Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Existence Of Mahdi, Master Of The Age

It should be clear that Jews once had a belief and they still have, that one day the Messiah, the Promised one will appear in the world. When Jesus came, the Jews did not accept him as the Promised Messiah and they were inimical towards him to such an extent that they did not leave any stone unturned to kill him. The Jews are still awaiting the Promised Messiah.

The Christians are also awaiting the return of Jesus. Muslims also share this belief. The difference is that Muslims are waiting for the return of Jesus after reappearance of Imam Mahdi (a.j.). It is proved from the books of both the sects that the Twelfth Imam (a.s.) has already taken birth. He is the last of the twelve Imams and is from the progeny of the Lady of Paradise [Fatima Zahra (s.a.)]. His respected father is Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.), son of Imam Ali Naqi (a.s.), son of Imam Muhammad Taqi, son of Imam Ali Reza, son of Imam Moosa Kazim, son of Imam Ja’far Sadiq, son of Imam Muhammad Baqir, son of Imam Zainul Aabideen Ali Ibnul Husayn, son of Ali al-Murtadha’ [Peace be on them all].1

The name of his honorable mother is Narjis Khatoon. However, Mulla Abdul Rahman Jarri’s book Shawahidun Nubuwwah2 indicates that the name of that lady was Saiqal, and some have also mentioned it as Susan. His name is the same as the Holy Prophet (S).

Tarikh of Ibn Khallikan mentions3 that he was born on Friday, in the middle of the month of Shaban. And when his father, Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) passed away, he was only five years old. Ibn Arzak says that he was born on the 9th of Rabiul Awwal, 258 A.H. and it is also said that his date of birth was 8th Shaban and the year of the birth was 256 A.H. (Some over intelligent people had derived from numerology that the equivalent of the Arabic letter ‘noon’ (N) is 256.

In the view of this writer, the conclusion of Ibn Khallikan seems to be correct and most historians of that time have agreed that the date of his birth was 15th Shaban. In the same way, when he disappeared after entering the cellar, he was five years old, while some have said that he was four years.

It is also mentioned that his disappearance into the cellar was in 275 A.H. At that time his age was 17 years (The fact is that the Minor Occultation occurred at the age of five years.). Abdul Wahhab Sherani says that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is the son of Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). He was born in the middle of Shaban. He is alive and present in the world. His birth is also mentioned in Sunan Abi Dawood and Sawaiqul Mohreqa.

Shaykh Muhiyuddin says in Al-Futoohat that the reappearance of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is certain, but not until the world is filled with injustice and oppression.

And when that Imam appears, he will fill the earth with justice and equity just as it would have been full of injustice and oppression. He is the descendant of the Holy Prophet (S) and from the progeny of Fatima Zahra (s.a.). Shaykh Imam Bakhsh Nasikh Lakhnavi says in a poem (Ghazal):

“Show us, O Lord! About whose advent there is clamor in the world My Lord! I am very desirous to view Muhammad. Show us now the spring of the Religion of Muhammad (S). The bubble of the heart is in anticipation of the spring of the flower.”

Notes

1. Ref. Isafur Raghebeen, Pg. 140

2. Pg. 247

3. Pg. 24 of Vol. 2

Lineage Of Imam Mahdi

Only one Muslim sect believes that he is not yet born and that he would be born in the future. It is clear from the books of both the sects that he has already taken birth and after sometime he went into occultation. He would reappear in the last age and lead Prophet Isa (a.s.) in prayers. There is no difference between the sects so far, but from here begins a falsification process by the Hanafite scholars. It is written in Durre Mukhtar that on his return, Isa (a.s.) will emulate (do Taqlid) of Abu Hanifah. It is a strange belief.

Anyway, Maulana Abdul Hai Lakhnavi presents its refutation in the preface of that book itself: “It is a matter unsupported by arguments.” In the same way, Suyuti has said that the prophecy that Isa (a.s.) will follow the four schools of thoughts is baseless. And how can it be possible that a prophet should follow a jurisprudent (Mujtahid)? Rather, he will act on the religion of Muhammad in conformity with the Shariah and Quran.

Mulla Ali Qari has also said that one of the stupid innovation of Hanafite scholars is that Khizr studied under Abu Hanifah for thirty years, first when he was alive and at his grave after he died. Mulla Ali Qari says that Khizr is the person regarding whom the Almighty has said in Surah Kahf that he had Divinely bestowed Knowledge (Ilme Ladunni). He had been a teacher of Moosa (a.s.). How can such a personality be a disciple of Abu Hanifah? And it is also false that Isa (a.s.) will descend and follow Abu Hanifah in religious law. Mulla Ali Qari says that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is himself a jurisprudent, it is not permitted for him to emulate anyone.

Muhiyuddin Ibn Arabi has said that analogy is prohibited for the Imam of the Age (a.j.). Whatever he would command, would be on the basis of whatever the divinely appointed angels guide him to. In no case can it be allowed for him to emulate Abu Hanifah. Now there remains no need for me to refute such baseless claims of Hanafite scholars. I have been saved the trouble by the writings of Abdul Hai. But the people of justice may note how bigoted the Hanafite scholars are! They say whatever they like in praise of Abu Hanifah. How beautifully they raise the status of their ‘Imam’. O Hanafite brothers! Remember that following the truth is a great thing indeed. No one can remain a Muslim, if he does not follow the path of truth. I request my Hanafite brothers not to become blind to truth in their love for their ‘Imam’.

The following are the beliefs of Ahlul Sunnat with regard to the reappearance of Imam Mahdi (a.j.), and along with them are presented the objections of Shias against the concocted beliefs:

1. Ahlul Sunnat believe that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is the divine Caliph appointed by the Almighty.1 The text is as follows: “The Almighty appointed the Qaim, a rightful Caliph.” This tradition is related by Abi Dawood. Then is the report of Ahmad in the same book. He will be the Caliph in the last age. Then Ali (a.s.) is reported to have said as mentioned on page 233 of Sunan Abi Dawood:

The Prophet’s saying is that: “Allah will send a man from my Ahlul Bayt who would fill the earth with justice, just as it is filled with inequity.”

The objection applicable to this belief is that according to Ahlul Sunnat, Caliphate depends on consensus and allegiance but there is no consensus of scholars and leaders for Imam Mahdi (a.j.). Thus, how can his Caliphate be correct from the principles of Ahlul Sunnat? The second objection is that according to Ahlul Sunnat, appointing of the Caliph and the Imam is obligatory on people and not on Allah. But the text of Sunan Abi Dawood says:

“Allah appointed Qaim as the rightful Caliph…”

This shows that Allah has considered the appointment of Caliph and Imam obligatory on Himself and not on the people. Thus, we realize that the appointment of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) was by the will of Allah and not by the selection of people. In such circumstances, the application of consensus and allegiance, for Caliphate is invalid.

2. If, according to Ahlul Sunnat, Caliphate and Imamate of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is from Allah, why the Imamate of other Imams could not be from Allah? How can the Imamate of the 12th Imam be considered divinely appointed and the Imamate of the other eleven Imams from Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.) to Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) be considered the opposite? It is no secret that Shias follow only one principle. That is just as they consider the appointment of eleven Imams to be from Allah, the Imamate of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is also considered to be from Allah.

Now we realize why Ahlul Sunnat believe in the opposite. It is so because by believing in the divine appointment of the eleven Imams (a.s.), the Caliphate of the three Caliphs would be rendered invalid.

3. According to most Sunni scholars, Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is the twelfth Imam. But the list of the Twelve Imams of Ahlul Sunnat includes the Caliphs of Bani Abbas and Bani Umayyah. Thus, there is no option but to make Imam Mahdi (a.j.) as the thirteenth Imam! Then how can Ahlul Sunnat say that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is the twelfth Imam?

4. Some Ahlul Sunnat traditionists have believed Mahdi the Abbasid to be the promised Mahdi. But when did Isa (a.s.) pray behind Mahdi, the Abbasid, or followed him in any way?

5. The following tradition of Umar is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: “The Messenger of Allah (S) did not have a Caliph.” But regarding Imam Mahdi (a.j.), often we see the word of Caliph. How can we relate this to the tradition of Umar?

6. According to Ahlul Sunnat, prophets are superior to the Holy Imams; then the prayer of Isa (a.s.) behind Imam Mahdi (a.j.) would be invalid.

7. If Isa (a.s.) prays behind Imam Mahdi (a.j.), it would imply that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is superior to Isa (a.s.). But Ahlul Sunnat believe that the three Caliphs are not superior to Isa (a.s.). Then it is necessary that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is superior or more than superior to the three Caliphs. But Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.) is superior to Imam Mahdi (a.j.). Then, it is obvious that Ali (a.s.) should be much more superior to the three Caliphs. But according to the belief of Ahlul Sunnat, Ali (a.s.) is considered inferior to the three Caliphs. What enigma is this? Ahlul Sunnat may themselves sort it out!

The fact is that many things of Ahlul Sunnat defy logic. And the specialty of their belief is that they include the progeny of Abbas in Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet. But from the aspect of the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Thaqalayn), it is necessary to remain attached to the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Therefore, all Abbasids have to be obeyed obligatorily in affairs of religion.

In such circumstances, why do Ahlul Sunnat follow the four Imams: Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafei and Hanbal? They should follow the religion of Motasim, Mutawakkil, Haroon and Mamoon, most whom where Motazalite. Why do Ahlul Sunnat not follow the Motazalite school of thought? It is indeed true that once you follow a false principle, you will have to face thousands of invalid and concocted principles.

The writer actually wanted to end the discussion with the controversial points between the two sects, but here it seems necessary to discuss the following additional controversial matters between the two sects. The humble writer pleads the people of justice to read them with utmost attention.

Note

1. Ref. Sawaiqul Mohreqa, Pg. 114.

Some Important Topics: Abdullah Ibn Saba And Shiaism

Ahlul Sunnat say that the founder of Shia religion, is Abdullah Ibn Saba. Thus, Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in his book, Tohfa Ithna Ashar has also written the same in following Nasrullah Kabuli. In Milal Wan Nihal of Shahristani, the following is seen: “The Sabiya is the sect of Abdullah Ibn Saba, which believed in the divinity of Ali (a.s.). Ali (a.s.) had sent Abdullah Ibn Saba to Madayan and it is thought that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew who had accepted Islam.

The belief of the Sabiya sect was that Ali (a.s.) is alive. He has not been killed. And there is a divine part within him. The sounds present in the cloud and lighting belongs to Ali (a.s.) and lighting is his rubbish and a short time before Judgment Day, he will come back to the earth.”

This statement shows that Abdullah Ibn Saba was the founder of Nusairi1 sect. Shia Ithna Asharis do not believe in the divinity of Ali (a.s.), neither call him God nor they deny his martyrdom. It is astonishing that Shah Abdul Aziz should write such baseless things! One has pity on the respected Shah. This writer left the Sunni religion after reading such books. How can Shia Ithna Asharis be compared to the followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba? What relation does Abdullah Ibn Saba has with the founding of Shia religion.

Note

1. Who believe in the divinity of Imam Ali (a.s.)

Superiority Of Abu Bakr And Umar According To Zaidiya Traditions

Ahlul Sunnat say in Sawaiqul Mohreqa, Ibn Hajar Makki has quoted some traditions on the authority of Darqutni from Sadaat and Zaidiya Imams, which imply the superiority of Umar and Abu Bakr. The source of all those traditions is Muhammad Baqir and Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.).

In such circumstances, the denial of Shias of the merits of Abu Bakr and Umar seems to be against the pure sayings of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). This objection is answered in the following way: According to Shahristani of Milal wan Nihal, the Zaidiya sect followed the Motazalite school thought, which in the end became Shia. In such a case, according to the principles of Sunni jurisprudence, the traditions of both sects are unacceptable.

In addition to this, the objection would have been sustainable when it had been proved from authentic books of Shia traditions. To make such allegations on the basis of traditions recorded in Sunni books, is beyond the sphere of justice. Anyway, it should be seen what those traditions are. When we check them we find that those traditions are without complete chains of narrators. Also, some of the narrators are stooges of Bani Umayyah, some are liars and others, enemies of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Some like Sairafi are Motazalite. In the same way, a tradition is attributed to Imam Shafei. But there is no proof that Shafei ever came in contact with Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.).

It is a well known fact that Muawiyah used to spread false traditions in praise of the two Caliphs. As Ibn Abil Hadid has written and Shah Abdul Haqq Dehlavi writes in Ashatul Lumaat, in the chapter of the Merits of two Caliphs: “Many traditions in praise of the two Caliphs are inauthentic.” In the same way, Shah Abdul Aziz writes in Bustanul Mohaddethin that Ahlul Sunnat have fabricated 14000 traditions in praise of the two Caliphs and Ibn Jauzi has collected these.

Obviously, if there had really existed traditions in the praise of two Caliphs, what was the need of concocting these reports. It is worth noting that if the Purified Imams had approved the merits of the two Caliphs, why would they have issued verdicts against them and their followers. In the same way, when Abdul Rahman bin Auf asked His Eminence, Ali (a.s.): “If you become the Caliph, would you continue the practice of Abu Bakr and Umar?” Ali (a.s.) flatly refused. Obviously, if Ali (a.s.) had approved the two Caliphs, he would not have given such a reply. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was not in the least agreeable to the merits of the two Caliphs. If he were, he would not have mentioned Abu Bakr in the Shiqshiqya Sermon with such anger and grief.

Thus, the merits of the two Caliphs can never be the religion of Sadaat. All Sadaat who confessed to the superiority of the two Caliphs or still do, have acted and still act against the religion of Sadaat. This confession of theirs was indeed for material benefits. Just as due to love of material wealth, the sayings of Abbas, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Aqeel and Abdullah, Yahya and Mutawakkil and Ja’far Kazzab are unreliable. The Purified Imams definitely did not agree to the merits of the two Caliphs. Thus, Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) recited a sermon in Damascus, in which he mentioned the merits of himself and his purified forefathers and he did not say a word about Abu Bakr and Umar.

Ibn Athir has quoted this sermon in his Tarikh Kamil. It was a sermon, after hearing which, the nobles of Damascus released a deep sigh and wept profusely and began to criticize the accursed Yazeed. In the same way, in the debate between Imam Taqi (a.s.) against Yahya bin Aqsam in the court of Mamoon, the great Imam continued to deny the superiority of the two Caliphs and laid various blames on the two of them. This debate is also mentioned in Ibn Athir’s Tarikh Kamil. Thus, we should know that belief in the superiority of Umar and Abu Bakr cannot be a part of Shia faith. They differ like black differs from white.

In the end, I will also mention the factors that sometimes compelled the Sadaat to confess to the superiority of Abu Bakr and Umar and that was in dissimulation (Taqayyah). If at that time, the Sadaat had not practiced dissimulation, there would have remained no sign of Sadaat or their ancestral religion.

The discussion of dissimulation is to come in the following pages. To fend off the attacks of Ahlul Sunnat, Shias had dug out the shield of dissimulation. If one does not do it, one is sure to die. It is an old proverb. There was no option for Shias except to show themselves to be Ahlul Sunnat. What else can they do against a religion, which was established on the enmity of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.)?

Praise be to Allah, during this British rule there remains no need to practice dissimulation. Praise and Glory be to Allah. Anyway, the sayings of Zaid, the Martyr, are often based on dissimulation and were due to the existing circumstances. They are Zaidiya Sadaat who at one time believed in the superiority of the two Caliphs and the same who during the reign of Taalallah and Maazuddaula wrote curses on the names of two Caliphs on the doors of the mosque. In the same way, Ibn Abil Hadid has mentioned such Zaidiya traditions in Sharh Nahjul Balagha that show the injustice of the two Caliphs with regard to the affairs of Caliphate.

Sahifa Kamila And Merits Of The Two Caliphs

Ahlul Sunnat say that in a supplication of Sahifa Kamila are mentioned merits of the Righteous Caliphs. The supplication does not mention any names but it says: “Companions, who helped the religion, bore troubles and strived greatly in the establishment of faith.” Such companions are intended in this supplication. There can be no indication in this supplication for the three Caliphs, because those people did not help the faith in anyway, they bore no difficulties for religion and did not make any efforts for the establishment of religion. They always left the Prophet surrounded by enemies and bolted to save their dear lives. They never faced the infidels. They always avoided the hardships of Jihad. Then how can Imam (a.s.) pray for such people?

But since the word of ‘companions’ appears in this supplication, Ahlul Sunnat thought of their three Caliphs at once. Here the situation of Ahlul Sunnat is like the drowning man who clutches at the straw. The writer would like to state that if Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) had really meant the two Caliphs, there was nothing preventing him to mention them by name.

Martyrdom Of Imam Husain And Yazeed’s Desire

Some followers of Yazeed try to prove that Yazeed told Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.): “By Allah, I never intended to kill your father.1 Curse on the son of Marjana (Ibn Ziyad). I did not command him to kill Husayn.”

All this is okay, but the Tarikh of Abul Hasan Madayani, Seerat Hisham Kalbi, and Ibn Athir, writer of Tarikh Kamil and Abu Ja’far Tabari and Abi Makhnaf, Abu Ishaq Isfayarani show that Yazeed had openly sent the following message to Walid, the governor of Medina: “If Husayn refuses to give allegiance, kill him and send me his severed head.” It is not hidden that the denial of Yazeed was to save himself from the criticism of Syrians and that there might not be civil disturbance in the country, resulting in his dethroning. Otherwise, his correspondence with Walid is still present in history books.

The report of Abi Makhnaf shows that when Yazeed feared the censure and criticism of the people of Syria, he began to ask each of his commanders whether he had killed Husayn. All the accursed ones denied. Even Shimr and Khuli denied having killed Husayn.

At last, Qays said to Yazeed: “You have killed Husayn.” This made Yazeed ashamed and from that moment, Yazeed used to slap his own face. Then he also apologized to the prisoners of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). The friends of Yazeed can say that this regret of Yazeed had got his sins forgiven. But such people should know that when he was drowning, Firon had also said: “I believe in the Lord of Moosa and Haroon.” Can this statement be a proof of Firon’s faith? A shaky action cannot be considered firm and cannot be accepted.

I ask the friends of Yazeed why they are so much aggrieved on the martyrdom of Husayn? Why do they not say in support of Yazeed that Husayn was a traitor to the Caliph? If he was killed, the Caliph cannot be blamed. The friends of Yazeed have the right to claim thus, because according to the principles of their faith, Yazeed was a rightful Caliph and Husayn was a traitor. Though there are not many Muslims having such a belief, yet they are not against the principles of their religion.

What is the need to say that Yazeed did not desire the killing of Husayn (a.s.), etc.? What is the need to present this excuse? If the principles of Caliphate had been against Yazeed, it would have been another matter. Not only one principle, many rules were in favor of Yazeed. The fact is that following one falsehood, compels us to thousands of deviations. One affair of Saqifah has misguided people in a thousand ways.

Note

1. Ref. Tarikh Tabari, Pg. 176

Lady Khadija And ‘A’ysha

Lady Khadija and ‘A’ysha; both are mothers of believers (Ummul Mo-mineen). From this aspect, both these ladies are deserving of respect by the Muslims. But the difference of both these mothers of believers will be apparent from their personal circumstances. The following discussion is worthy of attention:

Lady Khadija was related to the Holy Prophet (S). The respected lady was wealthy and the Prophet used to manage her business. During that time, the Prophet used to carry Meccan goods for trading in Syria. Upon his return, he used to give the accounts to the owners. He used to perform these duties with such honesty and integrity that the people of Mecca called him by the title of Ameen (trustworthy).

Along with other goods, he used to carry the goods of Khadija also for trading. The gentle and honest nature of the Prophet affected Khadija and she desired to marry him. Nothing could prevent this marriage, because Lady Khadija was a noble lady of Mecca and the Prophet was equal in class. Thus, his uncle and benefactor, Abu Talib also liked the proposal and Lady Khadija was married to the Messenger of Allah (S). At the time of this marriage, the age of the

Prophet was twenty-five years and Lady Khadija was forty years old. Though there was a vast difference between their ages, their marriage proved to be a very happy union. May Allah make the marriages of all the people so happy and blessed.

Though Lady Khadija was fifteen years senior to the Holy Prophet (S), he was very much attached to her. The proof of his affections for her is clear from the fact that during the lifetime of Lady Khadija, the Prophet did not take another wife. If he had done so, it would not have been against religion and tradition. The reason for not doing so was that the Prophet had a spiritual relationship with Lady Khadija. He had not married her only for physical relationship. The Prophet used to respect Lady Khadija a great deal, and he loved her all his life. Even after her death, he never forgot her and he remembered her with the same love and affection.

The greatest reason for this love was that Khadija (s.a.) had great respect for the Messenger of Allah (S). She did nothing that would even slightly displease the Prophet. She at once understood that the Messenger of Allah (S) was a true Prophet. Indeed, she was the first lady to bring faith on the Messenger of Allah (S). Lady Khadija was an accomplished and cultured lady. She possessed all the superior qualities of womanhood. Though it is an honor for a woman to be called a perfect woman, Lady Khadija also qualified to be the most superior woman by her spirituality. Her spirituality was obvious from the fact that ‘the Lady of Judgment Day’ and rather, ‘the Chief of the Ladies of the world’ was to be born from her womb. And she was the lady who became the wife of Ali (a.s.) and from whose womb were born Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (a.s.) and then from the progeny of Imam Husayn (a.s.) were born nine purified Imams, one after the other.

On the basis of those excellences, the Messenger of Allah (S) loved Lady Khadija (s.a.) so much. Indeed, without spiritual superiority, the husband can never love his wife so much. Lady Khadija passed away at Mecca itself before the Hijrat (migration) of the Messenger of Allah (S). The Prophet was so aggrieved due to her demise that he could not forget his dear wife for the rest of his life. After emigrating from Mecca to Medina, the Holy Prophet (S) married ‘A’ysha. And after that he married a number of ladies. But whatever Khadija had, was taken with her to the grave. It is worthy to note that at the age of 25, he married Khadija and spent his youth and a part of his middle age with her. The love of the Holy Prophet (S) to Khadija increased day by day and never decreased. The cause of such a love has spiritual aspects and is restricted to the selected ones of Allah.

Now, the writer shall mention some facts about ‘A’ysha. ‘A’ysha was the daughter of Abu Bakr. She married the Prophet at a very young age. Her young age is proved from the fact that at the time of the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S) she was only 18 years old. She married in Medina and she was widowed only after a few years.

After his marriage to ‘A’ysha, the Prophet married a few times more. ‘A’ysha was beautiful and the Prophet appreciated this quality of hers. In spite of her beauty and attraction, ‘A’ysha could not create such a respect in the heart of the Prophet as Khadija was having, because ‘A’ysha was not bestowed with those spiritual qualities. And how could it be? Because Providence did not intend that a daughter like Fatima should be born from her and should marry a person like Ali (a.s.), and that such sons should be born from her, who are mentioned in Taurat and those who would all be the true Caliphs of the Messenger of Allah (S).

We never compare Lady Khadija to ‘A’ysha because both are mothers of believers for us. But Ahlul Sunnat do a lot of injustice in this regard since the beginning. What type of justice is that ‘A’ysha should be called the most superior of the women, instead of Lady Khadija? But since their religion is based on opposition to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) what else could they have done? The main cause is that ‘A’ysha was the daughter of Abu Bakr. If it had not been so, Ahlul Sunnat would not have acted like that. Indeed, if Pir Dastagir had referred to Khadija as the favorite wife of the Prophet, it would have been all right, but indeed it’s a pity that he calls ‘A’ysha the favorite wife of the Prophet. In the view of the writer, ‘A’ysha had nothing extraordinary except that she was a wife of the Prophet. That alone could not lend her spiritual superiority. It is not difficult to learn about her manners and spiritual position.

On page 284 of Sahih Muslim, we read about the inner feelings of ‘A’ysha. One day Hawla Binte Khuwailid, the sister of Khadija, came to visit the Messenger of Allah (S). The Prophet met her with exceeding good behavior. This made ‘A’ysha jealous. She said: “You continue to remember that old woman whose teeth had fallen off, the redness of whose hair faded and whose thighs had become dry? Allah has now given you a better woman.”

Now we ask the readers: “Does this conversation imply any spirituality? Can any respectable lady talk in this way?” ‘A’ysha is the wife of the Prophet. We cannot express our views about her openly, but suffice it to say what type of manners are these. That one should speak in this way in front of the sister of a late co-wife? Indeed, it was beyond the understanding of ‘A’ysha that how discerning the Prophet was regarding merit and that why he remembered Khadija even after her death in the way he did. It was not without any reason that the Messenger of Allah (S) has made Lady Khadija equal to Lady Maryam and Lady Aasiya.1

Both these ladies also were having a pure soul like Khadijatul Kubra.

In that same tradition, the Prophet has compared ‘A’ysha to a brittle piece of bread whose taste is only material and has no connection with spirituality. ‘A’ysha was having a great friendship with Hafasa due to their similar natures. Hafasa was the daughter of Umar and she had such a nasty temperament that no one was prepared to marry her. When Umar saw that there was no possibility of her marriage, he became very angry and we do not know what would have been the consequences of this, but the Holy Prophet (S), in order to dispel turmoil, married Hafasa. Among men, ‘A’ysha had great hatred towards Ali (a.s.) and the Battle of Jamal was the result of this animosity.

Regarding the death of ‘A’ysha, it is said that Muawiyah had her drowned in a well. Such a thing is not unexpected from Muawiyah. It is very much possible.

We have already mentioned that there was great friendship between ‘A’ysha and Hafasa due the similarity of their natures. Thus, the two of them had confidential conversations and sought advice of each other and also made many policies.

The following incident is an example of this:

The Holy Prophet (S) used to compulsorily visit the houses of all the wives. Sometimes he ate something at one place and sometimes he just drank something. Often he had honey drink at a wife and then came to ‘A’ysha or Hafasa. These two planned to do something, so that the Prophet will not go to the other wives. They decided to tell the Prophet that he was having a foul breath due to something he had drunk at the houses of his other wives. May Allah the Great, give us refuge! The Quran says that ‘A’ysha and Hafasa exposed some secret of the Holy Prophet (S) regarding which, the Almighty Allah informed the Prophet. The verse of Surah Tahrim says:

“But when she informed (others) of it, and Allah made him to know it,2 ”3

The Almighty Allah chided ‘A’ysha and Hafasa in the following words, in the same Surah Tahrim:

“If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined (to this); and if you back up each other against him, then surely Allah it is Who is his Guardian…”4

In spite of such severe words of the Almighty, Pir Dastagir in his book Ghaniyatu Talibeen, makes ‘A’ysha the most superior of the women. Indeed, it is an enigma of Sunni faith. On one side is the stricture of Allah and on the other side, they consider her most superior of womenfolk. It seems the foundation of Sunni religion is acting against the truth and enmity to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

Indeed, the edifice of a religion based on such a defective foundation will be weak. Now the equitable people should decide, who has the right to be called the superior most, Lady Khadija or ‘A’ysha? In addition to the above verses, there is a verse in Surah Ahzab:

“O Prophet! Say to your wives: If you desire this world’s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing… And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore…”5

The wives meant herein are ‘A’ysha and Hafasa. So much hurt has been caused by these two that the Holy Prophet (S) had spoken of divorcing ‘A’ysha and had already given revocable divorce to Hafasa.6

All this shows that the Messenger of Allah (S) was not pleased with ‘A’ysha and Hafasa. Obviously, ‘A’ysha cannot claim equality with Lady Khadija, how can she be considered superior to her? O servants of Allah! Your creator has not created you without intellect. At least use your brains. If you don’t beseech Allah to make you the followers of truth, I pray on behalf of you.

It well known that Lady Khadija was bestowed with al the good qualities. She never troubled the Messenger of Allah (S) for any worldly thing. She put all her wealth at his disposal and herself lived like a poor woman.

Lady Khadija already possessed the praiseworthy qualities herself and the company of the Holy Prophet (S) further enhanced her good qualities. On the other hand, it is seen that the company of the Holy Prophet (S) had no effect on ‘A’ysha. She had no wealth that could have given her contentment.

Thus, whenever war booty arrived, ‘A’ysha used to rush towards it to get her share. In brief, after studying this in an impartial way, we find that Lady Khadija was an incomparable lady, whereas ‘A’ysha was not worth anything in comparison to her. Pir Dastagir said that ‘A’ysha was the most superior of the womenfolk was only on the basis of his love for Abu Bakr. There is intoxication in love and man becomes completely blind in love.

In the end, the writer presents an incident, which is related to the above discussion. This writer had attended a function to commemorate the Prophet’s birthday at a friend’s place. Two reciters of poems after giving their recitations, began to give a speech. In their speech, first they praised the Messenger of Allah (S), then started extolling ‘A’ysha and they did not leave any stone unturned to praise her. The poor audience, most of whom were illiterate and only a few educated, listened with rapt attention.

The writer underwent great torture during the speech, till the speaker alluded to the incident that most Ahlul Sunnat quote to prove the merit of ‘A’ysha. And that is the report that the Holy Prophet (S) took ‘A’ysha upon his shoulder so that she can watch some entertainment program. Now what is so great in that? How does this prove the merit of ‘A’ysha? This does not in any way prove any spiritual connection between ‘A’ysha and the Holy Prophet (S). It is just blindness in the love of Abu Bakr.

Even if we suppose it to be true, though it seems unlikely, it has nothing to prove any good quality of ‘A’ysha, except that being of very young age, she wanted to watch the performance and the Holy Prophet (S) made her perch on his shoulders. This shows that the Holy Prophet (S) was very kind to ‘A’ysha and he would have been kinder if she had not hurt him. The sorrow that she caused him was so intense that he even thought of divorcing her. The function continued for a long time and at last the sane people got release from it.

It is really astonishing that the two poets praised ‘A’ysha no end but none of them even mentioned the name of Khadija. This shows how much Ahlul Sunnat are attached to truth. O Sunni brothers! You must understand that leaving the path of truth is not allowed in any religion. You consider yourself as the sect, which will alone achieve salvation, then why this concealment of facts? Your books are present, wherein you can read about Lady Khadija and also ‘A’ysha.

Notes

1. Ref. Nawawi

2. Surah Tahrim 66:3

3. Refer Tafseer Baidhawi, Vol. II, Pg. 373; Tafseer Maalimut Tanzeel, Pg. 919; Tafseer Nishapuri, Vol. III, Pg. 435; Tafseer Kabir, Vol. 4, Pg. 233.

4. Surah Tahrim 66:4

5. Surah Ahzab 33:28-33

6. Ref: Tafseer Nishapuri Vol. II, Pg. 207; Tafseer Maalimut Tanzeel, Pg. 715; Tafseer Baidhawi, Vol. II, Pg. 79.

Ja’far, The Liar (Kazzab)

Ja’far, generally known as Kazzab, was the son of Imam Ali Naqi (a.s.) and the brother of Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). Since he had claimed Imamate against Imam Mahdi (a.j.), the biographers refer to him as Kazzab (liar). He was initially a wayward and an evil person. He had left no stone unturned in his enmity to Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). He did not give up trying to get the Imam (a.s.) imprisoned, though he always failed in his efforts.

Regarding Ja’far Kazzab and his son, there is a saying of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) that they are like the brothers of Yusuf (a.s.). Tabarsi and some other scholars are of the view that Ja’far had repented like the brothers of Yusuf (a.s.) and that after this repentance, he came to be known as Ja’far Tawwab (Ja’far the repentant). This is also supported by the tradition of Riyazush Shahadat.

Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya And Imam Zainul Aabideen

Ahlul Sunnat say that Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya was the son of Ali (a.s.) and he denied the Imamate of Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) and himself claimed to be an Imam. In spite of that Shias praise him. Then why do they not praise the three Caliphs too? The only reason for this is because Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya was from Alawite Sadaat.

The reply of Shias is that when Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya said to Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.): “My father’s bequest was for Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) and your father died without making a bequest. I am more senior to you. So you must not oppose my Imamate.” Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) said: “O my Uncle! My father had made bequest regarding my Imamate. To prove this, I have the weapons of the Holy Prophet (S). It would be better if you do not oppose me in the matter of Imamate. Lack of age and wealth have no effect on this matter. You must know that Almighty Allah bestowed Imamate in the loins of Husayn (a.s.).”

This reply was sufficient for an intelligent person like Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya. After this he always considered Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) his Imam and his master. If only the three Caliphs had also agreed to the claim of Ali (a.s.), Shias would surely have praised them. The truth is that Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya committed one ‘mistake’ and then corrected himself in time. The three Caliphs were firm on their numerous mistakes till the end of their lives. In such a case, how can Shias accord respect to them?1

The detailed incident is that Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) proposed to Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya that they refer this matter to the Black Stone at Kaaba (Hajar al-Aswad). Muhammad accepted this and both came to Hajar al- Aswad. The Black Stone spoke up by the will of Allah that the bequest of Imam Husayn (a.s.) for Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) was proved true. On hearing the decision, Ibn Hanafiya gave up his claim and for the rest of his life, considered Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) as his Imam. In view of the writer, the claim of Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) was so strong that there was no need for him to refer the matter to Hajar al-Aswad.

Note

1. The report is from Ihtejaaj of Shaykh Tabarsi; Pg. 177.

Ahlul Sunnat And Lady Shaharbano

Ahlul Sunnat say that Shaharbano was brought to Medina as a prisoner, which did not have religious sanction according to Shia faith; so how can her relationship with Husayn (a.s.) be justified and how can her giving birth to Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) be legitimized? The writer has already proved in detail these things in the foregone pages. Here it suffices to say that according to a traditional report of Biharul Anwar1 the proper marriage (Nikah) of Imam Husayn (a.s.) was performed with Shaharbano and she was not dealt with like other women prisoners of war. The reason for this was only so because she had come as prisoner of war conducted by the Caliphs and these wars were themselves not legitimate.

Note

1. Vol. 10

Parents Of The Holy Prophet And The Imams

Ahlul Sunnat say that according Shia belief, the parents of the Prophet and the Imams (a.s.) must be Muslim, so what can be said of the mother of Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.)?

The reply to this is according to a report of Allamah Majlisi in Jilaul Uyoon, is that Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.) had taught Islam to Shaharbano in a dream. This made her long for the Prophet’s family. She was also told the name of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and was given the good news that she was to marry him. Her marriage (Nikah) was performed to Imam Husayn (a.s.) according to perfect Islamic rites and she had become a Muslim before her marriage. Those who call her infidel are themselves the worst of infidels. She was a believer and remained a believer till the end of her life.