Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Bada’

The unknown author writes as the 2nd proof of Shi’as’ Kufr:

“According to Shi’a belief, Allah is subject to Bada. That is to say that the knowledge of Allah changes from time to time because Allah is not fully aware of the causes and their consequences.”

COMMENT: Again it is the manifestation of the author’s ignorance. First let me make clear what Bada’ means:

Every sane person knows that the knowledge of Allah can never be wrong. In other words, there can never be any change in the knowledge of Allah. In contrast to it is the knowledge given by Allah to the angels and the Prophets. Their knowledge, though the most complete and perfect of all creatures, is still incomplete when compared to the knowledge of Allah. Allah in His mercy constantly replenishes, perfects and completes their knowledge.

Also, we know that Allah often puts his servants to test and trial. Again, it appears from many stories in the Qur’an that sometimes Allah, in His mercy and wisdom, reveals only a part of His future plan to the angels or the Prophets concerned. They are informed of His plan to a certain stage, and the knowledge of the later stages is not revealed to them in advance.

Before going ahead, let me give here two examples from the Qur’an.

The Sacrifice Of Prophet Isma’il

Prophet Ibrahim was shown in a dream that he was sacrificing his only son for the pleasure of God. As it was a dream, he must have seen how he was killing Isma’il. He must have seen himself binding the hands and feet of the child, blind-folding himself and then putting the knife on the child’s throat and pressing it down. Naturally, he could not have seen who or what was actually being killed as his eyes were covered. By seeing the dream he believed that he was required to kill his son Isma’il in that way. Therefore, he steeled his heart to sacrifice his only child.

The child heard it and prepared himself to be sacrificed in obedience to the command of God. The father and the son both were willing to sacrifice everything in the name of Allah. Prophet Ibrahim did as he had dreamed himself doing: he bound the hands and feet of the child and put him in the required position and, blindfolding himself, put the knife and cut the throat. After removing the blindfold from his eyes, he saw Isma’il smiling and a lamb slaughtered in his place.

Prophet Ibrahim thought that he had failed in his test. But he had clearly done what be had seen himself doing in the dream. Of course, Allah had not informed him of the events of the last stage. For if Ibrahim had known that Isma’il would be saved, or if Isma’il had known that he, would be saved, there would have been no meaning in that test; there would not have been any chance of showing their willingness to sacrifice everything in the name of Allah.

So God showed to Ibrahim in his dream the events to a certain stage but kept him unaware of the final stages; not informing him how the whole episode was going to end. As they did not know the result, Ibrahim and Isma’il were able to show how willing they were to obey the command of God even to the extent of sacrificing their lives and the lives of their dear ones in His name.

If they had known the result from the beginning, the test would have been meaningless.

Tawrah Given To Prophet Musa

Another example concerns Prophet Musa and the revelation of the Tawrah. Prophet Musa was ordered to go to Mount Sinai, fast there for thirty days in preparation for receiving the tablets of the Tawrah. On the thirtieth day he cleansed his teeth and went to Mount Sinai. There he was asked by God as to why did he cleanse his teeth. He explained that as he was coming to a holy place, he thought it proper to make himself neat and clean. God told him that the smell of the mouth of a fasting person was sweeter before God that the smell of musk and ambergris. And then he was told to return to his staying place, and fast for ten days more and then come to Mount Sinai without cleansing his teeth. Thus it was on the fortieth day that he was given the stone tablets of the Tawrah.

Allah knew from ever that Musa would come after cleansing his teeth, and would be asked to fast for ten days more. But neither Musa nor the Israelites had been told about it; nor was Musa told beforehand that he was not to cleanse his teeth on the thirtieth day.

When Allah refers to His knowledge, He describes the whole period of forty nights together:

When we made appointment with Musa for forty nights. Then you (the Israelites) took the (image of) calf (for your god) after he left you and thus you transgressed.1

And where He refers to the knowledge of Musa, He mentions thirty days and ten days separately:

And We made an appointment with Musa for thirty nights: and We completed with ten (more); thus was completed the term of his Lord forty nights.2

The reason of not giving the advance information is clear from the behavior of the Israelites who because of his ten days delay, discarded the worship of the only and true Allah and started worshipping the image of a calf. The story is given beautifully in the following verses of the Qur’an:

Said God to Musa: “Verily we have tested thy people in thy absence. and the Samiri had led them astray.” So returned Musa unto his people angered and sorrowful. Said he, “O my People, did not your Lord promise you a good promise? Did then the promise seem long to you, or did you want the wrath from your Lord should light upon you, that you violated the promise with me?” Said they, “We violated not thy promise of our own accord .......” Then he (Samiri) brought forth for them a calf, a mere body with a lowing sound. Then they said, “This is your god and the god of Musa, but he (Musa) has forgotten”3

Just imagine a whole community of several thousand Companions of an ulu ‘l-’azm Prophet, in the presence of his successor and vicegerent Harun, leaving the path of true religion and starting idol worship, just because Musa was delayed for a few days! This test of faith could not be conducted if Allah would had told Musa that he was supposed to stay for forty days; or if he had been told beforehand not to cleanse his teeth on the thirtieth day.

This is the meaning of Bada’.

Now where it says that “the knowledge of Allah changes because Allah is not fully aware of the causes and their consequences”?

The name Bada’ and its meaning, both are derived from the Holy Qur’an. Allah Ta’ala says:

“and became plain to them from Allah what they had never thought”4

This is the meaning of Bada: and the term is applied when Allah Ta’ala makes something happen to the creatures which they had not expected.

The change occurs in the creatures’ knowledge, not that of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala.

The writer has quoted a hadith from al-Kafi, from Imam ‘Ali Ar-Ridha (a.s.) that: ‘‘Allah did not ever send a Prophet but that he should proclaim wine as forbidden, and that he should as well recognize that Allah is subject to Bada’ (the proposition that if a new circumstance should intervene it may cause Allah to alter His determination):’

What the hadith in al-Kafi says is simply this:

“Never has Allah sent any prophet except with the prohibition of intoxicant and with the affirmation to Allah of bada’”.5

The unknown author has given a totally wrong meaning of bad a’ in brackets and has put it within the quotation marks to deceive the readers, who might think that the said meaning was a part of the hadith!!

It is for people like him that Allah says in the Qur’an:

Most surely there is a party among them who distort the Book with their tongue that you may consider it to be a part of the Book while it is not a part of the Book.. and they tell a lie against Allah whilst they know.6

If this unknown writer had really seen al-Kafi, he would have read the following ahadith which are recorded before the hadith he has “quoted”:

“Abu ‘Abdillah (peace be on him) said: ‘No Bad a’ occurs to Allah in anything but that it was in His knowledge before its occurrence.”

‘‘Abu ‘Abdillah (a.s .) said: ‘Verily, Bada’ does not occur to Allah because of ignorance:’

“Mansur ibn Hazim says: ‘I asked Abu ‘Abdillah (peace be on him): “Can anything happen today which was not in the knowledge of Allah yesterday?” He said: “No. Whoever says it, may Allah humiliate him:’ I said: “Tell me, is it not that what has already happened and what is to happen upto the day of resurrection, is all in the knowledge of Allah?” He said: “Certainly, even before He created the creatures.”7

Incidentally, this is the belief of many of the Sunnis too, although they do not call it Bada’. It means that they too accept the meaning although they differ from us in the name. For example, look at the following quotations from three Sunni Tafseers:

1. Imam Fakhruddin ar-Razi writes under the verse,

Allah erases out whatever He pleases and Writes (whatever He pleases): and with Him is the mother of the book.8

“There are two sayings about this verse: First that it is general (encompassing) all things, as the apparent wording demands. They say that Allah erases the sustenance and increases it; and likewise is the case of death and sa’adah (felicity) and shaqawah (infelicity) and Iman and Kufr. This is (also) the belief of (the companion) ‘Amr ibn Mas’ud; and (the companion) Jabir has narrated it from the Messenger of Allah (S)

Second: That it is restricted to some things, and there are many aspects of it:

(1) Erasing and writing refers to abrogation of a previous order and bringing another order in its place; (8) It concerns sustenance, and misfortunes and calamities, that Allah writes it in the book and then removes it through invocation and sadaqah (alms), and this contains exhortation to attach oneself exclusively to Allah Ta’ala; (10) He erases whatever He pleases from His orders without informing anyone about it, because He has the absolute authority to order as He pleases; and He has the independent authority to bring into being and to destroy, to give life and death, to make rich or poor, inasmuch as no one of His creatures is appraised of His ghayb.”9

2. ‘Allamah Az-Zamakhshari writes under the verse,

..and no one whose life is lengthened has his life lengthened, nor is anything diminished of his life, but it is all in a book; surely this is easy to Allah.10

“It means, we do not increase a man’s life or decrease it, but it is written in a book. That is, it is written in the Lawh (Tablet) that: If that man performed hajj or participated in jihad then his life will be forty years; and if he did both, then his life will be sixty years. Now if he combined both and reached the age of sixty then his life was lengthened; and if he did only one (i.e. either hajj or jihad) and did not go beyond forty years, then it means that his life was shortened from the final limit of sixty. And it is this reality which the Messenger of Allah had pointed to in his saying: ‘Verily sadaqah and good behaviour towards relatives keep the homes populated and increase the lives.”11

3. Mufassir al-Qadi al-Baydawi writes under the same verse:

“It is said that increase and decrease in a person’s life occurs because of various causes which have been written in the ‘Tablet’. For example, it may be written in it that if ‘Amr did hajj then his life will be sixty years; otherwise it will end at forty years.”12

This unknown writer does not know his own religion nor the writings of his own ‘Ulama. Leave aside the writings, he cannot even pronounce correctly the names of the books of the Sunni scholars, and he has taken upon himself to write about the Shi’as!

If this unknown author really desires to see what his co-religionists (Ahlul hadith al-Hashawiyyah ) believe about the knowledge and decisions of Allah, he should read the report by Abul Fath Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Karim ash­ Shahristani (467-548 A.H.), quoted on p. 23:

“And a group of Ashabul-had ith al-Hashawiyyah have explicitly declared their belief of Tashbih (i.e. Allah is like His creatures)... So much so that they have said that once Allah’s both eyes were ailing, so the angels went to see Him; and that He wept (grieving) on Noah’s flood until his eyes were inflamed.”13

Why did Allah weep on Noah’s flood? Was He not aware of the Consequences when He had sent the flood? Should not this unknown writer offer his sympathies to his god as the angels had supposedly done?

Notes

1. Quran, 2:51.

2. Quran, 7:142.

3. Quran, 20:85-88.

4. Quran, 39:47.

5. al-Kulayni, Al-Kafi, Al-Makatabah Al-Islamiyah. Tehran. 1388. Vol.I p.115.

6. Quran, 3:78.

7. Al-Kafi, p. 115.

8. Qur’an, 13:39.

9. Imam Ar-Razi, Tafsir Mafatihu ’l ghayb.

10. Qur’an, 35:11.

11. Az-Zamakhshari, Tafsir Al-Kashshaf.

12. al-Baydawi Tafsir.

13. Ash-Shahristani, al-Milal wan Nihal printed on the margin of Kitabul-Fasl of Ibn Hazm. p.141.

Sahaba (Companions)

“Third proof of Shi’as kufr” is given by the unknown writer in these words: “The Shi’a believe in wickedly reviling the Shaikhain (i.e. Sayyidina Abu Bakr and Sayyidina Umar (Radhiallahu ‘anhu) and launch false charges against the chastity’ of Sayyidina (sic.) Aisha (R.A.)”

COMMENT: Before writing anything on this proof it is necessary to mention that no Shi’a has ever said, written or transmitted anything “against the chastity” of Ummu ‘l-mu’mineen ‘A’isha. This man probably does not know that the word, Chastity, is generally used for “abstaining from unlawful sexual intercourse.” We, the Shi’as, cannot think in such terms about any “Mother of the believers” or for that matter about any wife of any Prophet be she the wife of Nuh (a.s.) or of Lut (a.s.). Of course, we cannot stop the Wahhabis from indulging in such obscene talk. The Shi’as will whole-heartedly agree that anyone who launches a charge against the chastity of Ummu ‘l-mu’mineen ‘A’isha is kafir. Obviously, such a charge will go against the clear verdict of the Qur’an, and will therefore be tantamount to disbelief in the Book of Allah.

Coming to the position of the companions of the Holy Prophet (S), there is a basic difference between the outlook of the Sunnis and that of the Shi’as.

First, let us see what is the meaning of a “Companion”. According to the Sunni books, a companion is a person who after accepting Islam had seen the Prophet, at least once, even if he had not had any talk with the Prophet, nor heard any hadith from him nor fought under the Prophet in any jihad; provided he died as a Muslim. This definition includes those who could not see the Prophet because of blindness.1

And this name is applied to all who professed Islam, even if faith had not entered their hearts yet, even if they were hypocrites.

In other words, almost the whole of Arabia was full of the companions.

Now, according to the Sunni belief all the companions were just and pious. They ascribe a tradition to the Prophet which forms the basis of their belief:

“My companions are like the stars, which one of them you followed you should be guided aright.” Therefore they believe that all the Companions were just (‘adil).

This view is diametrically opposed to the Qur’an and the ahadith of the Holy Prophet (s.a.wa.), leave aside the fact that the historical events totally disprove it.

As for the Qur’an, the criterion of excellence is the individual’s faith, good deeds and piety, as is seen in hundreds of verses, no matter whether that person was a companion or not. Also the Qur’an says in surah at-tawbah (revealed in 9 A.H., just about 1112 years before the death of the Prophet S):

And from among those who are round about you of the Arabs there are hypocrites. And from among the people of Medina; they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you (O Prophet!) do not know them; We will chastise them twice, then shall they be turned back to a grievous chastisement.2

Perhaps someone might say that this verse concerns the hypocrites. But the hypocrites too were counted among the Companions, especially so when hypocrisy of many of them was not known even to the Prophet. However, we quote here only a few verses (out of many) which are addressed to the believers among the Companions:

Oh, you who believe! What (excuse) have you that when it is said to you: Go forth in Allah’s way, you should incline heavily to earth; are you contented with this world’s life instead of the here-after? But the provision of this world’s life compared with the hereafter is but little. If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and bring in your place a people other than you and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things.3

Say: if your fathers and your sons and your brethren and your mates and your kinfolks and property which you have acquired and the slackness of trade which you fear and dwellings which you like, are dearer to you than Allah and his Messenger and jihad in His way, then wait till Allah brings about His command, and Allah does not guide the transgressing people4 .

Oh, you who believe! be not disloyal to Allah and the Messenger, nor be unfaithful to your trusts while you know.5

Even as your Lord caused you to go forth from your house with the truth, though a party of the believers were surely averse. They disputed with you about the truth after it had become clear, (and they went forth) as if they were driven to death while they looked at it.6

Behold! you are those who are called upon to spend in Allah’s way, but among you are those who are niggardly, and whoever is niggardly is niggardly against his own soul; and Allah is Self-sufficient and you are the needy; and if you turn back He will bring in your place another people, then they will not be like you.7

As for the ahadith of the Holy Prophet (S), the following few are given here to clarify the issue:-

1. It has been narrated by the companions, Talha ibn ‘Abdullah, Ibn ‘Abbas and Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah (Allah’s mercy and peace be on him) conducted funeral prayer on the martyrs of Uhud; and the Messenger of Allah (Allah’s mercy and peace on him) said: “I am witness for these:’ Abu Bakr (r.a.) said: “O Messenger of Allah! Is it not that our brothers had accepted Islam as we did, and did jihad as we did?” He (i.e. the Prophet S) said: “Certainly! But they did not eat anything from their reward, and I do not know what you will do after me.” Abu Bakr wept and said: “Are we going to remain after you!”8

Imam Bukhari narrates from al-’Ula’ ibn al-Musayyab from his father that he said: “I met (the Companion) al-Bara’ ibn ‘Azib (R.A.) and said: ‘Blessings to you! You remained with the Prophet (Mercy and peace of Allah be on him) and did his bay’ah under the tree: He said: ‘O son of my brother! You do not know what have we done after him!”9

2. The Companion, Ibn ‘Abbas narrated that the Holy Prophet (S) said inter alia in a hadith about the Day of Judgment: “And verily some people of my ummah will be brought and taken to the left side (i.e. the side of the Fire): so I will say: ‘O my Lord! (they are) my companions: But I will be told: ‘Certainly you do not know what they did do after you; they continued to turn back on their heels right from the time you left them: Then I will say as had said the good servant (i.e. the Prophet ‘Isa): ‘and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst take me (away) Thou wert the watcher over them and Thou art witness of all things…10 ”11

The Holy Prophet (S) said: “Surely you will be taken to the left side on the day of Qiyamat (Resurrection), so I will say: ‘Where to?’ and will be told: ‘To the Fire, by Allah!’ Then I will say: ‘O my Lord! They are my companions: Then it will be said. ‘Surely you do not know what did they do after you; verily they had gone out of Islam since the time you had departed from them: Then I will say: ‘To hell with them! To hell with them who changed after me!’ And I do not think anyone will be saved from them except (a few) like unattended cattle.”12

Ahadith of similar meaning have been narrated from the companions, Abu Bakrah13 and Abu‘d-Darda’14 .

In spite of hundreds of verses and traditions criticizing many of the companions, the Sunnis refuse to look critically at individual companions to verify whether a particular companion really deserved to be followed or not. For them, every one of them deserves to be followed.

Their method of argument runs on the following lines. They will take a verse praising some companions and then apply it to all of them without pondering on its provisos and restrictions.

For example:

Certainly Allah was pleased with the believers when they gave allegiance to you under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquility on them and reward ed them with a near Victory.15

If you ponder on this verse, you will find that it is not a blanket declaration of pleasure with all those who did bay’ah for all times to come. In other words, it does not say: Allah was pleased with those who gave allegiance to you: It restricts it to the believers and that too for a certain time, “when they gave allegiance ..:’

Clearly, those who did not do bay’ah or who were not true believers are beyond the limits of this verse. Not only that; a preceding verse puts this verse in clear perspective:

“Surely those who swear allegiance to you do but swear allegiance to Allah; the hand of Allah is above their hands. Therefore whoever breaks (this allegiance) he breaks it only to the injury of his own soul, and whoever fulfills what he has covenanted with Allah, He will grant him a mighty reward.”16

So there is another most important proviso here: Those who have done bay’ah should not break it. Why this proviso, if all the companions who had done bay’ah under the tree, were immune from breaking it?

The bay’ah under the tree was on one specific term that “they would not flee from battle ground.”17

And the Qur’an itself is the witness that almost all of them broke it in the battle of Hunayn, 2 years after the said bay’ah. Allah says:

“Certainly Allah helped you in many places, and on the day of Hunayn, when your great numbers made you vain, but they (i.e. number) availed you nothing and the earth became too small for you notwithstanding its spaciousness, then you turned back retreating.”18

The books of traditions and history clearly say that in the battle of Hunayn, in which ten thousand companions (including all those who had done bay’ah under the tree) had participated, all of them fled away except four who remained steadfast, three of them were from the Prophet’s clan, Banu Hashim (‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib and Abu Sufyan ibn al-Harith ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib) and one from another clan (‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud).19

According to other traditions, ‘Aqil ibn Abi Talib, Zubayr ibn al-’Awwam, ‘Abdullah ibn Zubayr ibn ‘Abdul-Muttalib and Usamah ibn Zayd also remained steadfast.

The Prophet (S) told his uncle, ‘Abbas to call the Muslims back. He wondered as to how his voice would reach the fleeing herd. The Prophet (S) said that Allah would cause his voice to reach them, no matter how far they might have gone. So, ‘Abbas called them in these words as the Prophet (S) had taught him: “O group of the Ansar (helpers), O People of the tree of samurah (where they had done the above mentioned bay’ah 2 years earlier)’20

By this fleeing from the battle-field, all of them (except the four or eight named above) broke their allegiance, and cannot be included in good-news of Allah’s pleasure. But the Sunnis refuse to look at these clear signs.

This is a very vast topic, but I have merely shown the basic difference in the outlooks of the Sunnis and the Shi’as.

However, we do not “wickedly revile” anyone; we only repeat what the Qur’an, the hadith and the history say. And we use the same words for each group which the Qur’an and hadith have used for them.

But let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the accusation of this unknown writer against the Shi’as is correct and that they really abuse the Shaykhayn; and then let us see if this really is a ground to declare that they are kafirs.

Ibn Taymiyyah, the Shaykhul Islam of the Wahhabis, quotes a group of Sunni scholars as follows:

“And merely abusing someone other than the Prophets does not necessarily make the abuser kafir, because some of those who were in the time of the Prophet (i.e. the companions) used to abuse one another and none of them was declared kafir because of this (practice); and (also) because it is not wajib (compulsory) to have faith particularly in any of the companions; therefore abusing any of them does not detract from the faith in Allah and His books and His messengers and the Last day.”21

Even more clear is the wording of Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari who writes in his Shrahal­ Fiqh-al-akbar:-

“To abuse Abu Bakr and ‘Umar is not kufr, as Abush-Shakur as-Salimi has correctly proved in his book, at-Tamhid. And it is because the basis of this (claim that reviling the Shaykhayn is kufr) is not proven, nor its meaning is confirmed.”

“It is so because certainly abusing a Muslim is fisq (sin, moral depravity) as is proved by a confirmed hadith, and therefore the Shaykhayn (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) will be equal to other (Muslims) in this rule; and also if we suppose that someone murdered the Shaykhayn, and even the two sons-in-law (i.e. ‘Uthman and ‘Ali), all of them together, even then according to Ahlus-sunnah wal Jama’ah, he will not go out of the Islam (i.e. will not become kafir): and we know that abusing is less serious than murder...”22

These two declarations by these giants of the Wahhabis and Hanafis respectively are more than enough to show the baselessness of this so-called proof.

Notes

1. Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani, Al-Isabah, p.10.

2. Qur’an, 9:101.

3. Qur’an, 9:38-39.

4. Qur’an, 9:25.

5. Qur’an, 8:27.

6. Qur’an, 8:5-6.

7. Qur’an, 47:38.

8. Al-Waqidi, Kitabu ’l-maghazi, vol.I, p.310.

9. Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.195; Imam Malik, Al-Muwatta, Vol. 2 p.462.

10. The verse quoted is from Surah Al-Maidah, verse 117.

11. Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Egypt ed. Vol. I. p. 235.

12. Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, p.209; Vol. 4, pp.94 and 156; Sahih Malik Vol. 7, p.66.

13. Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol. 5, p.50.

14. Majma’u ‘z-zawaid, Vol. 9, p.367.

15. Qur’an, 48:18.

16. Qur’an, 48:10.

17. Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol. 3, p.192; Tarikh Tabari, Vol.3, p.87.

18. Qur’an, 9:25.

19. Tarikh al-Khamis, Vol.2, p.113; As-Sirah al-Halabiyah, Vol.3, p.255.

20. Ibn Sa’d, At-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Beirut, n.d., Vol. 4, pp. 18-19.

21. Ibn Taymiyyah, As-Sarimu ’l-maslul, 1402/1982; p.579 (published by ‘Alama’l-kutub).

22. Mulla ‘Ali Qari, Shrahal-Fiqh-al-akbar, (1) Matha ‘Uthmaniyah, Istanbul, 1303, p.130,

(2) Matha’ Mujtaba’i, Dehli, 1348. p.86, (3) Malba’ Aftab al-Hind, India, no date, p.86

We have quoted here from 3 old editions printed in Turkey and India. Now a new edition had been printed by Darul Kutubil ‘Ilmiyah, Beirut, in 1404/1984 which claims to be “the First Edition” and from which four pages (including the above text) have been omitted. The deleted portion contains also the declaration that those who believe that Allah has a body are definitely kafir according to Ijma’ without any difference of opinion. Obviously this statement expels the Wahhabis out of Islam because they believe that Allah has a body, as described earlier.

Then 2.5 pages contain the debate whether it is permissible to do la’nah on Yazid. Mulla ‘Ali Qari has quoted some Sunni scholars as saying that Yazid became Kafir the moment he ordered the killing of Imam Husain; but he (Mulla ‘Ali Qari) himself allows only the la’nah in these words:

“May Allah curse him who killed Husain or was pleased with it.” Even this was unpalatable to the Wahhabis who call Yazid “Amiru ‘l-mu’mineen”!!

The white lie that the Beirut edition is the “First” and this Tahrrif by omission is one more proof how honest and trustworthy the Wahhabis are.

And the omission has left a sentence hanging in the air - its subject is omitted while the predicate is intact. Wahhabi scholarship indeed!!

Fatwas

The unknown writer has written some fatwas and a few forged ahadith declaring the “Rafidha” or Shi’a as Kafir.

As for these ahadith, the readers will find it interesting that no less a person than the Wahhabis’ Shaykhul Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, has stated that all the ahadith in which the word ‘Rafidha’ has been used are forged. He writes: “(Because the word Rafidhah was coined in the year 105 A.H.) therefore it is clearly understood that all ahadith in which the word “Rafidha” has been used are lies (forged).”1

Now we come to the fatwas of some Sunni or Wahhabi writers or muftis. Who has told these people that we care a damn for their views. Our Islam and Iman is linked to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala through Muhammad (S) and his progeny who are his rightful successors. Why should we care about those who are not connected with this Golden Link. We thank Allah that our pristine Islam is not polluted with these people’s paganistic beliefs.

Did the respected Companion, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari ask from ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan any testimonial for his Iman?

Did ‘Amr ibn al-Humuq al-Khuza’i and Rushayd al-Hajari need any certificate from Ibn Ziyad?

Was ‘Ammar ibn Yasir given any credential by Mu’awiyah? Did Mitham al-Tammar need any warranty from Ibn Ziyad? Was Imam Husayn in need of any testimonial from Yazid?

So why should we the Shi’as care what these followers of Mu’awiyah, Yazid and Ibn Ziyad say about us?

Our Imam ‘Ali was the “total Iman” as the Holy Prophet (S) had declared in the battle of Khandaq2 . As a result, we the Shi’as of ‘Ali are so full of Iman that if in a manner of speaking, the word “kufr “ is attributed to us, that “kufr” becomes lovely and praiseworthy in the eyes of Allah, and Allah extols its virtues. He says in the Qur’an about the believers like us:

“therefore, whoever disbelieves (yakfur) in the taghut and believes in Allah, he indeed has laid hold on the strongest handle which shall not break off...”3

We the Shi’as of ‘Ali have heeded the words of Allah when He says:

“Indeed, there is for you a good example in Ibrahim and those with him when they said to their people: Surely we dissociate from you and from what you worship other than Allah; we disbelieve in you (kafarna bikum) and enmity and hatred have appeared between us and you forever until you believe in Allah alone.”4

Following this “good example” we, the Shi’as of ‘Ali, send the same message to these self-styled muftis and their followers. If they say that we are disbelievers, let the world know that we disbelieve in these muftis, we disbelieve in their falsehood, we disbelieve in their hypocrisy and we disbelieve in their American Islam.

Notes

1. Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaju ’s-sunnah, old ed. vol. I, p. 8.

2. Arjahu ’l-matalib, pp. 219-220.

3. Qur’an, 2:256.

4. Qur’an, 60:4.