Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

A Thirty-Year Caliphate

A tradition of Safina is seen in Tirmidhi1 that according to the Holy Prophet (S), Caliphate is only for thirty years, and after that, there is kingship. A tradition like this is also seen in Sunan Abi Dawood.2 It is reported from Saeed bin Jumhan. Sharhe Fiqhe Akbar also indicates that the period of Caliphate is thirty years.

Author of Sharhe Maqasid, Allamah Taftazani says: “Caliphate is as follows: Abu Bakr for two years, Umar for ten years, Uthman 12 years and Ali (a.s.) for six years. From this aspect the figure of 30 is reached easily.” But books of history and biography throw up many difficulties and the calculation of Taftazani is proved incorrect. Now the readers may see that Taftazani says the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was only two years. But in Hayatul Haiwan3 the period of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate is given as two years, three months and eight days. Similarly, in Tarikh Abul Fida4 it is given as two years, three months and ten days. Then in Seeratul Muhammadiya5 it is given as two years, three months and 4 or 5 nights. In brief, these different accounts show that the period of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate was two years, three months and some days.

According to Taftazani, the Caliphate of Umar was 10 years. While in Seeratul Muhammadiya it was 10 years, 7 months and 5 nights, in Abul Fida6 and Hayatul Haiwan this period is 10 years, 6 months and 8 days or 5 nights. Some have written, 13 nights instead of 5 nights. All this shows that the period of Umar’s Caliphate is more than 10 years, whether it is seven months or less. There are not many differences of opinion regarding the period of Uthman’s Caliphate.

Abul Fida also says it is 12 years and Damiri’s research also says the same. But some have written 11 years, 11 months and 14 days. But there is a great divergence from the view of Taftazani regarding the period of Caliphate of Ali (a.s.). Taftazani says it was 6 years but on page 574 of Seeratul Muhammadiya, it is 4 years, 4 months and in Hayatul Haiwan it is 4 years and 9 months. None of the books mention it to be 6 years.

The conclusion of all this calculation is the Caliphate of all these four Caliphs together does not add up to 30 years. Then in order to complete the figure, scholars include the short Caliphate of Imam Hasan (a.s.) in this thirty years Caliphate. In spite of this, the figure of 30 years is not reached.

Also the view of Taftazani, that the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) was six years, necessitates that we include the period when there was no Caliphate, since the condition of Caliphate is control over Islamic territory. This control had passed into the hands of Muawiyah. Thus, the view of Taftazani is incorrect.

Some have calculated the period of Caliphate of Imam Ali (a.s.) till his martyrdom. But this also seems incorrect, because his control on Islamic lands had ceased to exist. Thus, the period of 30 years can never be made to fit Caliphate. According to the writer, this tradition itself seems baseless. If it had really been authentic, the period would have definitely reached 30 years. On the basis of the unseen knowledge of the Holy Prophet (S) he knew all that was to occur till Judgment Day. So how could he not know the duration of Caliphate? Thus, this tradition is a fabricated one. The one who has fabricated it, did not do his calculations properly. It seems it was concocted to prove the legitimacy of the first three Caliphs.

Notes

1. Vol. 2, Pg. 50.

2. Vol. 2, Pg. 282.

3. Vol. 1, Pg. 60.

4. Vol. 1, Pg. 167.

5. Pg. 566

6. Vol. 1, Pg. 173.

Jurisprudence Based On Personal Opinion and Analogy

Of the four Sunni Imams, Abu Hanifah seems to be particularly fond of personal judgment (Rayy) and analogy (Qiyas). Personal opinion and analogy that is not based on Quran and tradition is generally unacceptable. Conformity with Quran and tradition is necessary for jurisprudence.

A jurisprudent should not become aloof from Quran and tradition and depend on his personal opinion and analogy. This aloofness results in innovation and innovation destroys religion.

On page 19 of Mishkat, there is a tradition from Muslim narrated by Jabir on this topic: “The Holy Prophet (S) has said that the best of the tradition is Quran and the best biography is the biography of Muhammad.” That is, we must remain attached to Quran and act upon it and the best of the guidances are the guidances of Muhammad. And innovation is the worst of the evil deeds. All innovations are deviations. Another prophetic tradition is related from Ayesha in Mishkat: “One who concludes something new from my sayings, is accursed.”

Muawiyah had 14000 traditions fabricated in praise of Abu Bakr and also got thousands of traditions fabricated in criticism of Ali (a.s.). What type of a person was Muawiyah in light of Ayesha’s tradition? Similar traditions are recorded in Mishkat from Ibne Abbas, Afif bin Harith and Ibne Maisera etc.

These sayings emphasize on remaining attached to Quran and traditions. There is one more tradition in Mishkat, which is very much concerned with our discussion below. On page 27 of that same book, we have from Abi Dawood a tradition:

“One who gives a verdict without having knowledge of Quran and tradition, has committed misappropriation (done Khayanat) with Shariah.”

On page 432 of Asaatul Bayat, it is written that the purified Imams, after Ali (a.s.) were giving verdicts against the scholars of that time, though the latter were having knowledge. These Imams considered personal opinion and analogy unlawful in religious jurisprudence (Fiqh). One day, Abu Hanifah came to Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) and the Imam (a.s.) said: “You use analogy in jurisprudence, while it must not be, because the first one to resort to analogy was Iblees.”

Imam (a.s.) says: “The worst mischiefs in Muhammad’s Ummah are personal opinion and analogy, which have changed unlawful into lawful and lawful into unlawful.”

It is also related from Thalabi that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Very soon a nation will appear, which will use analogy and personal opinion in jurisprudence, by which Islam will be destroyed.”

Doubtlessly, Abu Hanifah was very fond of analogy and personal opinion, as seen from his jurisprudence. The apparent reason for this is that in his time, he had no access to authentic traditions.1 This is supported by the statement of Mulla Ali Qari, who quotes from Sakhawi in an authentic report that due to his young age, the great Imam (Abu Hanifah) did not get any chance of meeting any companion.2 There is no doubt that Abu Hanifah had great trust in his opinion and analogy.

Thus, it is apparent from Pg. 82 of Al-Milal wan-Nihal that Abu Hanifah preferred analogy to a solitary report. Thus, to prefer ones personal opinion over tradition is like abrogating the traditions. On the same basis, the later scholars have criticized Abu Hanifah for his verdict regard divorce.3 In the same way, Khatib Baghdadi, Ahmad Hanbal, Ibne Jauzi have all ridiculed Abu Hanifah.4 On page 4 of the same preface, the Holy Prophet (S) is reported to have said: “My nation will be divided into more than seventy sects but the worst sect is the one which uses analogy and one who does so, has legalized illegal things and made the legal ones illegal.”

Another tradition of the Prophet (S) says: “No one has snatched away the knowledge of religion, except the incapable scholars.”

When there remained no scholars of religion, people began to follow ignorant rich men, and they began to issue verdicts based on personal views without the help of Quran and tradition. They became misguided and also misguided others.

In Vol. 1 of Qastalani there is a tradition from Abu Saeed Khudri that the Prophet (S) said:

“One who performs jurisprudence without tradition, only on the basis of analogy, is accursed, and one who acts upon it, is also accursed.”

The gist of the above is that in presence of Quran and tradition, jurisprudence based on personal opinion and analogy, is severely prohibited. It is also prohibited to emulate (do Taqlid) of a jurisprudent (Mujtahid) who relies on analogy and personal opinion. This view of the writer is certified by the statement of Hujjatul Baligha.5

The writer says: “Allah has not permitted the emulation of anyone except that of Quran and tradition. It is unlawful to act on any other thing. There is consensus of opinion among the companions, Tabein (companions of companions) and Tabe Tabein (companions of companions of companions) continuously, against the emulation one person. Thus, one who has emulated Abu Hanifah or Shafei will not trust the statement of anyone else. Such a follower will no more regard Quran and tradition to be of any importance.”

The book of Allah, that is Quran; and traditions, that is the sayings of Prophet (S), have criticized personal opinion and analogy. Now we shall quote such a tradition that really upsets the mind: The Holy Prophet (S) said:

“Adam (a.s.) became proud on our existence and I am proud of the existence of Abu Hanifah that he is the lamp of the community.” Then he said:

“All the prophets are proud of my existence and I am proud of the existence of Abu Hanifah. One who befriends him, has befriended me and one who has harbored enmity to him, has harbored enmity to me.”

There has to be a method to concoct lies! It should at least have some semblance to truth! What type of a lie would be that “in China, there is an ant as huge as a mountain?” Anyway, there is no need for me to prove the falsity of this concocted tradition. The scholars of Ahlul Sunnat have themselves considered it baseless. Thus, Ibn Jauzi, Zahabi, Suyuti and Ibn Hajar and even Shaykh Qasim Hanafi have said that these traditions are fabricated.6 Some more discussion about Abu Hanifah is to come in the following pages, if Allah the High wills.

Notes

1. Ref. Darasatul Labeeb, Pg. 65.

2. Ref. Muqaddima Hidaya of Maulavi Abdul Hai of Lucknow, Pg. 8.

3. Darasatul Labeeb, Pg. 65.

4. Muqaddima Hidaya, Maulavi Abdul Hai Lucknowi

5. Pg. 59

6. Muqaddimah Hidaya, Maulavi Abdul Hai Lakhnavi, Pg. 9.

Seeing Allah

We should know that there is difference of opinion regarding the seeing of the Almighty. Ahlul Sunnat say that Allah can show Himself to His creatures in a way the moon is visible on a moonlit night. That is the people will be able to see Allah with the eyes just as they can see the moon at night.1 The same is the belief of the commentator, Qaushiji, Haji Izuddin, Sayyid Sharif, Amadi and Shafei.

People of the Nusairi sect were also following this belief. The Motazela and the Imamite sects do not believe in seeing Allah with the physical eyes, whether in this world or in the Hereafter. The eyes are given to human beings and the animals to see material objects. It has no effect in the sphere of spirituality. Thus, how can he see a God, Who is, according to the Sharh Aqaide Nasafi2 neither has body, elements, shape or form? He can neither be measured nor divided into parts. He is neither restricted to space nor is a compound. He is neither limited nor has material qualities. He has neither change in condition, nor is restricted in time. He is neither a partner nor anyone or anything is His partner.

The above qualities are material things, which are within the sphere of visibility. Thus, when Allah is beyond material existence, He is also beyond the sphere of visibility. The eye can neither see such a thing in the world nor in the Hereafter.

When Bani Israel said to Moosa (a.s.): We would definitely not believe till we do not see Allah with our own eyes. Moosa (a.s.) conveyed the request of his people to Allah. Allah ordered them to come to Mt. Toor. Moosa (a.s.) selected seventy persons from Bani Israel and went to Mt. Toor. At the foot of the mountain, they said to Moosa (a.s.): “You question Allah so that we can hear His voice.” On the request of Moosa (a.s.), a cloud came and shaded the questioners. At that time Moosa (a.s.) ordered them to fall down in prostration. When Moosa (a.s.) used to converse, the divine light was visible on his holy face. On that point, Allah told Bani Israel that He has liberated them from Firon and settled them in Egypt. “You must worship Me and except for Me you must not be worship anyone else.”

But Bani Israel were not satisfied with this divine voice. They demanded Moosa (a.s.) to see Allah with their own eyes. The result of this demand was that suddenly lightning struck Mt. Toor and all those who were present there died. Moosa (a.s.) himself fell down in a swoon and regained consciousness only after a long time. Later, Moosa (a.s.) began to weep and said how he could go back to Bani Israel? “They would blame me for the death of their elders. If You had killed them before this incident, I would have been free from this blame. Now the Bani Israel will try to kill me. I committed this foolish act of asking to see You with the eyes. O my God, please raise them alive again, so that they can testify the seeing.”3

The writer says that the incident of Moosa (a.s.) shows that neither Moosa (a.s.) saw Allah nor the people did. They all saw only the lightning, which is a sign of Allah’s power. Staff, Shining arm, the flood etc. and all the miracles are visible, but Allah can never be seen, because he is beyond vision.

Some Ahlul Sunnat scholars say that though Allah cannot be seen in the world, people would be able to see Him in the Hereafter, and Muhiyuddin Arabi also has the same view.4 Obviously, just as Allah cannot be seen in the world, the same condition will apply for the Hereafter. Though Moosa (a.s.) did not see Allah with physical eyes, he saw the lightning, which is the sign of Allah and he swooned due to it. Now the question is, whether the Holy Prophet (S) saw Allah on the night of Ascension or not? In view of the writer, the Prophet did not see Allah with this organ of sight, which is the eye. No one can say what he saw and with which eye.

Anyway, in Sahih Muslim5 there are traditions from Shaibani and Abdullah that the Holy Prophet (S) saw only Jibraeel (a.s.) with these eyes, he did not see Allah. Ibn Abbas says that the Holy Prophet (S) saw Allah, but with the eye of his heart.

The writer says that this tradition of Ibn Abbas is in accordance with reason. According to the tradition of Shobi, ‘A’ysha says: “The Messenger of Allah (S) saw Jibraeel, he did not see Allah.” The same tradition is present in the 10th volume of Sahih Bukhari.6 And on page no. 98, according to a report of Masruq, ‘A’ysha said: “The Holy Prophet (S) did not see Allah. When I hear this, my hair stand on their ends.”

In the same way, on Page 99 of Sahih Bukhari, we see the following tradition of Abu Dharr that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “On the night of Ascension, I saw only a radiance.” But he didn’t say that, that radiance was Allah Himself. From the aspect of commentaries also, the seeing of Allah by the Prophet on the night of Ascension is not proved.

In the Tafseer of Surah Najm, on page 33, Baidhawi says that the Holy Prophet (S) saw Allah with the eye of his heart and not with these ordinary eyes. Seeing Allah on the night of Ascension, denotes the various powers of Allah and the world of angels etc. Muhiyuddin Arabi says on page 271 of the second volume of his Tafseer that the Holy Prophet (S) saw Jibraeel in his true form.

Then on the same page, he says, eyes cannot see Allah. This is also the belief of the Imamiyah and Motazela and there is no doubt that it is logical and therefore acceptable. The writer says that when man cannot see the air with the physical eyes, how can he see Allah? Air is a material thing but it is beyond the scope of vision. But Allah is even beyond physical perception, so He cannot be seen through physical eyes.

Notes

1. Ref. Sharhe Mawaqif, Pg. 503.

2. Pg. 27

3. Ref. Tafseer Maalimut Tanzeel, Baghawi, Pg. 38.

4. Tafseer Surah Anam, Pg. 317.

5. Vol. 1, Pg. 97.

6. Pg. 296

According To Ahlul Sunnat It Is Permitted To Curse The Imamiyah Sect

In Masala Laan of Nawawi1 it is written: “According to scholars, it is unlawful to curse anyone and in the Islamic terminology curse (Laan) indicates keeping away from Divine Mercy. Since it is not known what type of end is in store for any person, cursing is objectionable. So much so, we must not invoke curse on Muslims, disbelievers and even on quadrupeds. But when we know for sure in Shariah that a particular person will indeed die on disbelief, like Abu Jahl or Iblees, such a curse or a curse without naming, like curse on the unjust or transgressors etc. is allowed.”

Similarly, the Holy Prophet (S) has cursed those who drink wine.2 In Kanzul Haqaiq, on page 128, it is said that cursing the Satan is also prohibited.3 But as for Baghawi, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masood, Qatadah, Hasan Basri, Mujahid, Nizamuddin Nishapuri, Fakhruddin Razi, Qadi Baidhawi, Zamakhshari, Qadi Abdul Jabbar, Mulla Abu Saud, Shafei, the author of Gunahe Kabira, all believe that it is permitted to curse the infidels.

The writer asks how it could be illegal to curse someone who is deserving of curse? The Malediction (Mubahila) with the delegation of Najran was that of invoking curse on the liars. If invoking curse had been illegal, how the Prophet could have asked for it? It is indeed surprising how Ahlul Sunnat consider cursing illegal, not alone for Muslims but also upon disbelievers and quadrupeds. Then how did Shias become eligible for cursing? In the chapter of calling Shias infidels, in the book Sawaiqul Mohreqa, it is clearly mentioned: “Curse of Allah be upon them and Allah’s punishment be upon them.” Then the commentator of Baghawi, Mulla Ali Qari, Qadi Ayaz and Qastalani write: “The Rawafiz (Shia) have disbelieved and according to the majority of scholars, they are fit for cursing.”

Now, I want to ask Ahlul Sunnat, what is it, if not Tabarra (cursing)? Tell us the truth. Does your religion not include invoking curse? Is there a limit to this bigotry? The tradition: “Do not curse the people of Qibla (Muslims),” is present in Sharhe Fiqhe Akbar. They try to explain by this in the prohibition of cursing Yazeed, whereas Shias, who are indeed from the people of Qibla, are labeled as disbelievers and cursed without restraint. Indeed, there is no limit for the bigotry of Ahlul Sunnah. Abdul Qadir Jilani, who is apparently the partner of the Holy Prophet (S) when he went for Ascension, writes again and again in his book, Ghaniyatu Talibeen regarding Shias: “May Allah destroy them.”

What a way to speak! Such a great personality! It is really shameful!

Cursing is permitted in Shia religion, just as it is permitted among Ahlul Sunnat but Ahlul Sunnat have defamed the Shias in this regard a great deal. I have just shown what Pir Dastagir and writer of Sawaiqul Mohreqa have written. They even label Shias as infidels. The same views are seen in the commentary of Nawawi and those of Mulla Ali Qari and Qastalani etc. regarding Shias. However, instead of considering Ahlul Sunnat disbelievers, Shias consider them Muslims and believe that it is not permitted to curse them.

The reason why Shias have been defamed so much, is that it has become a practice in Shia religious gatherings to curse the three Caliphs by name. This seems to be an invented affair, because in the authentic books of Shias, the three Caliphs have never been cursed by name. The senior leaders of Shias believed in the inferiority of Abu Bakr and Umar and did not believe in cursing them. That is why they do not curse the two Caliphs.4

Apparently, the practice was started by Abbasid rulers. In the view of the writer, the contemporary Shia scholars should act in the footsteps of ancient Shias. If Shias stop cursing, they would benefit by it rather than lose anything.

The progress of Shias was hindered due to this very practice. It is the duty of Shia leaders, that they must keep in view the benefit of Shia religion and pay attention to this reform. In this age, there is no need to curse in the usual way. If you see with a just eye, the religion of Imamiyah, which in other aspects is immaculate, has become tainted by this practice. It would be very difficult for someone to convert to this faith if cursing is made compulsory.

The condition of cursing cannot be considered a part of faith, according to reason. But at present, there are thousands of Shias who consider this act so necessary, that without it, it is impossible for anyone to be a Shia. I have experienced this personally and feel very sad that hundreds of people are ready to accept the Imamiyah faith, but due to the condition of cursing, they are uncomfortable in it.

Notes

1. Pg. 442

2. Tirmidhi Vol. 1, Pg. 167.

3. This tradition is of Dailami and apparently it seems to be against the Quran.

4. Although it is necessary to be absolutely aloof from them. And we must despise all their actions and deeds. All this is a compulsory part of considering the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) to be right.

Is Ali Inferior To Abu Bakr And Umar Even From The Lineage Point Of View?

This is a question posed by some people. The reply to this is that it is proved from the books of Ahlul Sunnat that Ali (a.s.) is not inferior to the two Caliphs from any aspect. The few merits of Ali (a.s.) that the writer has mentioned so far are sufficient to make Ali (a.s.) the best of the human beings. If the bigots do not believe it, it is another matter. The fact is that Ali (a.s.) is superior to everyone of the Muslim nation. Now, as far as the question of his superior lineage is concerned, the readers are invited to read on.

We all know that Bani Hashim was a well-known clan, even during the pre- Islamic age. Its members were famous for their leadership and good character even beyond their country. Their fame had spread as far as Shaam and even today, they are very famous. The greatest proof of this fame is their greatness. On the other hand, the Teem and Adi tribes were neither famous in the pre- Islamic age nor during the time of the Holy Prophet (S); and even today they have no fame to their credit. They are so obscure that only the well-informed people have heard of them. The average educated people have not even heard of the Teem and Adi clans. Thus, to compare the lineage of Ali (a.s.) with those of the two Caliphs, is useless.

Just as in other aspects they are not superior to Ali (a.s.), in the matter of lineage also, they have no standing before the brother of the Holy Prophet (S). It is sufficient to say regarding Abu Bakr that he was from a good family. No one can say anything about the character of this family. Regarding the family of Umar, I cannot say for sure whether they have the blood of Hashim bin Abde Manaf.

The book, Kitab Masalik shows that the grandfather of Umar, Nufayl was born of an Ethiopian slave girl. Her name was Zahaka. She was the slave girl of Hashim bin Abde Manaf who later entered into the service of Naufal bin Hashim and Abdul Uzza bin Ribah. This book does not say whether Nufayl was the son of Naufal bin Hashim or Abdul Uzza. Anyway, Nufayl in his time, married a woman of Fahem tribe and a son Khattab was born.1 This woman also seems to be the slave girl of Fahem tribe, because by the principle of ‘slave mother’ (Ummul Walad), at last she came into the possession Amr bin Nufayl. Allah knows best.

We should know that Kitabe Masalik is the work of Hisham Ibn Sayabal Kalbi, who was one of the great Sunni scholars and of such caliber that Ibn Majah and Tirmidhi consider him their teacher and a researcher like Baghawi has also extensively used his traditions for his Quranic commentary, Maalimut Tanzil. Ibn Taymiyyah considers him the greatest authority of genealogy.

Sibte Ibn Jauzi and Ibn Khallikan also have gained a lot from him. This shows the status of the writer of Kitabe Masalik. Now there remains no need to express any view on lineage of Umar. Thus, the proposal of Umar for Umme Kulthum, the daughter of Fatima, was detestable. However, that is actually with regard to some other Umme Kulthum; it has no connection with Umme Kulthum binte Fatima.

Note

1. Ref. Ma’rif of Ibn Qutaibah.

To The Kind Attention Of Muslims

It is learnt from the names of narrators of Ibn Hajar that some traditionalists lived during the reigns of rulers, who were partisans of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). These people collected traditions on the merits of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) but later they were labeled as Rafzi.1

Then some traditionalists lived during the rule of the tyrant rulers. In such time, the traditionists fabricated traditions for material benefits and due the fear of rulers, by this action of theirs, they left no stone unturned to mislead the people. Today, we have the writings of some ancient scholars and these are sufficient to find the true religion.

These books show that there are many narrators whose traditions are accepted by both the sects and there are many scholars of the two sects, who have continued to include their traditions, considering them trustworthy. Then there are many traditions having similar matter that both sects have included in their collections, without any arrangement and system. There are very few narrators, who are related to a particular sect. In such a situation, it will not be difficult to sort out the controversies between the two sects.

If we are impartial, there remains no division of Shia and Sunnis and the religion of Muhammad (S) will again become illuminated. But to achieve this aim, it is necessary to forgo egoistic tendencies and using reason and justice, the Muslims should study the arguments of both the sects and choose whichever is true. It is a great pity that bigotry has spoiled the Muslims to such an extent that such a scenario is very much unlikely.

Note

1. A derogatory term for Shia.

Zaid Ibn Ali Ibn Husayn, Or Zaid The Martyr

Ahlul Sunnat say that Zaid claimed Imamate and fought in the opposition of the Imam. Thus, according to the principles of Imamite faith, why he is not deserving of criticism? Apparently, it seems that Shias praise him, because he is a son of an Imam and is from the Sadaat. Then why do Shias blame the three Caliphs? They were also relatives of the Prophet. They are companions and emigrants too.

The reply to this is that the chain of the Imamate of Zaid the martyr, is not proved from any traditional report. According to reports of both the sects, it is learnt that he had a good faith. He took up Jihad to take the revenge of the blood of Husayn (a.s.) and to destroy the mischief of the enemies. It was same as the mission of Ibrahim and Mukhtar. This was not an illegal act. And neither Imam Muhammad Baqir nor Imam Sadiq (a.s.) had prohibited such a fight. Thus, he cannot be blamed for that. Which devotee of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) would not desire to revenge the blood of Imam Husayn (a.s.)?

What can be said of Zaid who was seeking the revenge for his own grandfather? Books say that Zaid fought the war by the permission of Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq (a.s.) and they did not express any sort of disapproval. If they had not approved, they would not have expressed such sorrow and anguish on the killing of Zaid. The two Imams have always prayed for the well-being of Zaid. In the end, the writer wishes to state that the matter of Zaid has no connection with the matter of the three Caliphs. The above objection of Ahlul Sunnat is not worth countering.

Khalid Bin Walid

He had not earned any fame before the Battle of Uhud, but when he fought against the Muslims in Uhud, he came to be known as a ferocious warrior of Arabs. In the Battle of Uhud, he was so severe that he came to fight the Holy Prophet (S) with Abu Sufyan. In that battle, he took some Meccans and infidels and went atop the Uhud mountain. The Prophet appointed fifty archers to stop their onslaught, under the leadership of Abdullah bin Jubair. They were instructed not to leave their position under any circumstances.

The infidels were defeated and began to flee when the Muslims attacked them on the plains. The Muslims army began to collect the booty from the fleeing infidels. The archers also left their position for the booty. Seeing an opening, Khalid attacked the Muslims from that same mountain pass and in a few moments, the Muslims were almost routed.

The martyrs of this attack include Hamza, the uncle of the Prophet, whose martyrdom caused so much sorrow to the Prophet that he could not forget it till his last moments. Within a few months of this carnage, Khalid accepted Islam, but he could not get into the good books of the Prophet. It was not only due to the matter of Uhud, but he was a man of unprincipled conduct. Otherwise, having such valor, it was only appropriate that after accepting Islam, he should have become favorite of the Prophet and all the Muslims. The Holy Prophet (S) had become very much displeased with him due to his detestable behavior.

After the conquest of Mecca, the Holy Prophet (S) was in Mecca itself from where he sent Khalid bin Walid to the Yalamlam area, where the Bani Khuzaimah lived, to invite them towards Islam. We should know that Khalid was a member of the Bani Makhzum tribe. Bani Khuzaimah and Bani Makhzum used to fight each other during the days of ignorance. When Khalid reached there, the Bani Khuzaimah formed ranks and confronted him.

They said: “We are Muslims; we offer prayers and build the mosque.” Khalid asked them: “Then why have you formed ranks against me? If you are Muslims you cannot intend to fight me. You must lay down your arms.” Bani Khuzaimah complied. But it is a great pity that inspite of their statement that they were Muslims and had laid down the arms, Khalid had their hands tied and killed some of them and tried to kill some of them at night. Umar was with Khalid at that time. He was very angry at this cruel behavior and openly expressed his dislike.1

When the Holy Prophet (S) learnt of this gory incident, he began to tremble with the fear of Allah and prayed: “O Allah! I dissociate with this act of Khalid and I pray for Your refuge.” Soon after that the Holy Prophet (S) sent Ali (a.s.) with cash and gold, so that he dismisses Khalid and makes peace with Bani Khuzaimah. Ali (a.s.) did not leave any stone unturned to carry out the orders of the Prophet since mercifulness and kindness was complete in him. We should know that no one could have bravery without having mercy and kindness. Because Khalid did not possess these qualities he can never be said to be brave. Khalid had beastliness, which the common people mistake for bravery.

The exemplar of courage is Ali (a.s.). He had such bravery that it is not possible in anyone except the lions of Allah. Such bravery is required to work for the religion of Allah and to keep it established. This courage is for the sake of Allah and not for personal motives. When the infidel spat on Ali’s face, he got up from his chest at once, because after this disrespectful act, there was a chance of personal motive coming in between his slaying. Dear readers, compare this magnanimous act with the detestable deeds of Khalid against the people of Bani Khuzaimah. Though he was by nature a cruel person, in addition to this, he had enmity with Bani Khuzaimah.

Apparently, Khalid was sent to Bani Khuzaimah for a religious purpose by the Messenger of Allah (S), but on the basis of his tribal animosity, he committed such acts as none could do. It is very regretful that Khalid committed the atrocious deeds behind the cover of Islam. Now the people of justice may compare the behavior of Khalid with that of Ali (a.s.) to know what is the difference between bravery and ferocity.

I regret comparing Khalid with Ali (a.s.) but I was compelled to do so when I saw that what an Ahlul Sunnat writer has stated in the marginal notes to this incident on some book. He says: “If the Imamiyah sing the praises of Ali’s bravery, we Ahlul Sunnat have Khalid from our side by the grace of Allah. This Khalid was braver than Ali and not less.” But this writer says that there was not a bit of bravery in Khalid, he only had ferocity. Between Khalid and Ali (a.s.) is a difference of black and white.

The second affair with relation to Islam that is related to Khalid, and which shows the nature of Khalid, is that during the occupation of Yemen, when Ali (a.s.) learnt that those tribes who had embraced Islam around Yemen, had renegaded and were preparing to fight, he went with his army to confront them. These apostates, influenced by the good nature and disposition of Ali (a.s.) again entered the fold of Islam.

There is no doubt that the bravery of manners of Ali (a.s.) had been instrumental in this, but Khalid did not give up his natural evil deeds. He had an old enmity with Ali (a.s.). Khalid consulted Buraidah Al-Haseeb and wrote a letter to the Messenger of Allah (S) complaining about Ali (a.s.). The Prophet was very angry on getting this letter and told Buraidah: “Have you become a hypocrite? Ali (a.s.) is from me and is superior to you and your people. Whatever he commands is according to the command of Allah. Seek refuge from Allah. Otherwise, the enemy of Ali is my enemy, and my enemy is the enemy of Allah.”

Hearing this, Buraidah was frightened and he said: “I wish, I were buried before complaining about Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.).” After that he never opposed Ali (a.s.); but the enmity of Khalid remained as it was. On the basis of this enmity, Ahlul Sunnah call Khalid, ‘His Eminence, Khalid’. If such people are called His Eminence, then what should be title of those companions of the Holy Prophet (S) who really possessed those praiseworthy qualities? The fact is that it is due to their opposition to Ali (a.s.) that people like Khalid Ibn Walid, Talha, Zubair and Muawiyah are called ‘His Eminence’. In addition to this, Ahlul Sunnat have given Khalid the title of ‘Sword of Allah’ (Saifullah).

Only Ahlul Sunnat know how Khalid began to be called by the title of Saifullah. We have already explained in the foregoing pages that this title is exclusively for Ali (a.s.) and indeed no one else deserves to be called thus, because doubtlessly, he was the sword of Allah. His sword, Zulfiqar, was a sign of his being the ‘Sword of Allah’. From which principle, which rule, which verse and which prophecy can Khalid have the right to the title of ‘Sword of Allah’? It is beyond the scope of investigation. Bravery, and not ferocity is required if one has to be ‘Sword of Allah’.

Another example of his animal behavior is presented below; which shows his heartlessness, cruelty and selfishness etc. During the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, the Bani Yarbu tribe refused to pay Zakat. Malik bin Nuwayrah was the chief of this tribe. This gentleman was a brave warrior, a cultured person and also a poet. He had met the Holy Prophet (S) and accepted Islam. The Caliph sent Khalid to collect Zakat from this tribe. Malik said: “We perform the Prayer, but we shall not pay the Zakat.” Khalid said: “You have to pray and pay Zakat. Prayers alone are not accepted.”

In brief, when Malik refused to pay Zakat, Khalid said: “I will slay you.” After this, the two parties entered into a heated argument. Abdullah Ibn Umar and Abu Qatadah Ansari were present at that time. Since the two of them did not like the stance of Khalid they tried to cool him down, but Khalid disliked their advice.

At last Malik said: “Take me to the Caliph, he will do as he wishes with me.” Khalid said: “I will slay you.” Thus, Zarar bin Abu Dharr was ordered to behead Malik. Upon this Malik said pointing to his wife: “This woman has caused my killing.” Khalid said: “Your apostasy is the cause of your death.” Malik said: “I am on Islam.”

After this, Khalid ordered Zarar to behead Malik and he was beheaded. The fact is that Malik’s wife was extremely beautiful. There is no doubt that Khalid’s selfishness became the cause of Malik’s death. Khalid should have taken Malik to Abu Bakr according to his wish.

Anyway, after beheading Malik, Khalid at once took his wife to himself. This shameless incident is composed in the satirical verses by the poets of that time. When Abu Bakr and Umar learnt of this perplexing incident, Umar said to Abu Bakr: Khalid has committed adultery. You must stone him to death. Abu Bakr replied: “I will not do it.” Then he explained his stand. Umar said: “Khalid has killed a Muslim unjustly. You must take revenge from Khalid.” But Abu Bakr continued to defend Khalid.

At last, Umar asked that Khalid should be dismissed. Abu Bakr said: “Do you want me to put the sword to sleep? Khalid is a brave warrior and our ardent supporter. Do you want that he should be distanced from us?”2 This incident shows that service to religion is different and selfishness is different. The people of justice may themselves judge the ethics and behavior of Khalid. The writer does not wish to say anything else.

Notes

1. Tarikh Khamis, Part 2, Pg. 97; Sahih Bukhari; Abul Fida (Pg. 153); Seerat Ibn Hisham Part 3, Pg. 3-4; Tarikh Tabari, Pg. 1651-1653.

2. Abul Fida

Ahlul Sunnat And Bani Abbas Caliphs

Allamah Suyuti, Shah Abdul Haqq, Qastalani and Nawawi have included Bani Abbas Caliphs in the tradition of the twelve Imams. Apart from this, we find great praise and respect to Bani Abbas Caliphs among Ahlul Sunnat. Thus, when these Caliphs are such, how could their actions and words be not labeled as goodly innovation (Bidat Hasana)? But some Caliphs seem to be openly Shiite! For example Saffah, the founder of the Abbasid Kingdom, Nasiruddin Billah, Qahirbillah, Qaim Billah, Mutee Billah and Taalebillah; all of them were Shias, without dissimulation.

In such circumstances, it is necessary that their acts and words would also be considered ‘goodly innovation’ (Bidat Hasana). These Caliphs were such that scholars and rich people were supporting them, judges were giving them oaths of allegiance and sermon reciters prayed for them in their sermons. They were reciting Friday and Eid prayers behind them. And in the words of Khatib Baghdadi, the scholars of that time considered them honest, trustworthy and jurisprudents (Faqih). Then the acts and deeds of these Shia Caliphs must also be considered ‘goodly innovation’.

In such a situation, Ahlul Sunnat will have to do many things against their beliefs, which they could not have done, if they followed their religion properly. And they would have to accept many things that those people could not have accepted while properly following their religion. Here, I will quote from Tarikhul Khulafa1 some innovative affairs of the period of Muizuddaulah.

Ahlul Sunnat cannot avoid them. They are: On the gates of the Shia Mosque in Baghdad curses were written on Muawiyah, Abu Bakr, Umar, ‘A’ysha, Uthman. One night someone erased these inscriptions. The chief officer of Muiyiddaula decided to have them re-written. The prime minister advised him that instead of those inscriptions, the following should be written: Curse be on those who did injustice on the Progeny of the Prophet, and curse be on Muawiyah.

Apart from this, Muyiuddaula made such an arrangement that on Ashura Day (10th of Muharram), all the shops and business establishments should be closed and nothing should be cooked. The Caliph also constructed domes and ordered women to come out wailing and mourning for Imam Husayn (a.s.).

We should know that this was the first mourning program (Azadari) of Imam Husayn (a.s.) in Baghdad and this continued for some years. Muyiduddaula also performed the recommended worship acts (Aamal) of Eid Ghadeer on 18th of Zilhajj. Muibillah instructed the religious speakers to invoke blessings (Durood) on the Holy Prophet (S), Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) and their forefathers.

Now, Ahlul Sunnat should check whether they can follow such Imams or not? But when such Imams are included among the twelve Imams of Ahlul Sunnat, they must not turn away from them. There is no doubt that there are as many Shia Caliphs as there are non-Shia Caliphs in Bani Abbas. Then we must know that no one from Ahlul Sunnat does so much research, which they must do if they intend to defend their claim. That is, they must say that only those Bani Abbas Caliphs are included in the twelve Caliphs who are not Shias. But they never claim as such. Generally, all Bani Abbas Caliphs are said be among the twelve Imams.

Note

1. Pg. 411

Objection Against The Counting Of Imams As Counted By Mulla Abdul Rahman Jami

Mulla Jami writes in Shawahidun Nubuwwah: “Ali, may Allah honor him, (Karamallaho Wajho) is the first Imam, Hasan is the second Imam, Husayn is the third Imam, Zainul Aabideen is the fourth Imam, Muhammad Baqir is the fifth Imam, Ja’far as-Sadiq is the sixth Imam, Moosa Kazim is the seventh Imam, Moosa ar-Reza is the eighth Imam, Muhammad Taqi is the ninth Imam, Ali an-Naqi is the tenth Imam, Hasan Askari is the eleventh Imam and Muhammad Mahdi is the twelfth Imam.”

But this statement of Mulla Jami is proved incorrect according to the rules of Ahlul Sunnat; consensus and allegiance are necessary for Caliphate. By getting these, Abu Bakr got Caliphate. That is, he became the first Caliph or the first Imam. Now, how can His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) be considered the first Imam? He can only be called the fourth Caliph and the fourth Imam. And how Imam Hasan be called the second Imam? Even if he is considered Imam, after Ali (a.s.), he can only be called the fifth Imam.

Thus, by this rule, if the rest of the Pure Imams are considered Imams, all their sequence numbers will change. Imam Mahdi (a.j.) will be the fifteenth, rather than the twelfth Imam. Moreover, from Imam Husayn (a.s.) onwards to Imam Mahdi (a.j.) none of the Pure Imams is proved as Imam. Because from the point of view of the principles of Ahlul Sunnat religion, Caliphate and Imamate cannot be established without consensus and allegiance. Thus, the numbering of Mulla Jami is incorrect. However, from the principles of Ahlul Sunnat, Caliphate and Imamate goes to Muawiyah and successors of Muawiyah and none of Ahlul Sunnat can refute this.

Those Ahlul Sunnat who believe in the Caliphate and Imamate of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) seem to be against their own faith. The Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat had become Caliphs on the basis of consensus, consultation, allegiance and force. But in the Caliphate and Imamate of Imam Mahdi (a.j.), Ahlul Sunnat would be following the rules that Shias consider necessary for their Imams. That is for one to be a Caliph and the rightful Imam, appointment by Quran and traditions is necessary. It is a farce that Ahlul Sunnat consider Caliphate and Imamate of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) to be divinely ordained.1

They do not believe that it would be based on consensus, consultation and allegiance.2 Another objection that could be laid on Ahlul Sunnat for considering Imam Mahdi (a.j.) as the twelfth Imam is that the twelve Imams of Ahlul Sunnah include Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas Caliphs; but all these Caliphates are over and the figure of twelve is also complete for them.

In such a position, the only solution is to make Imam Mahdi (a.j.) the thirteenth Caliph. Thus, the calculation of Mulla Jami is meaningless. O Ahlul Sunnat people! Look at the best aspects of the principles of your religion. Your religion seems to be absolutely unpredictable. If the rules of Imamate of Shias are not followed, neither Ali (a.s.) can be considered the first Imam, not Imam Mahdi (a.j.) the twelfth. And neither can we consider other Imams to be real Imams.

Notes

1. Ref. Tarikh Ibn Khallikan, Isafur Raghebeen, Futuhaate Makkiya of Ibnul Arabi

2. Tirmidhi and Abu Dawood