Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

A Glance At The Prevalent Sufism

As I have mentioned above, the best mysticism is the mysticism of Quran and traditions. But, as regards the prevalent Sufism, the fact is that knowledge and science of religion remained all right upto the time of the companions, but thereafter, many innovations (Bidat) entered, one of which is the mysticism adopted by Ahlul Sunnat. Ever since it entered Ahlul Sunnat circles, it created a very serious change in them.1

They deviated to such an extent that they reached almost upto the belief of Christians in the matter of metempsychosis and ‘union’ as is seen among some Sunni Sufis.2

It seems, they adopted the beliefs of Greek philosopher, Farforius.3 Now it has deviated so much in India that matters which are totally against the teachings of the Shariat of Muhammad have become prevalent among these Sufis. Today there are many Sufi teachers who have nothing to do with mendicancy and whose business runs on the falsities spread by the agents of selfish Sufis who have turned mysticism into a money-making trade thus changing monkery into self interest. None remains poor so long as fools live.

Hence cheating, deception, lying etc. have entered the deviated form of mysticism. Now they need not refrain from things prohibited by Shariat, so drugs like marijuana and ganja have become inseparable necessities for such Sufi masters. Beauty worship has become the heart of mysticism. Musical instruments like two-sided drums, sitar (Indian guitar) and singing of mystic poems are a must for being lost in a statement of mysticism. Their programs present a scene of Hindu singing parties. Even prostitutes, and singing and dancing girls participate in their programs for improving their ‘hereafter’? Hoards of dancing prostitutes are seen before living and dead mystic saints! O Allah! What kind of Islam is this, which is glaringly opposed to the Islam brought by Muhammad (S)? Hindu temples used to have (and some still have thousands of prostitutes). Now they are entering Khanqahs (Sufi dens) also.

In short, all the things, which were prohibited by the Holy Prophet (S) are made necessary for this new mysticism so willingly! Some Sufis have freed themselves from fasting and prayer too! Likewise, many necessities of this Sufism are totally against original Islam! Allah forbid! Briefly speaking, so many things are there, which have nothing to do with the ways of Allah, Prophet (S), Imams (a.s.) and Ahlul Bayt.

Research shows that such mysticism began during the time of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. The aim was to divert the attention of people from the teachings of the Holy Family, so that they might remain attached to unlawful rulers. The biggest machination for this evil purpose is Mukashifa (spiritual contemplation). There is nothing in it. Mulla Ali Qari says that it can be obtained by both Muslims and infidels.4

In short, the best mysticism, in the opinion of the writer, is to follow the teachings of Allah, His Prophet and the Holy Imams (a.s.). “The path of purity can be trod only by following the Holy Prophet (S).”5

Note that the Imamites also have Persian mysticism, but theirs is not deviated from the Persian mysticism of the Shariat of Muhammad (S) even by an inch. The Imamites also believe in Awliya (friends of Allah) but not so madly as seen among Sunni Sufis.

A number of Sufis were there among Shias also, like Sadruddin Shirazi, Abdur Razzaq Laahiji, Mulla Hasan Kaashi, Hajib Rajab Barsi and others. Quite a long list of Shia Sufis can be seen in Majalisul Mo-mineen by Qadi Nurullah Shushtari. Prominent among the listed are Shaykh Shahabuddin Suhurwardi, Najmuddin Kubra, Bayzid Bustami, Jalaluddin Rumi, Shaykh Muslehuddin Saadi Shirazi, Khwaja Hafiz Shirazi, Fariduddin Attar, Sayyid Ashrafuddin Jehangir Kachhoch, Sayyid Muinuddin Chisti Ajmeri. Many of them had to adopt dissimulation due to circumstances.

That is why Ahlul Sunnat have mistaken them to be Sunnis. There are Sufis in Shias today also. Here it seems proper to mention about Ghazzali that in the beginning he was not following any particular creed of Islam. Thereafter, he became a Hanafite and then changed to Shafei. Thereafter, he turned Sufi and at last adopted the path of Shiaism of Ahlul Bayt.

That is why his works (books) show different colors of different periods of his life. This is what usually happens to researchers as their thoughts change in the matter of religion. At last, when his research ends, he is seen in the color of the creed adopted by him after all the findings. Research shows that Ghazzali’s path before his death was that of Ahlul Bayt, that is, creed of the Imamites.

“And whom Allah guides, there is none that can lead him astray.”6

All praise to Allah. The last belief of the writer of this book has also been the Imamiyah and if Allah wills, he too will die a Shia.7

Here we end the discussion of Sufism, because this book has no more room for more discussion on this matter.

Notes

1. Ref. Chalapi, Vol. 1, Pg. 422

2. Ref. Sharh Muwaqif, Pg. 475

3. Ref. notes of Siva al Huda on the comments of Ghulam Yahya Bihari, Pg. 182.

4. Ref. Sharhe Fiqhe Akbar, Pg. 97.

5. Persian saying

6. Surah Zumar 39:37

7. This happened when he breathed his last in 1354 H.E. and attained nearness to the Holy Family.

Abu Bakr’s Leading Of Prayer

When the Holy Prophet (S) became fatally ill, a difference arose between him and his followers in two matters viz. one in the form of ‘the story of the paper’ (Qissa Qirtaas) and second in the matter of the army of Usamah as both things have been briefly narrated earlier. But it is not improper to mention here that the Prophet had become very displeased due to these matters.

The proof is that when Muslims made a request that they be allowed to have a last look at him. But in reply, according to Abul Fida, the Holy Prophet (S) sent a word that: “The trouble of my illness is less than your presence.” It appears certain that the Prophet was very much unhappy about his community at the time of his departure. What could be more displeasing than that in his last moments, he neither allowed Muslims to see him nor did he like to get any service from them?

Though historians have not given the names of those who had made such request (permission to see him at the last moment). Yet reason can tell us who such fellows could be, who had made him unhappy. Apparently, it seems that they must be those who were connected with the story of paper and Usamah’s army. A look at the last days of the Holy Prophet (S) gives a hint that had he lived for few more years, Muslims of those days might have openly disobeyed him. The political disobedience had begun when his order about joining Usamah’s army was defied. No one can say to what extent they had opposed the wish of the Prophet, but it looks very likely that the defiance would have gone increasing.

Anyway, the matter of leading prayers during the last illness of the Holy Prophet (S) is also one of the events through which Ahlul Sunnat try to justify the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. Knowledgeable people know what weightage is there in this matter. Ahlul Sunnat say that when the Prophet became too weak to go to the mosque and lead prayer, the latter did so; so this qualified him to become his successor. It is for the wise and learned people to decide whether or not leading a prayer looks disputable.

Only Ibn Khaldun says that Abu Bakr led the prayers. All others like Tabari, Asim Kufi, the author of Manaqib and Murtazavi, author of Hayatul Quloob, all differ with Ibn Khaldun on this account. The summary of what Ibn Khaldun has written is that when Abu Bakr got the order of the Prophet to lead prayers, he began to lead; that he was still leading when the Prophet felt somewhat good and he came to the Masjid; Abu Bakr intended to draw back but the Prophet caught hold of his shoulder, which made it impossible for Abu Bakr to move from his place; the Prophet sat beside Abu Bakr and completed the prayer.

This narration does not appear quite convincing, because at that time, the Prophet was so weak that he was unable to walk and therefore he was brought to the mosque with the help of two persons. It is very difficult to believe that he was thus brought only to pray behind Abu Bakr.

More unconvincing is that, despite such extreme weakness he was able to press Abu Bakr’s shoulder. The Prophet’s praying behind Abu Bakr seems more unlikely due to the fact that the latter had not obeyed the former’s command to join Usamah’s army and the command was not withdrawn. Ibn Khaldun must explain why the Prophet followed Abu Bakr in prayer? What is understood from his writing is that there was some very special reason because of which the Prophet had to come to the Masjid, taking assistance of two men and that it was not the Prophet’s longing to pray behind Abu Bakr.

Apparently, it does not seem likely that the Prophet took such trouble to follow Abu Bakr in prayer. Rather, it appears that he undertook all this hardship to prevent Abu Bakr from leading the prayer. What Tabari has written about this fully supports the view of the writer. He says: “When the Holy Prophet (S) entered the Masjid, not only the worshippers broke their intention of praying behind Abu Bakr but Abu Bakr himself discontinued his prayer.”

This shows that Abu Bakr did not get any order from the Prophet to lead prayers. Had he got such a command, why he should have discontinued the prayer? The writing of Murtazavi, author of Manaqib, supports this view. He writes, “If the order to lead prayer was issued by the Prophet, he would not have come out of his room.” This opinion is also supported by the author of Hayatul Quloob who says, “‘A’ysha prevented Abu Bakr from joining Usamah’s army because of the Prophet’s illness.”

Thereafter, this learned author writes: “When Abu Bakr went to the mosque, people asked him as to who had sent him? Bilal said: “Just wait, I will soon inquire and return.” Bilal went and met Fazl bin Abbas. Fazl asked him whether Abu Bakr did not join Usamah’s army? Thereafter, the Prophet came to know what had happened. So he also came to the mosque. Asim Kufi is also of the view of the aforementioned authors. Obviously, the statements of all these writers seem convincing and authentic. Lastly, this author is of the opinion that ‘A’ysha was guiltless regarding all allegations about prayer leading. If she had, owing to her particular interests, prevented her father from joining Usamah’s army and had sent her father to lead prayer in Masjid, she did not do anything against nature. The son is a son and man is a man, not Allah. ‘A’ysha is a mother of the faithful. It is our duty not to reduce the respect, which was given to her by the Prophet.

Regarding the leading of prayers by Abu Bakr, it is totally unreasonable and unwise to consider it his right to Caliphate. Those who do so, follow the proverb, ‘a drowning man clutches at the straw’. Even if the Prophet had asked Abu Bakr and he too followed him in prayer, how can it justify his claim to Caliphate? A look at Madarijun Nubuwwah and Muwattah1 shows that the Holy Prophet (S) had prayed behind Abdur Rahman bin Auf also. If such praying was a justification then Abdur Rahman should have preceded Abu Bakr as the Caliph.

Now the writer quotes below some traditions and comments on them:

It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari2 that as narrated by Anas bin Malik, Abu Bakr led the Morning Prayer on Monday, thinking that the Holy Prophet (S) was too weak to attend the mosque; then he (Prophet) suddenly lifted the door curtain and looked into the mosque. Abu Bakr imagined that the Holy Prophet (S) intended to come for Prayer and so he thought of leaving the line but the Prophet signaled him to continue the prayer and to conclude it. This narration thus only gives a hint that Abu Bakr led the prayer of his own. Had he done so as per the Prophet’s order, why he should have thought of leaving the prayer row?

A narration of Sahl bin Saad Saaidi, in Sahih Bukhari3 states that Abu Bakr led the Asr prayer and that the Prophet followed the former in it, but when Abu Bakr came to know that the Prophet was behind him, he intended to withdraw, but the Prophet signaled him to continue.

Just note, what is mentioned in this tradition appears to be contrary to what is written in the six canonical Sunni tradition books (Sihah Sitta) according to which, the leader (in prayer) must be more gracious than the follower (whereas in this tradition it is said that the Holy Prophet (S) followed Abu Bakr). Then how was it proper and in order? Moreover, according to this tradition, the Holy Prophet (S) corrected a mistake of Abu Bakr’s recitation. Then how could the Imam make a mistake? How strange to observe that Abu Bakr could not perform even the prayer properly; that he was unaware of the difference between the prayer of a male and a female!

And despite all this, Suyuti, quoting the Holy Prophet (S), says that Abu Bakr was, “My most learned and pure companion.” O Ali! O Ali! Verily the ignorance of those so-called scholars who, leaving aside you (Ali), say that Abu Bakr was most honorable and knowledgeable! Please also note that this tradition says that it was the Afternoon Prayer, which was led by Abu Bakr and in the earlier tradition, it was stated that it was the Morning Prayer! The tradition written in Nasai4 is similar to that of Sahih Bukhari.

It is seen in Sahih Bukhari5 that ‘A’ysha says that when the Holy Prophet (S) said during his last illness: “Ask Abu Bakr to lead the prayer, I said that Abu Bakr is very soft-hearted and hence he will not be able to recite properly due to grief, so please ask Umar to lead the prayer.” Then ‘A’ysha asked Hafasa to advise the Holy Prophet (S) in this matter and she did so. But the Holy Prophet (S) replied: “In the matter of talking and insistence, you are like the women of Yusuf. Just tell Abu Bakr to lead the prayer.”

Now, please note that the narrator of this tradition is only ‘A’ysha and none else, which also is very strange. It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari6 that ‘A’ysha said that she was very often requesting the Holy Prophet (S) to make her father the former’s successor. This tradition gives a clear idea of the intention of ‘A’ysha. So, the above narration about his prayer appears far from reason.

It must be noted that there is much difference about the time of the prayer, which is said to have been led by Abu Bakr. Seeratul Halabiyah7 and Tarikh Khamis8 mention that it was Night (Isha) Prayer. Also remember that Bukhari mentions many conflicting statements.

Some say that the Holy Prophet (S) followed Abu Bakr and some say he did not. One says, Abu Bakr followed the Holy Prophet (S) and another says the congregation followed Abu Bakr. Thus, two Imams and two follower groups have been mentioned. Then there is a difference in the day of the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) too.

Most mention Monday, but a tradition of Sahih Bukhari says it was Tuesday. According to a narration of Sahih Bukhari, the time of the Holy Prophet’s departure was at night but Sahih Tirmidhi says it was noontime! Again, one of the narrations of ‘A’ysha (in Sahih Bukhari) states that the Prophet, due to serious illness, performed prayer in his room, not in the mosque, and followers followed him in it. This renders the matter of the Prophet’s following the prayer of Abu Bakr meaningless. In short, the statements of Sahih Bukhari themselves are full of contradictions.

Now look at Pg. 285 in Vol. 2 of Sunan Abu Dawood. Abdullah bin Zama is reported to have said that the Prophet said: “Ask someone to lead the Prayer.” So Abdullah went to the people and saw Umar there, while Abu Bakr was not there. Abdullah asked Umar to lead the Prayer, so Umar led the prayer. When the Prophet heard Umar’s harsh tone, the former asked where was Abu Bakr? Abu Bakr came after Umar concluded the prayer. He led the prayer afresh. How strange is the narration that first the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Ask anyone to lead,” but when Umar led, Abu Bakr was called and so he led the prayer!

Anyhow, this tradition of Tirmidhi9 narrated by Salim shows that the Prophet ordered Abu Bakr to lead the prayer but at that time the condition of the former was very serious; that he was almost fainting. Abu Bakr led the prayer, but the Prophet could not join the congregation and expired. It is mentioned in Qastalani10 that Abu Bakr and Umar were not present near the Prophet at that time, but had left Medina with Usamah’s army. What is then the meaning of Abu Bakr or Umar leading that prayer?

On the other hand, Kitabul Maghazi11 shows that the Holy Prophet (S) asked the people to tell Umar to lead the prayer. So they went to Umar and said: “The Prophet wants you to lead the prayer.” Umar replied: “It is not possible for me do so in the presence of Abu Bakr.” Then Bilal went back to the Prophet and reported Umar’s reply and also told that Abu Bakr was standing at the door. The Prophet said: “All right, whatever be their opinion. Tell Abu Bakr to lead the Prayer.” So Abu Bakr led the Prayer for eight days. Obviously, this narration too does not fall in line with that of Abu Dawood (Ref. above). In short, there are contradiction and difference in the above narrations and they are:

(1) In one narration, the day on which Abu Bakr led prayer is Monday and in another, Tuesday.

(2) In some, the time of prayers is reported to be morning, in another noon and in yet another, night.

(3) Some say Abu Bakr followed and some say the Holy Prophet (S) followed.

(4) In one report, Abu Bakr led the prayer with the permission of the Prophet and in another, it was without his permission.

(5) In some, it is mentioned that Umar led the prayer.

(6) There is difference in the position of standing and sitting of the leader who led the prayer.

(7) The place of prayer is also not the same. In some, it is said that it was held in the room and as per another, it was in the Masjid.

(8) One narration shows that the Holy Prophet (S) attended the mosque taking help of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and Abbas due to his weakness. Now, when the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr to lead, why should he have gone to the mosque?

(9) Some narrations mention that Abu Bakr led the Prayer without the Prophet’s permission. Only one narration, which is of ‘A’ysha, says that it was done with his permission; but this tradition does not appear to be true because ‘A’ysha always wanted her father to become the Caliph, as has been shown above through her own word.

It is really very strange that only one person i.e. ‘A’ysha has reported about the permission and no one else at all said so, though it was a congregational prayer and owing to the Prophet’s illness, most near and dear ones and the companions used to remain with him during those days. At least someone of them should have said what ‘A’ysha has said. In such circumstances, how can a solitary report be accepted, and that too of such a kind?

(10) The Holy Prophet (S) has said that the standing and sitting of the one performing prayer depends on the standing and sitting of the leader (Imam). Now when the Prophet leads the prayer sitting and the followers could not sit because of the standing of Abu Bakr, what kind of prayer was it? Qastalani has also raised this objection quite properly.

(11) Most biographers have mentioned that the two Caliphs were made to go with Usamah’s army, as has also been mentioned by Qastalani, then what about the reports regarding their leading prayers?

(12) In one narration, it is said that Abdullah bin Umar led the prayer and was ousted. Some say that Abu Bakr led the prayer with the Prophet’s permission and the Prophet came to the mosque. Yet another tradition says that the Prophet made Abu Bakr stand behind him. Another narration says Abu Bakr became the reciter of Allaahu Akbar (Takbeer). Another reports says that he stood silently aside. In short, is it the matter of Abu Bakr’s leadership or a lawless exercise?

The only aim of all this is that the Caliphate assumed by Abu Bakr be regarded as legal, proper and just. But when the Prophet had also followed Abdur Rahman bin Auf in Prayer, what was the fault of the latter that he was deprived of Caliphate?

It is also very strange that according to Ahlul Sunnat the matter of leading a prayer and leading a society has no importance as any good or evil man can get it. They write “offer prayer behind any man, good or bad.” So even if it is accepted that Abu Bakr led the prayer or the Prophet made him lead or he followed himself; what is graceful in it? As per their opinion, any good or bad person can lead the prayer and thus leading is no proof of somebody’s honor or prestige.

But we have said that this happening is surprising because, in it either leadership of prayer could not prove nobility or the same leadership turned into a justification for holding the high office of the Caliph! Very puzzling indeed!

Notes

1. Pg. 12

2. Vol. 6, Pg. 38

3. Vol. 10, Pg. 206

4. Vol. 1, Pg. 234

5. Vol. 10, Pg. 257 and Vol. 2, Pg. 37, 38, 39.

6. Vol. 6, Pg. 379

7. Vol. 3, Pg. 459

8. Vol. 2, Pg. 163

9. Pg. 31

10. Pg. 358, Vol. 6

11. Vol. 1, Pg. 17

Descendants Of Ahlul Bayt (Sadaat) Were Slave Children

The reason for writing this is that one of my mentors, who is a manager of a landowner (Zamindar) and has a discerning eye as far as books are concerned, said to me one day that the Caliphate of the three Caliphs was acceptable to the family of the Prophet, so there could not be any doubt regarding the validity of that Caliphate. If it had not been so, Ali (a.s.) would not have shared the war booty in the way he did. He would not have taken Lady Shaharbano as a slave girl. This was not a new opinion of the manager.

Generally, people think on the same lines. That when Lady Shaharbano came as a prisoner of war, and because there was no need to perform marriage before having sexual relationship with slave girls, she remained under the charge of Imam Husayn (a.s.). In such circumstances, it is obvious that the children born to her, and till the present age, whatever of her progeny is present; all of them are continuous descendants. This proves that the family of the Prophet used to share the war booty from the wars undertaken by the three Caliphs. It also proves that the Caliphate of the three Caliphs had the approval of the Prophet’s family, thus their Caliphate was valid. If on the contrary they had considered their Caliphate invalid, they would not have shared the war booty.

It should be clear that the followers of Ali (a.s.) certainly believe that the Caliphate of the three Caliphs is not valid. But along with this, it is not the belief of this sect that all Islamic activities that took place during the tenure of these three Caliphs should be considered illegal. Rather, whatever activities were legal should be considered legal and whatever was illegal should be seen as illegal. For example, if a mosque was constructed during the reign of a Caliph, it could not be labeled illegal or if during the time of Caliph, some territories were annexed or booty obtained, it cannot be called illegitimate.

In the same way, there are many legal things that could be performed by an illegal Caliph. But since they are not illegal according to Islam, the followers of Ali (a.s.) could not deny their legality. On the basis of this principle, the sharing of booty by Ali (a.s.) was not against any law of Islam. Such action of Ali (a.s.) does not prove that Ali (a.s.) used to consider these Caliphates lawful. His considering the Caliphates illegal was right and his sharing the booty was also correct.

It is worth noting that when Ali (a.s.) came to the Caliphate seat, at that time many territories that were hitherto infidels had entered the dominion of Islam. After becoming the Caliph, he continued to retain these territories in his Caliphate. He indeed did not say that these territories were conquered during the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, so now they should be returned to their original rulers. And that only those territories shall be retained that were in the Islamic kingdom at the time of the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S).

The writer said by way of example to the manager: “Suppose you were to usurp all the property of your master and for a long time you have everything under your control. During this time you carry out many developments activities, like the digging of canals and building courts etc. You also purchase new properties and add them to the existing estate. But after a long time, the original owner is able to wrest control of his property from your hands. In such circumstances, would he be bound by law or common sense to demolish all the constructions that you had carried out? No sensible person will act in this way. Though you had illegally occupied the estate, your suitable activities could not be considered unlawful. Try to apply this example to the usurpation of Caliphate and the booty obtained during that period.”

Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan Bahadur has proved that the Holy Prophet (S) was not a slave child. His ancestor, Ismail (a.s.) was not the son of a slave girl. Hajra was not a slave girl, she was a princess. Now this writer would prove that the mother of the fourth Imam, Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.), was the proper married wife of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and not a slave girl. It is a pity that people who want to prove the legality of the three Caliphs are absolutely blind to other things.

Whether the eloquence of Holy Quran is rendered useless or not, where the laws of Quran are trampled upon, whether the Prophet (a.s.) is insulted, the Caliphate of the three Caliphs must be proved valid in any case. What type of an attitude is it? Who is preventing you to prove the legality of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs? But in the path of research, it does not befit a research scholar to include inequitable and irrelevant elements.

The view presented by the opponents not only proves that Allah forbid, Imam Zainul Aabideen was the son a slave girl, but it also alleges that, God forbid, he was illegitimate! The manager was having a similar view, but he was very surprised when I told him that even if the Caliphate of the three Caliphs was illegal, the relationship of Imam Husayn (a.s.) with Lady Shaharbano could not be considered illegal. She was not betrothed to Imam Husayn (a.s.) as a slave girl. It should be clear that there is difference of opinion regarding the period when Shaharbano is reported to have come to Medina as a slave girl.

Shaykh Mufid (a.r.) says that she came during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.), Shaykh Ibn Babawayh says she came during the Caliphate of Uthman and Qutub Rawandi says she came during Umar’s Caliphate. Whatever may be the period of her arrival, the allegation of the opponents is not proved true in any case. The sharing of war booty by Ali (a.s.) cannot be said to be illegal as we have stated above. Their sharing of the booty does not prove that they had approved the Caliphate of the three Caliphs. The research of this humble slave says that just as Shaykh Mufid (a.r.) has written, Lady Shaharbano came to Medina during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.).

The Shaykh says, “After the Chief of the Martyrs, Imam Husayn (a.s.), the next Guide is the Chief of Prostrators, Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) His mother was Shahezanaan, the daughter of King Yezdgird, son of Shahryar, son of Choesroe. Some say that her name was Shaharbano. Ali (a.s.) had appointed Harith bin Jabir Juhfi as the Governor on some Eastern province. He took two daughters of Choesroe as prisoners and sent them to Ali (a.s.). Ali (a.s.) gave Shaharbano to Imam Husayn (a.s.) and the other one to Muhammad bin Abi Bakr.

Lady Shaharbano gave birth to Imam Zainul Aabideen and the other girl gave birth to Qasim Ibn Muhammad. Maulavi Sayyid Shah Muhammad Kabir Danapuri (r.a.) has certified the research of Shaykh Mufid (a.r.). The Shah writes in his well known book, Tazkeratul Kiraam, Tarikh Khilafa Arabo Islam1 that the above incident took place during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.).

It should be clear that this book was based on various English and Persian books and published by Naval Kishore Press. The writer was a great scholar of the Sufi School. When the writings of Shaykh Mufid and the Shah prove that Shaharbano had come to Medina during the tenure of Ali (a.s.), any doubt contrary to this cannot be entertained.

Just as all activities of the time of Ali (a.s.) are considered valid, the union of Shaharbano with Imam Husayn (a.s.) shall also be considered valid. The objection of the manager in this regard does not hold any water. Now the writer also intends to prove that Shaharbano was properly married to Imam Husayn (a.s.) through Islamic marriage (Nikah). She was not joined to him as a slave girl obtained in a battle.

The same Shah has also written that Ali (a.s.) had appointed Harith bin Jabir Juhfi over some cities of Khorasan and he took three daughters of Yezdgird as prisoners: The three were Meherbano, Mahbano and Shaharbano. He sent them all to Ali (a.s.) and said that they were daughters of a king and they should be given to respectable people. Thus, Meherbano was given as a wife to Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, Mahbano to Abdullah Ibn Umar and Shaharbano to the Chief of the Martyrs, Imam Husayn (a.s.), who gave birth to Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.).

This proves that Shaharbano was the legally wedded wife of Imam Husayn (a.s.). The word of ‘wifehood’ used by the Shah proves this. Shia books also prove that the Shaharbano’s marriage took place with Imam Husayn (a.s.) and by the order of Ali (a.s.), the Nikah sermon was recited by Huzaifah.

Thus, the above discussion proves that the sharing of war booty by Ali (a.s.) could not be blamed and that the relationship of Imam Husayn (a.s.) with Shaharbano was based on proper Nikah due to which Imam Zainul Aabideen Ali (a.s.) is safe from the label of “slave-child.”

Here, it is worth mentioning that according to the directions of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), whatever booty is obtained through wars conducted without the permission of the Imam of the time, belong to the Imam of the time. Therefore, all the booty obtained during the time of the Caliphs actually belonged to Ali (a.s.). Thus, whatever Ali (a.s.) got from the booty was already his rightful property and others are responsible for whatever they had taken.

Apart from this, most of the time, Jihad was undertaken only after consultation with Ali (a.s.) and the correctness of Jihad is not a certificate for the validity of Caliphate. The fact is that Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) is a prince from both his parents. His paternal lineage goes to Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (S) and Ali (a.s.), this is his religious princehood. His maternal lineage goes to Nausherwan Aadil, which is his worldly princehood. What can be said about Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.)? Only that will see him lowly who has been blind in the past and is still blind. May Allah bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

In the end, it is necessary to say that the writer, by writing all this, does not desire to hurt any person or sect. As far as possible, the writer relates the relevant incidents and always quotes only the authentic facts. Even then in a gathering some people said that this writer, writes the praises of some religious leaders. Now he will be dealt in the same manner as that particular writer of Patna was dealt with.

By Allah! Such dealing will not only be a favor on me, it will be salvation. The opponents of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) may be pleased to deal with me as they please, as it is proved that Lady Fatima Zahra, Ali (a.s.), Imams Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) are already wrongly criticized by the opponents. I am a slave of their slaves. It would be my fortune to suffer just as they had suffered. I would consider the suffering as a certificate for being a slave of their slaves. Indeed, I have no fear of persecution. When such great masters of mine were persecuted, how can I worry about my humble self? I am the one who keeps in mind the following verse:

“Say I do not demand of you recompense, except the love of the near kindred.”2

Obviously, one who keeps this in mind cannot have any fear of persecution. It is astounding that opponents of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) have always ignored this verse. And leave alone the love of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), they did not even have the slightest respect for them. The above writings have proved how the opponents persecuted and insulted the family of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

In order to maintain brevity and regard for the people of the time, the writer has hardly written anything about their behavior towards Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). If the writer had written in detail, this book would have been many times its size. The fact is that whatever ill-treatment was initiated from the time of the Prophet’s mortal illness, is still continuing. If all their calamitous circumstances were written, they would form a bulky book. Even today the world is not empty of opposition to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Though Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) themselves are not apparent, the opponents are bent upon persecuting the followers of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

Notes

1. Part III, Pg. 355

2. Surah Shura 42:23

Islam and the Two Caliphs

There was no need to write on this topic, but the writer encountered such a problem that he had to write it. I have a mentor who is a Sayyid by birth and a Sufi by faith. He is always organizing functions on birthdays of the Infallibles (a.s.) and mourning ceremonies (Majalis) and he invites both Ahlul Sunnat and Shias in these programs.

One day I was at his residence on the occasion of a birthday. There, I saw a poet of the new generation, who had recently earned great fame and people used to gather in large numbers to hear his recitations. That is why there was extraordinary crowd on that day. The reciter gave a great performance. When he finished the poetry part, he began to give a speech. He had learnt that I was not from Ahlul Sunnat. This information caused him great discomfort. On the basis of the enmity that he harbored against my ancestors, he began to say in his speech:

“Abu Bakr and Umar were of perfect faith while the faith of Ali (a.s.) was imperfect (Allah forbid!), etc. What did Ahlul Sunnat have to stop of him from such nonsense? They all continued to hear it and he went on speaking this rubbish. Anyway, that speech ended, but below I present a detailed classification of the faiths of the two Caliphs and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

Regarding Abu Bakr, I would like to say that if he really had perfect faith, he would not have abandoned the Holy Prophet (S) and fled from the battles of Uhud and Hunayn. One with a perfect faith cannot act in this way. Anyone with perfect faith would not hesitate to sacrifice his life in the way of Allah. The way Abu Bakr left and ran away is not expected even from an ordinary friend.

As far as I know, no respectable person will run away leaving his friend in danger. It is most shameful for a man, what type of a Muslim behavior is it? That a person goes for Jihad, but when there are difficult times, he leaves the Prophet in a lurch and disappears from the battlefield. What type of a ‘perfect faith’ is it?

A Muslim cannot act in this manner. The flight of Abu Bakr shows that his faith was not even like that of an ordinary Muslim. He ran away from Marhab and Harith during the battle of Khaybar for two days. Common sense tells us that the faith of such a person is not perfect. Where was he hiding in Medina during the Battle of Ditch is best known to himself or his friend, Umar. He did not even see the face of Amr Ibn Abde Wudd. Are these incidents insufficient to prove the defective faith of Abu Bakr? Certainly not! A person with a perfect faith will never abandon the Prophet to save his own skin; and it seems improper to call such a person a Muslim, who has always avoided Jihad. How can he be considered a Caliph of the Prophet? These were practical examples of Abu Bakr’s defective faith.

Now, I will show from his sayings that if Islam had any place in his heart, he would not have acted like that in the Battle of Uhud and he would not have uttered: “Muhammad has been killed, you all turn back on your religion.” The readers may refer to the above writing of the author and they will know the facts about the above statement. One who can say such a thing, cannot have perfect faith. The Almighty Allah has also refuted this statement. Allah says:

“And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; the apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least…”1

It is very surprising that Allah is so emphatically prohibiting people to turn back to Ignorance (Jahiliya) and Abu Bakr is doing the opposite and exhorting Muslims to return to it. Indeed, this shows that Islam had not wholly occupied the heart of Abu Bakr, due to which he did not have perfect faith. The military activities of Umar are the same as that of Abu Bakr. Their flights from battlefields are equally recorded. With these conditions, how can anyone call them perfect believers? He also seems to have defective faith, like Abu Bakr.

Apart from written records, his saying at the treaty of Hudaibiya is: “I never had such doubt on Prophethood as I had today.” This sufficiently proves that he always had doubts regarding the prophethood of the Prophet, but at the allegiance of Hudaibiya, it was intensified.

This doubt shows that like Abu Bakr, leave alone perfect faith, he had no sort of faith worth praise. It is surprising that in the battles, where Abu Bakr and Umar took to heels, Ali (a.s.) was seen to be performing extraordinary feats of bravery. Apart from this, Ali (a.s.) never uttered a sentence that could show any type of weakness of faith. He was verbally and practically always the follower of the Messenger of Allah (S). He never did anything against the command of the Prophet. He was an exemplar of perfect faith. On the basis of his words and actions, he had absolute right of the successorship of the Prophet. The fact is that he remained steadfast in every military encounter.

Not only was he steadfast, he was instrumental in the victory of every battle. He never left the side of the Prophet. He always defended the Messenger of Allah (S) from the enemies of religion. He did not allow the slightest cowardice to come near him. Then on the basis of his achievement, the Prophet twice said: “All the good deeds of the creatures, past, present and future cannot equal the military exploits of Ali (a.s.).”

In such circumstances, no one can have any doubt about the perfection of his faith. Rather, it could be said with justice that there would never be anyone with such perfect faith as that of Ali (a.s.). What a pity that the opponents have labeled the faith of Ali (a.s.) to be defective and that of the two Caliphs as perfect. The fact is that bigotry blinds man and a bigot cannot see the truth.

Note

1. Surah Aale Imran 3:144

The Verse Of Surah Noor Discussed

“Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them rulers in the earth as He made rulers those before them, and that He will most certainly establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them, and that He will most certainly, after their fear, give them security in exchange: they shall serve Me, not associating ought with Me; and whoever is ungrateful after this, these it is who are the transgressors.”1

The Ahlul Sunnat say that the above verse proves the validity of the Righteous Caliphs or the Caliphate of the three Caliphs. However, no word of this verse indicates that it is in any way restricted to the Caliphs. Here, Allah has clearly promised the believers and good doers, Caliphate. That Allah will make some of them rulers in the land just as He had made rulers before them. This address of Allah is for all the believers, as clear from Tafseer Zahidi:

“And it is not restricted to the three Caliphs. Neither is it restricted to any particular time period. It is a promise that applies to all the believers from the time of the Holy Prophet (S) till the present time.”

It is a verse that followers of the three Caliphs can apply to their Caliphs, the Bani Umayyah can apply to their rulers, the Bani Abbas can pull it towards their Caliphate, the Bani Hashim can say it is a promise of their Caliphate. In these circumstances, it is obstinacy to restrict it to the Caliphate of the three Caliphs. If this verse proves the validity of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar would have used it to prove their stand in Saqifah. But they did not do so.

This shows that this verse was not considered a proof during the Caliphate of Umar and Abu Bakr. Leave alone that period, this verse has never been presented as proof in the subsequent period. Such illogical interpretations were invented much later to prove the validity of Caliphate.

It is a verse that followers of the three Caliphs can apply to their Caliphs, the Bani Umayyah can apply to their rulers, the Bani Abbas can pull it towards their Caliphate, the Bani Hashim can say it is a promise of their Caliphate. In these circumstances, it is obstinacy to restrict it to the Caliphate of the three Caliphs.

If this verse proves the validity of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar would have used it to prove their stand in Saqifah. But they did not do so.

This shows that this verse was not considered a proof during the Caliphate of Umar and Abu Bakr. Leave alone that period, this verse has never been presented as proof in the subsequent period. Such illogical interpretations were invented much later to prove the validity of Caliphate.

Though the above verse does not prove the Caliphate of three Caliphs, a tradition of the Prophet (S) indicates that this verse is applicable to the family of the Prophet (S).

Muhaddith Mir Jamaluddin Husaini quotes this tradition in Rauzatul Ahbab. Jabir Ibne Abdullah Ansari (r.a.) relates that when the verse: “O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those in authority from among you…”…was revealed, I asked the Messenger of Allah (s.a.): I have recognized Allah and the Apostle, but who are ‘those in authority’ whose obedience has been made compulsory by Allah?

The Messenger of Allah (S) said: ‘They are my Caliphs after me, the first of whom is Ali Ibne Abi Talib, then Hasan, then Husain, then Ali the son of Husain, then Muhammad the son of Ali, known in the Taurat as al-Baqir, and you will soon reach him, when you meet him, convey my salutations to him. Then Sadiq, Ja’far, the son of Muhammad, then Moosa, the son of Ja’far, then Ali, the son of Moosa, then Muhammad, the son of Ali, then Ali, the son of Muhammad, then Hasan, the son of Ali, then the proof of Allah on His earth.’”

This book, Rauzatul Ahbab is such that Shah Waliullah Dehlavi has praised it in his journal, ‘Usoole Hadith’. We should know that the twelve Imams are such that they are clearly mentioned in Taurat. The Almighty Allah says in the Book of Genesis:

“As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.”2

Apart from this, the above tradition also shows that Imam Muhammad Ibn Ali is mentioned as ‘Baqir’ in the Taurat. It is not surprising that the verse “Allah promises those…” mentions Caliphate in relation to the twelve Imams, who the Prophet has said were his Caliphs in his saying to Jabir. In fact, who can be more deserving of the Caliphate of the Prophet?

Even though they could not achieve worldly kingdom, due to the lack of support from Muslims, but their religious authority had always been there and it will be till there is Islam. Obviously, what is the value of a worldly kingdom? Even Nimrod, Shaddad, Firon, Muawiyah and Yazeed had it, and of what use was it? Can the verse apply to such people? Certainly not! Indeed, what is worthy, is religious Caliphate and as per the saying of the Holy Prophet (S), it is the right of the twelve Imams (a.s.).

May Allah bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

Notes

1. Surah Noor 24:55

2. Genesis 17:20

Analysis Of The Tradition, “My Companions Are Like Stars; You Will Be Guided, If You Follow Any Of Them.”

The above tradition is fabricated. Ibn Taymiyyah says that it is weak.1 Bazzaz says that this tradition quoted from the Holy Prophet (S) is inauthentic and it is not found in any authentic book of traditions. In the same way, Ibn Kuram says in his journal Kubra, that this tradition is invalid and false. Ahmad Wamzi Zahabi, Wathqi and Abul Hujjaj have all said similar things about this tradition. Maulavi Abdul Ali Bahrul Uloom writes in Sharhe Muslim and Mulla

Nizamuddin, his father, in Subhe Sadiq Sharhe Manar consider it invalid and false.

Abdul Hai Lakhnavi also writes in his book, Tohfatul Akhyar, that this tradition is concocted and he does not consider it correct at all. Briefly, we say that this tradition is not at all the saying of the Holy Prophet (S). When it is so, why Ahlul Sunnat people are so much in love with this tradition? Apparently, it is so, because Ahlul Sunnat find their water bags tied to the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Thaqlayn).

Thus, what could they do if not to consider this tradition consoling. It is an ancient saying that the drowning man clutches at the straw. Obviously, this act of theirs is an open attribution of falsehood to the Messenger of Allah (S).

But they could not see anything in their blind love of the three Caliphs. That is why they close their eyes from the falsification of the captioned tradition. May Allah give good sense to all His servants. Amen. A poet has penned a beautiful couplet in this connection:

“If all the companions be like stars; some stars are of ill omen.”

Note

1. Ref. Minhaj