control over him and this time he killed the enemy of Islam.

After the battle was over, people asked Hazrat Ali (A.S.) about the reason why he had spared Amr's life when he first got control over him. Hazrat Ali (A.S.) replied, "I wanted to kill him for the sake of Allah only. He spat on me and thus made me angry. Had I killed him at that moment, it would not have been for the sake of Allah only. It would have also been for the satisfaction of my anger. So I let him free. When I controlled my anger, I killed him purely for the sake of Allah."

This is how the Ahle-Bait - people of the household of our Holy Prophet, have set examples of sincere intention. Before any action we take, we must be clear in our minds that the action is in accordance with the commands of Allah. That, it is for his sake and pleasure alone.

To keep away from insincere and impure intentions is indeed difficult but not impossible. This can be done by constant thinking and true understanding of the aim of our life. We have to understand what Allah really wants from us.

Immamate - Is Guidance We Need

Basra is a big city and the main port of Iraq. It is situated at the mouth of river Euphrates. There, in a big mosque, people used to assemble to discuss various subjects on Islamic rules and laws. A famous learned Priest of Sunni Sect by name Amr Bin Ubeid was once preaching on the subject of Immamat. He was surrounded by a big crowd of people who were asking various questions on the subject.

Suddenly, a young and intelligent student of Islam by name of Hesham, entered the gathering and sat down in the first row. He addressed the priest saying that he was a stranger and would like to ask some questions. On getting the permission to do so, he asked the following:

First, Sir, may I please know if you have eyes?

Young Boy! is this a question to be asked?

Whatever it may be, this is my question to which I shall appreciate your answer. Alright! you are at liberty to ask, even though it is a foolish question.

As I have already asked, Sir, may I please know if you have eyes? Yes, I have.

For what use are they?

With eyes, I can see faces of people and colour of various things. And you have a nose also?

Yes, I do have one.

What is its function?

I smell the scent and odour by it.

And do you have a mouth?

Yes I do have.

For what use is it?

I can talk to people or taste food and drinks with it.

Do you have ears?

Yes, I have two ears.

What is their function?

I can hear voices by them.

And do you have a mind?

Almighty has bestowed me with that also. What is its use?

With that I am able to distinguish things whatever is felt by the other senses like hands, eyes, ears, nose, tongue etc. In case of a difference, I am able to solve with its help. In case doubt, I can dispel with it and be sure.

So, does it mean that despite being sound and healthy, all these organs cannot function independently without the help of the mind.

No, No! none of the organs can function independently without the help of the mind. Why is it so? After all, are the organs perfect and strong enough to differentiate between things?

Young Boy! when any organ has some doubt about a thing which it smells, sees or tastes, it brings the matter to the mind and it is the mind which confirms the truth and removes the doubt.

So, from what you have said, do you want me to understand that God Almighty has created and designed the mind to guide the organs and remove doubts. Yes! It is so.

So the mind is a necessity, otherwise the organs could not work independently. Yes.

Please Sir! proclaim your opinion with fairness and justice on this point also. If Almighty has not left the organs of mans body without the guidance of the mind, how is it possible that Almighty God could leave millions of His creatures without an IMAM to guide and solve their problems arising out of doubts and conflicts? Should not our common sense accept this fact?

On hearing this logic argument, and having no answer to give, Amr Bin Ubeid kept silent and went into deep thinking.

Hesham was a deeply learned person and one of the closest companions of Imam Jaafer Sadiq (A.S.) from whom he had obtained his knowledge.

'IMAM' is an Arabic word which literally means 'Leader'or 'Guide! Any leader or guide can be good or bad, true or false. Therefore, it is essential for every Muslim to know what makes and who is a true and good Imam. The Holy Prophet has said: "If a man dies without recognising the Imam of his time, he dies the death of ignorance."

It is of utmost importance that the Imam must be appointed by a Prophet under the command of God, nobody can be an Imam either by claiming to be so, by inheritance or by the wealth or power which he may have.

It is essential that an Imam possess certain characteristics and qualities so that a clear distinction can be made between a true and false Imam. Some of these are as under:

1. An Imam must be free from every defect -Physical as well as Mental;

2. He must be born of Legal Marriage;

3. He must be Ma'sum (Infallible-Sinless) like the Prophet - from birth to death;

4. He must possess all knowledge and be the wisest of all human beings of his time;

5. He must know all the languages including those of animals also;

6. He must be able to perform miracles;

7. He must be Bold, Brave and Most Courageous;

8. He should be most generous and be able to help needy and weak persons.

In short, an Imam is the Holiest, most Pious of all - after the Holy Prophet Mohammad (S.A.W.)

The Learned Man and The Hungry Dog

Isphahan is a beautiful city in Persia. In this lovely city there once lived a very great learned man. He was also very poor. His name was Mohammad Baqar. Because he lived in tsphahan he is known as Mohammad Baqar - e - Isphahani which means Mohammad Baqar of Isphahan city.

Mohammad Baqar - e - Isphahani was poor and therefore he could not afford good food. He had no money to buy rich food. For many years he had been living on simple food. Once he felt like eating liver. Food made from liver is tasty and rich in strength. So he began to save money each day from his small earnings so that he could buy a pound of liver and thus satisfy his desire.

After many days he saved enough money to buy a pound of liver He was happy. He went to the bazaar and bought a nice piece of his favourite liver.

Feeling very very happy he was returning home from market with the parcel in his hands. On the way home, near a ruined house, he saw a bitch with her puppies. The dog with her young ones looked very hungry. Her stomach had gone deep inside. She was not able even to give milk to her little ones and feed them. The bitch and her puppies were also shivering from the cold climate.

Mohammad Baqar - e - Isphahani felt sorry for the poor animals. He went near them and stroked them kindly. Then he opened his parcel of liver and cut small pieces and then piece by piece fed them. The bitch while eating looked thankfully at Mohammad Baqar - e - Isphahani and then at the sky, as if she was thanking Allah for the favour and praying for the generous and kind man.

Having fed the animals Mohammad Baqar - e-Isphahani went home. Tired and hungry he slept that night shivering in the cold. But, somehow he felt happy.

Soon after this incident the learned man began to get rich. Gradually he became richer and richer until he was a millionaire. He became so rich that once when the King of Isphahan was in need of money, Mohammad Baqar - e - Isphahani gave him a loan of 20,000 dinars.

Moral: Kindness is never wasted.

The Five Loaves

Zarr Bin Hobeish relates this story. Two travellers sat together on the way to their destination to have a meal. One had five loaves of bread. The other had three. A third traveller was passing by and at the request of the two joined in the meal. The travellers cut each of the loaf of bread in three equal parts. Each of the travellers ate eight broken pieces of the loaf.

At the time of leaving the third traveller took out eight dirhams and gave to the first two men who had offered him the meal, and went away. On receiving the money the two travellers started quarelling as to who should have how much of the money.

The five-loaf-man demanded five dirhams. The three-ioaf-man insisted on dividing the money in two equal parts.

The dispute was brought to Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (the Caliph of the time in Arabia) to be decided. Imam Ali (a.s.) requested three-loaf-man to accept three dirhams. The man refused and said that he would take only four dirhams. At this Imam Ali (a.s.) returned, "You can have only one dirham. You had eight loaves between yourselves. Each loaf was broken in three parts. Therefore, you had 24 equal parts.

Your three loaves made nine parts. Out. of which you have eaten eight portions, leaving just one to the third traveller. Your friend had five loaves which divided into three made fifteen pieces. He ate eight pieces and gave seven pieces to the guest. As such the guest shared one part from your loaves and seven from those of your friend. So you should get one dirham and your friend should receive seven dirhams."

LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED TO:

The Holy Quran by Mir Ahmedali;

Rehnumai Bahesht Part Five - Tehran;

Payame Shadi 3-1;Qum

Payame Shadi 3-9;Qurn

Payame Shadi 4-2;Qum

LIGHT - April 1975; Dar-es-Salaam.

Golden Crescent Group Fifth Seminar Report - 1975;

All rights reserved for Al-Hassanain (p) Network, ImamHussain (p) Foundation

Alhassanain (p) Network for Islamic Heritage and Thought

www.alhassanain.org/english


4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13