Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Second Cause Of The Decrease Of Religious Significance Of Bani Hashim

The second cause for the decrease of religious significance of Bani Hashim arose during the Caliphate of Umar Ibn Khattab. During this time, it became famous that Ali (a.s.) has started practicing religious jurisprudence (Ijtihaad). Ali (a.s.) began to derive the solution of religious problems as the circumstances demanded and the Bani Hashim began to follow his decrees (did Taqlid). And why shouldn’t they, when they knew that Ali (a.s.) was the gate of knowledge, the expert of Quran and the flesh, blood, self and soul of the Holy Prophet (S)? And that his creation and the creation of the Messenger of Allah (S) was from a single luminosity (Noor).

But when that Caliph learnt of this, he appointed some other people to derive the laws of Shariah, chief among them were Ibn Masood, Abu Moosa Ashari and the same Zaid Ibn Thabit. Upon receiving orders from the Caliph, these gentlemen began to formulate religious decrees and their rulings came out to be different from those of Ali (a.s.). People other than Bani Hashim began to follow their decrees, but the Bani Hashim continued to follow the rulings of their religious and tribal chief, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.).

From that time, two distinct sects developed among the Muslims. One was the Alawite sect and another, Farooqi sect. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) himself formulated his religious decrees but Umar Ibn Khattab accomplished this task with the help of his appointed assistants. Apparently, this did not auger well for Islam. This division bestowed no benefit on the Islamic religion. Even today we witness disturbances in the Muslim world due to this division and this shall continue forever. Anyway, Ali (a.s.) was always busy in solving the problems of Shariah.

However, since he did not have the support of the ruling party, his followers were limited to the family of the Prophet, i.e. the Bani Hashim. Doubtlessly, temporal power has a great role in the spread of religion. The lack of the spread of the religion of Ali (a.s.) was not unexpected. On the other hand, the Farooqi religion made great strides and even today this is the religion of the majority of Muslims. There is no doubt that the Farooqi religion had received a great impetus.

It began during the time of Umar and during his lifetime itself, it spread to all the Islamic territories. Bani Umayyah adopted this religion due to their natural inclination towards it and also due to the exigencies of that time. And after them, most of the Bani Abbas also adopted this faith. If some persons of Bani Abbas followed the religion of Ali (a.s.) they are very few and hardly taken into consideration. Then the great kingdoms followed the religion of Farooq. So much so that even the last Muslim dynasty of India, i.e. the Mughal Dynasty was following this religion.

In any case, this controversy with regard to personal exertion (Ijtihaad) harmed the religious leadership of Ali (a.s.). Because this completely overshadowed the fact that he was the gate of knowledge. Being distanced from rulership, he had already become a common member of the populace. Now these matters decreased his religious significance too. In my opinion, this was more harmful than the matter of collecting the Quran. Now we shall present some facts about the Farooqi religion and the faith of Ali (a.s.), so that uninformed people may gain some understanding.

A Discussion About Sunni and Imamiyah Faith

We should know that according to Ahlul Sunnat people, from the three Caliphs, only Umar Ibn Khattab had the status of a jurisprudent (Mujtahid). Abu Bakr and Uthman never performed any derivation of Islamic law. However, each of them are known as the collectors of Quran, because the Quran was ‘collected’ in the Caliphate of the first Caliph and rearranged in the Caliphate of the third Caliph. As we have mentioned before, the religious laws derived by Ali (a.s.) were different from those formulated by Umar. It was on the basis of this very contradiction that two sects came into being. One was Farooqi sect and the other Alawite.

Although the beginning of religious differences was initially seen during the tenure of the Caliphate of Umar, as the days passed, the differences became more pronounced. Finally, it assumed the form of the Farooqi religion, which is also known by the name of the religion of Ahlul Sunnat wal Jamaat whose cause of being named thus has already been mentioned before. In the same way, the jurisprudence of Ali (a.s.) resulted in the formation of the religion known as the religion of the practice (Sunnat) of Ali (a.s.) or the Imamiyah faith.

The completion of the religion of Ali (a.s.) was in the way that as there came Imams from the family of the Prophet, they continued the jurisprudence of this school of thought and remained on that religion. This religion became famous as the Imamite religion. It should be clear that due to the jurisprudence (Ijtihaad) of the Imams of the family of the Prophet, the followers of Farooqi religion always remained aloof and depending upon their need, continued to derive the solution of their religious problems.

Thus, day-by-day their differences increased in the principles and articles of faith. These differences became so pronounced that today the two sects are completely unrelated to each other. It is only the ignorance of the common people, who think that the only point of difference between Sunni and Shia is the matter of Caliphate. It is definitely not so. There is no sort of similarity between these two, whether in principles of faith or practical laws.

So much so that the God of Ahlul Sunnat seems to be different from that of Shia God. In the same way, all principles of religion of these two religions are quite dissimilar and their practical laws should also be derived from them. It should be clear that in the beginning, the Farooqi faith was simple and straightforward. That is, it was dissociated from wisdom and philosophy, but at last it began to form its distinct philosophy.

The first scholars of Ahlul Sunnat were Motazalite. This religion began to assume a distinct form from the time of Hasan Basri and in its time, the Motazalite religion was thought to be the true one.

Then Abul Hasan Ashari opposed his teacher, who was a Motazalite and began to formulate the Ashari faith in 365 A.H. From this time, the Motazalite faith began to decline and people began to be attracted towards the new concocted faith. Even those, whose teachers were Motazalite, opposed their teachers and left the Motazalite faith.

Thus, the four Imams: Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafei and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal became aloof from the Motazalite faith and formed their own distinct religions. Then the religion of Matrudiya was established. We should know that the principles of faith of Ahlul Sunnat have been derived by the jurisprudence of Abul Hasan Ashari and Abul Mansoor Matrudi.

In the same way, the practical law was formed by the decrees of the four Imams. These four gentlemen ignored the jurisprudence of Ali (a.s.) and took the decrees of Ibn Masood and Zaid bin Thabit as the basis for framing their laws.

This is clearly explained in detail by Shah Waliullah in his book, Izalatul Khifa. They were clearly divorced from the opinion of Ali (a.s.) in all matters. Thus, when we see every class of people of Ahlul Sunnat, we find that they have raised their structure of religion on the Farooqi foundations and never sought the assistance of any of the Imams of the family of the Prophet.

If we examine carefully Sunni and Shia faith, we shall realize that there is no sort of compatibility and similarity between the religion of Ali (a.s.) and the Farooqi faith; both are unrelated to each other. There has always been absolute dissociation between the scholars and Imams of the two religions. All the past Ahlul Sunnat scholars avoided any sort of association with the Imams of the family of the Prophet and with the scholars of this school.

A study of Ahlul Sunnat books shows that Abu Hanifah did not follow any of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Although Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) from the family of the Prophet was present, Abu Hanifah continued his own jurisprudence. Actually the fact is that Abu Hanifah and Malik Ibn Anas had no sort of relation with Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.).

This is another misconception that these two gentlemen had the license from Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) to practice Islamic jurisprudence. Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) was himself an Imam, then how can he entrust jurisprudence to people of other faiths? Neither Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) had any sort of shortcoming, nor was there any compulsion on him to do so.

It was the common practice of the jurisprudents of both faiths that as much as possible, they used to be dissociated and be aloof from scholars and Imams of rival faiths. It is illogical to assume that Abu Hanifah and Malik used to practice jurisprudence on the lines of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.). Numerous proofs of this type of dissociation are mentioned below.

Examples Of Dissociation Of The Two Sects

Readers should note that Sahih Bukhari is the great authentic book of Ahlul Sunnat. The compiler of this book has not even forgetfully related a tradition of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), while thousands of traditions have been recorded from Imam Sadiq (a.s.) elsewhere and hundreds of scholars have quoted traditions from this praised Imam (a.s.). Also, Hafiz Shamsuddin has included Imam Sadiq (a.s.) among the weak and unreliable narrators in his book al-Mughni. He writes that Bukhari has not related any tradition from him.

Bukhari’s teacher, Yahya Ibn Saeed Al Qattan also says: “I am also suspicious of Ja’far as-Sadiq. Even Malik never related any tradition from Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) till he did not have another narrator of the same tradition.” The Arabic text of the book Mizanul Etedal is translated to mean the same. The same behavior was shown to Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.) and his respected forefathers.

Asqalani, an influential Sunni scholar, includes Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.) among the weak narrators and says that the traditions of Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.) are unsafe. Regarding Imam Reza (a.s.), Abu Tahir says: “Imam Reza (a.s.) has narrated weird things from his father; and he used to doubt and err.”

The same attitude of Ahlul Sunnat scholars continued with Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). Thus, Ibn Jauzi and Suyuti in their books of traditions, Ali bin Muhammad Iraqi in his book, Tanzeelatul Shariah and Shaykh Rehmatulla in Mukhtasar Tanzeelatul Shariah has written that Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) was [Allah forbid] nothing! (Laisa Beshayyin).

In short, the above research confirms that Ahlul Sunnat scholars were absolutely aloof from the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). The truth is that the Imamite and Sunni religion are two streams that flow in the opposite directions and till the Judgment Day, instead of coming closer they are moving farther from each other.

Imams of the Prophet’s Family

Here it would not be inappropriate to state that although the Imams of the Prophet’s family were understood by the above method to be undeserving of being followed, the truth is that they had no equal, not only in the nation of the Holy Prophet (S) but also in the people of all the past prophets from the aspect of their knowledge, superiority, piety, religiousness, truthfulness, modesty, justice, magnanimity, charity, bravery, worship, forbearance and obedience etc.

These Imams carried the blood of the Prophet (S) in their veins, they were the life and heart of the Messenger. They are the close confidants and self of the Prophet. They are his flesh and soul. They were (Allah forbid) not illiterate and uneducated; each of them was a leader of faith. Each of them was a capable jurisprudent, and each was a true leader and guide. They all acted on the knowledge they possessed. Individually, each of them was a sum of knowledge and action.

They are the Imams (a.s.) that find mention in the Torah. Even today you can open the Torah and see. The Almighty has given the good news that twelve princes shall come from the progeny of Ismail (a.s.). These are the twelve Imams. Indeed, who can be greater princes than they were? These personalities are the beloveds of the chief of the Prophets. Allah forbid, if anyone considers them ‘weak’ and ‘Nothing’, it is their whim and fancy. And they are the Imams that the Almighty and the Prophet know. Apparently, they were helpless and so oppressed that from Imam Ali (a.s.) to Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) each were easily martyred but internally all of them were the brave lions of the religion of Allah.

O Allah! Bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

Important Warning

In the discussion presented above and in other places in this book it is mentioned that the jurisprudence of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) was different from the jurisprudence of scholars of other faiths. Our readers should know that we had written in this way to follow the convention and usual manner of writing. The Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) were much higher in status than jurisprudence.

The knowledge of the Imams (a.s.), like the knowledge of the Holy Prophet (S) is beyond the scope of human understanding. Jurisprudence to seek solution of religious problems is not allowed for Imams and Prophets. Rather, it is a sort of insult to say that the Prophet had practiced jurisprudence. The sciences of the Prophet were religious and revealed and he was bestowed with divine knowledge. The Almighty had opened wide, the doors of knowledge for him.

These gentlemen are the cities and doors of knowledge. Neither do they have to resort to rational arguments nor do they have to make derivations or take help from analogy. It is sufficient for them to just refer to the Knowing and the Knowledgeable God. All the religious problems are solved in no time. He is the Knower of the Unseen and the divine luminescence.

Jurisprudence is for those who are deprived of the service and presence of the Prophet and the Imams (a.s.) and the paths of knowledge and certainty are closed for them. Then even for this there are conditions and aspects. If those derivations are taken from the Holy Quran and traditions, they are reliable, but if they are mere conjectures and analogies, they shall be very far from guidance. Then what can be said of those in their company? They used to gain benefits of knowledge and religion from them. Even they had no need to perform jurisprudence. And why should they need to resort to it when the door of research was open. They are only needed to ask for the solution of any problem and the answer was ready.

The moment they posed a question, they got an immediate response. It would have been an insult to the Holy Imams (a.s.) that while they are present, people should undertake personal exertions, and not take advantage of their revealed and divine knowledge. In brief, we can say that the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) were not at all concerned with jurisprudence. We have called it jurisprudence because the people of that time, due to their lack of understanding considered the utterances of Holy Prophet (S) also as jurisprudence; therefore, we have also used the same terminology. Otherwise, wherever these words are used in this book, they denote their divinely bestowed knowledge and the jurisprudence of religious problems mean the explanation of rules of religion.

Examples of Religious Differences Between The Two Sects

Here the writer desires to mention some examples that show that the method of the Imams of the family of the Messenger (S) was distinct from the scholars of Ahlul Sunnat. It is common knowledge among the literate public that Abu Hanifah, Malik and other scholars used analogy (Qiyas) in deriving the rules of Shariah, while Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) used to prohibit it. It is apparent that even if in the beginning a faith observes these principles, it will eventually be filled with contradictions.

Thus, what we see is that the religion of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) is very much opposed to the religion of the leaders of Ahlul Sunnat. The writer of the Sharh (Explanation) of Minhaj writes that the denial of analogy (Qiyas) is the religion of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) just as acting on analogy is the religion of Abu Hanifah and other Ahlul Sunnat. Thus, the statement of this writer clearly shows that the faith of Ahlul Sunnat and Shias is different from the aspect of analogy.

The second difference is that Mulla Jalal Dawwafi, the writer of Sharh Aqaid Uzdiya says that the best of the sects is the ‘Successful sect’, that is the Ashari sect, because this sect acts upon those traditions of the Messenger of Allah (S) that are related by his companions and unlike the Motazalite, this sect does not temper traditions by rationality. And neither does it quote persons other than the companions as Shias have done, who, due to the belief in their superiority, quote their Imams. Here the notable point is that the Motazela sect is mentioned to be different from the Ashaira.

However, both these relate traditions from the companions, unlike Shia sect which related traditions from non-companions, that is the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). The writer presents five examples of controversies from the aspect of actions. One is that Ali (a.s.) mostly considers legal the selling of slave-girls who have children while the scholars of Ahlul Sunnat consider it prohibited. Allamah Taftazani writes in Sharh Mukhtasar Usoole Azudi:

“The companions have differed in the matter of the selling of slave girls who have borne children. Ali (a.s.) considers it permissible and it is the religion of Shias and Shias know well the religion of Ali (a.s.).” Secondly, Thalabi has related that Ali (a.s.) considers the wiping over the shoes prohibited while Abu Hanifah allows it, as is also mentioned in the Sharh Waqaya.

Thirdly, Ahlul Sunnat scholars do not allow inheritance to the woman whose husband had died with the consummation of marriage unlike Ali (a.s.). Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi, the believer of Sunni faith in his Sharh Mishkat differs with the religion of Ali (a.s.) and says: “That is the religion of Ali (a.s.) and his Shias and this is the religion of Ibn Masood, that is why we follow the statement of Ibn Masood.” It should be clear that the above two examples illustrate that Ahlul Sunnat differ from the religion of Ali (a.s.).

Ignorant people from Ahlul Sunnat think that their religion is same as that of Ali (a.s.); it is certainly not so. There is no similarity between the religion of Ahlul Sunnat and the faith of Ali (a.s.).

Fourthly, rabbit meat is unlawful in the religion of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), while Abu Hanifah permitted it. Mulla Jami has mentioned this in his book Tafhaat. Here it is worth saying that rabbit is prohibited by Allah in Taurat. Thus, the impermissibility of rabbit is mentioned with the prohibition of pork. That the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) had prohibited it does not seem to be without reason. It seems that Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) has taken into consideration the prohibition of the Almighty and decreed rabbit unlawful.

Fifthly, fishes without scales are prohibited in Imamiyah faith and Ahlul Sunnat consider them lawful. Please note that this type of fish is also prohibited in Taurat. It is included in the list that mentions pork and rabbit meat. Thus, we see that Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) used their broad knowledge fully while practicing jurisprudence. The title of Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.) as a “judge who judges by the four scrolls” is very much appropriate. All his successors also are seen to be fully qualified for this title. And why shouldn’t it be so?

Need Of Unity Among Muslims

It is regretful that within a short time of the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) a lot of controversies arose among the Muslims regarding principles of faith and practical laws. Now the situation is such that any sort of agreement between the sects is impossible.

Two such powerful sects have come into being that it is impossible for anyone of them to disappear. Now, if only Allah removes the differences from the Muslims can there be a fresh unity among them. Presently the conditions of Muslims require reconciliation, but no one has any idea how this could be achieved.

Till the time Muslims themselves do not strive to patch up, there is every possibility that they would never unite. This cannot be achieved by debates and argumentations. The truth cannot be unraveled without forgoing bias. However, to get rid of bias, itself requires good sense given by Allah, which is a great bounty bestowed by Allah on whomsoever He wishes.

The Religion of Imamites is The Religion of Ahlul Bayt

It is a fact that the religion of the Imamites is same as the religion of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), and it is absolutely different from the religion of Ahlul Sunnat. As mentioned by Sharif Zurjani in Sharh Mawaqif: Initially the Imamites followed the religion of their Imams, but after a long time controversies developed among them.

The descendants of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) (Sadaat) were indeed initially on the religion of their Imams, but the passage of time changed their faiths. Today they follow every type of religion, some are Shias and some Tafzeeliya, some Sunni, some Wahabi, Khariji, Nasibi, Christian and some are even atheists. We should know that society and government has a great influence on religion.

Some Sadaats in India are seen following a religion of other than the Imamites. This is so, because India mostly had non-Shia rulers. Economic and monetary factors forced the Sadaat of India to start following the religion of the rulers and this deprived their families of the religion of their forefathers. Now these poor people do not even know what religion their forefathers had followed, or whether their present religion is new or ancient. The statement of the writer of Al Milal wan Nihal also proves that the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) had a distinct religion. And their followers were called Imamites as they also followed the same faith.

Ibn Kathir, a great Sunni scholar, writes the following in connection with the Imamite faith in his book Jame al-Usool: “Now we describe the well known faiths of the Muslims that were followed by the people in different areas of the world. That is the Shafei, the Hanafite, the Maliki, the Hanbali and the Imamiyah.” After this, the respected scholar has named and introduced the founders of each of these faiths. Regarding the founders of Imamiyah faith, he writes:

“The leader of the Imamiyah in the second century was Ali Ibn Moosa ar-Reza and in the third century, it was Muhammad Ibn Yaqoob al-Kulaini and in the fourth century it was Sayyid Murtada Alamul Huda. The religion of all the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) was same. Thus, whatever was the religion of Ali Ibn Moosa ar- Reza, it was the same religion of all the Imams.”

The Desired Success Of Ahlul Sunnat Faith

It should be clear that the success and popularity achieved by Ahlul Sunnat faith till this time shows a great transformation. No decrease or increase is seen in the principles of its faith and the practical laws. Doubtlessly, the Imams and scholars of Ahlul Sunnat have given it great embellishments and decorations.

This religion is furnished with Quran, tradition, heritage, reports and jurisprudence, laws etc. Presently, no sort of deficiency is seen in the religion. However, if there is any shortage and deficiency, it is the support to the family of the Prophet and the similarity with their views through their words and deeds, as shown by the writer in the foregoing pages and as shall be further explained in the following pages.

However, this matter cannot be open to objection in any way, because if the scholars of Ahlul Sunnat had shown the same support and similar views with the family of the Prophet as Shias scholars did, Ahlul Sunnat faith would not have separated from Shia faith and achieved such great success. Then in reality both the religions would have been one and the same. In that case Ahlul Sunnat faith would have become extinct. The aloofness of Ahlul Sunnat scholars from the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) was necessary for the popularity of Ahlul Sunnat faith.

Differences Of The Principles With Regard To The Tragedy Of Karbala’

Before we relate the incident of Karbala’, it is necessary to mention some more points of differences between the Imamiyah and Ahlul Sunnat. It is not possible to mention all the points of differences in this book. Even then we feel it is necessary to mention the following basic differences with regard to the incident of Karbala’.

Without this, it would be impossible to describe the incident of Karbala’. Rather, the reality of the incident will remain veiled for the people unfamiliar with it. Below, we shall describe in brief, the matter of Caliphate, because the incident of Karbala’ has a definite connection with the matter of Caliphate and some basic principles are related to this problem.

Beliefs Of Ahlul Sunnat And Imamiyah With Regard To Caliphate

Although both the Imamiyah and Ahlul Sunnat consider the matter of Caliphate to be a valid affair, there is wide difference in their beliefs. Also, both the sects believe in twelve Caliphs.

Today the position is such that both the sects consider the tradition of twelve Caliphs correct. But the difference is as to the names of the twelve Caliphs. Jabir Ibn Samra says that one day he went with his father to the Messenger of Allah (S). He heard the Messenger of Allah (S) say: “This affair shall not be complete till there are twelve Caliphs.” Jabir says that after this, the Prophet said something, which he could not understand. So Jabir asked his father what the Messenger of Allah (S) had said. The father told him that the Prophet said: All of them (Caliphs) shall be from Quraish.

On the basis of this tradition, Ahlul Sunnat have enumerated their Caliphs as follows: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali (a.s.), Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan and seven Caliphs from Abdul Malik to Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz. Some Ahlul Sunnat scholars consider Yazeed after Muawiyah and the Umayyad Caliphs in an unbroken chain among the twelve Caliphs. Even the teacher of this writer, Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Gul Jalalabadi considered valid the Caliphate of Yazeed and the author also had the same belief during his student life. We should know that Ahlul Sunnat sect, which has excluded Yazeed from the list of twelve Caliphs has done so due to the reason that Yazeed was a transgressor and sinful man. But the sect that considers Yazeed a rightful Caliph does so with the justification that infallibility is not a necessary condition of Caliphate.

From the aspect of principle, to be a rightful Caliph one has to fulfill at least one of the necessary conditions of Caliphate, while Yazeed fulfilled many of these conditions. Yazeed had the support of the consensus (Ijma) of Abu Bakr. Only two people are sufficient for consensus while Yazeed had the consensus of hundreds of thousands of people. Apart from this, Yazeed had the condition of the nomination of Umar, the consultation (Shura) of Uthman and the military superiority of Muawiyah. In such a case, the validity of Yazeed’s Caliphate is not against the principles of Caliphate. From this aspect, we must count all the twelve Caliphs and not make exclusions like some sects of Ahlul Sunnat do by excluding Yazeed from the luminaries of twelve Caliphs. This is not an aimless discourse.

Doubtlessly, no follower of the principles of Caliphate could exclude Yazeed from the twelve Caliphs. Thus, Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi in his book, Izalatul Khifa mentions in serial order the names of the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat and Yazeed is also included in the list. Now, this was about the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat. Let us see the list of the twelve Caliphs of the Imamiyah Sect. There is no difference among the twelver Shias regarding the twelve Caliphs.

The Caliphs of Shias are as follows: Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), Imam Hasan (a.s.), Imam Husayn (a.s.), Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.), Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.), Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.), Imam Ali ar-Reza (a.s.), Imam Muhammad at-Taqi (a.s.), Imam Ali an-Naqi (a.s.), Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) and Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi (a.j.) (Peace be upon them all).

It should be clear that Shias consider Caliphate to be a divine affair on the basis of Quran and the tradition of the two heavy things (Thaqalayn). They also all believe in the infallibility of the Caliphs. According to the Imamiyah sect, it is necessary for the Caliph to be infallible. The Imamiyah say that the Prophet was infallible, therefore his successors should also be infallible. The successor of an infallible cannot be a non-infallible.

Ahlul Sunnat people have contrary belief with regard to the matter of Caliphate and they do not consider it to be a divine affair. The writer has shown that the statement of “We have the book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah) had created an atmosphere, which was not conducive to make the affair of Caliphate a divine affair.

Thus, they consider the Caliphate of Abu Bakr valid on the basis of a single consensus (Ijma). And according to principles, they do not successfully present any Quranic or traditional proof to justify their stand. Some proofs of nomination, that are presented by some Ahlul Sunnat scholars do not conform to their own principles of Caliphate. Because, if the nominative proofs are considered correct, the Caliphate of the three Caliphs will become an affair from Allah, which is the very belief of the Imamiyah sect and which is vehemently opposed by Sunni sect.

We shall study these nominative proofs later. Here, we do not desire to dwell further on this topic. In the same way, the belief in the infallibility of the Caliphs is a belief very far from Ahlul Sunnat. They do not consider anyone infallible, except the Holy Prophet (S). Rather, there is a Sunni sect which considers Holy Prophet (S) infallible only at the time of divine revelation and for other times they do not even consider him infallible.

One of their sects even believes that before Prophethood, (Allah forbid!) the Messenger of Allah (S) was a disbeliever and his respected father was also a disbeliever. It is apparent, that on the basis of the lack of infallibility, Ahlul Sunnat cannot have the belief of the fourteen infallibles, because according to them, after the Holy Prophet (S), there was no infallible and there shall never be in the future. Unlike Ahlul Sunnat, Shias have the belief of the fourteen Infallibles (a.s.) and this belief is special only to Shias.

Doubtlessly, some Ahlul Sunnat people have unprincipally taken this belief from Shias. It is obvious that when according to the majority of Ahlul Sunnat, when no one from the Muslim Ummah could be infallible, except the Holy Prophet (S), then from where did we get these thirteen Infallibles? Ahlul Sunnat do not consider anyone infallible except the Holy Prophet (S).

In these circumstances, if one of them agrees to the infallibility of any member of Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet, the Caliphate of the three Caliphs would become invalid. Obviously, then after this confession what remains to give preference to the three Caliphs over His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)? Preferring a non-infallible to an infallible is indeed an irrational thing!

Doubtlessly, it is a brilliant decision of Ahlul Sunnat to consider Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) non-infallible like the other common Muslims. Apart from this, if the Muslims of that time had believed in the infallibility of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), the matter of Fadak would have been decided in a different manner. Indeed, due to the confession of infallibility, the dark deeds of the house of justice towards Lady Fatima (s.a.) would have come about in a different manner.

Knowledgeable people are aware that Fatima (s.a.) was treated as an ordinary woman in the litigation of Fadak. Thus, Umar being an opposite party in the case said that Fatima is nothing more than a woman! In brief, it is the very belief of Ahlul Sunnat that Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) can commit mistakes.

The statement of Maulavi Abdul Ala regarding Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) in Bahrul Uloom clearly shows that according to Ahlul Sunnat the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) also sometimes commit mistakes like the common people and they are even prone to deviation. And this was due to the sin they committed without intention. Like the sin committed by Lady Fatima that she should accuse the Caliph of the Prophet to be a liar and that she should become aloof from him when he had confiscated Fadak.

Apparently, it seems that Fatima (s.a.) did not consider Abu Bakr a Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S), that she should accuse him of such misdemeanor in the words of Abdul Ala. The above circumstances also show that all Bani Hashim did not consider Abu Bakr to be Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S).

And Ali (a.s.) also had similar view, as we shall show in the following pages. In any case, the denial to believe in the infallibility of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) definitely decreased their greatness and importance. It should be clear that gradually these acts of dishonor towards Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) culminated in the incident, which is known as the Tragedy of Karbala’. The incident of Karbala’ is nothing but a result of these acts and it is not even unnatural.

Here we shall mention some examples of insulting behavior towards Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) that culminated in the Tragedy of Karbala’. One of this is the burning of the door of Fatima (s.a.). This event is mentioned in the Tarikh of Abul Fida. Tarikh Tabari, Tarikh Waqidi, Al-Murtadha’, Saqifah of Abu Bakr by Jauhari, Al Imamah was Siyasah etc. Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlavi also agrees to it as mentioned by him in his book, Tohfa Ithna Ashar. Apart from this, Asian books, like Gaban, Aaseeran and Aurang also include this incident. Indeed, this incident has a historical base and it is not fiction.

Till this point, writer had not seen this incident mentioned in these books, he did not believe it to be a true incident. But after the student days, when he studied the books of history and Scholastic Theology (Ilmul Kalam), he became disenchanted with the well-known Islam. Now the condition is such that he is ashamed to call himself a Muslim.

Regrettably, even the Tohfa (gift) of Shah Abdul Aziz could not provide any succor. Rather, the replies of the Shah seem to justify sins and encourage sinful deeds. Actually, this book has distanced the writer further from popular Islam. Anyway, whether I became a denier or whatever, at least I am safe from not recognizing the Holy Prophet (S), praise be to Allah. If Allah wills, I shall not be ashamed to face the Holy Prophet (S) in front of Lady Fatima (s.a.) after I die. Let us now read the terrible and tragic incident as recorded in Al Imamah was Siyasah.

The Arson

When Abu Bakr learnt that the people opposing allegiance were with Ali (a.s.), he sent Umar to them. Thus, Umar called them while they were in the house of Ali (a.s.), but they refused to come out, so Umar got firewood piled at Ali’s door and said: “By the One in Whose hands is the life of Umar, we shall definitely bring them out, or we shall burn all of them to death.” Someone said: “O Hafasa’s father, Fatima (s.a.) is also in the house.” Upon this, Umar said: “Let her be!”

All the people came out and paid allegiance, except Ali (a.s.) who did not come out. Umar thought that Ali (a.s.) had vowed that he will not leave his house till he has collected the Quran, and he would not even put his mantle on his shoulders till he had collected the Quran. After this, Fatima came near the door and said:

“You left the bier of the Messenger of Allah (S) and became busy in your activities and now you have come to trouble us? You have no regard for our rights!”

After this, Umar came to Abu Bakr and said: “Will you not take allegiance from that opponent (Ali)?” Abu Bakr sent his slave, Qunfuz to summon Ali (a.s.) and Qunfuz went to Ali (a.s.) who asked him the purpose of his visit; Qunfuz said:

“The Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S) has summoned you.” His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) said: “How you people attribute falsehood to the Messenger of Allah (S)?” The slave returned to Abu Bakr who continued to weep for a long time. Umar again asked him if he wouldn’t take allegiance from the opponent of allegiance.

Abu Bakr told his slave to go once more and say that the chief of the believers (Amirul Mo-mineen) has called him. So Qunfuz went and told as he was bidden. Ali (a.s.) became visibly angry and said: “Glory be to Allah, what claim is it, that he (Abu Bakr) has no right to it?” The slave returned to Abu Bakr who again began to weep.

Then Umar got up and a group of people went with him. They reached the door of Fatima (s.a.) and knocked. When Lady Fatima (s.a.) heard them, she began to wail and scream aloud: “O Father! O Messenger of Allah (S) help your daughter! See what we are made to suffer after you at the hands of Ibn Khattab (Umar) and Ibn Abi Qahafa (Abu Bakr).”

When the people heard the mournful voice of Fatima (s.a.), they turned away while their hearts were painful and shattered. But Umar remained there and with the help of some people brought Ali (a.s.) out of the house and took him to Abu Bakr. The incident of arson so far is related to the house of Fatima (s.a.) and the writer cannot comment further. But does this incident at the house Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) not insult the respectable household? The next insulting behavior towards the Purified Household (a.s.) came about when Ali (a.s.) was brought before Abu Bakr.

After The Arson

Again we quote from the book Al Imamah was Siyasah. When Umar brought His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) to Abu Bakr, Ali (a.s.) said: “What if I don’t give allegiance?” Umar said: “By the One except whom there is no god, in such a case we shall behead you.”

Ali (a.s.) asked: “Will you kill a slave of Allah and the brother of Holy Prophet (S)?” Umar said: “Slave of Allah is right, but not the brother of Holy Prophet (S).” At that time Abu Bakr was silent and he did not utter a single word. Umar asked Abu Bakr why he did not tell Ali what he wanted? Abu Bakr said that till Fatima (s.a.) was at the side of Ali (a.s.), he (Abu Bakr) could not force him for anything. After this, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) came to the grave of the Messenger of Allah (S). He wailed and entreated:

“O son of my uncle! Help me! The people have weakened me too much and are prepared to slay me.”

The people of justice should understand what effect this statement of Umar had on the Muslims. All these actions against the Chief of Bani Hashim, that is Ali (a.s.), the forcible arrest and an open threat to kill him! All this did not enhance the respect of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Here no one objects to this type of action of Umar. The most shocking of all is the refusal of Umar to acknowledge that Ali (a.s.) was the brother of Holy Prophet (S). While every person of that time was aware that Ali (a.s.) was the cousin of the Messenger of Allah (S).

In addition to this, the Holy Prophet (S) had compared him to Prophet Haroon (a.s.) and also bestowed him the status of brother in the world and in the hereafter. However, the way Umar dealt with Ali (a.s.) must have influenced the people to think Ali (a.s.) must be so unrespectable that Umar cannot bear to call him the brother of the Messenger of Allah (S). Doubtlessly, this denial cannot in any way enhance the respectability of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), whatever the intellectuals may think.

Decrease in the Respect Of Ahlul Bayt From The Aspect Of The Rule Of Consensus

Here are present other example that prove decrease in the respectability of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). It is the stand of Ahlul Sunnat scholars that two people of other than Ahlul Bayt (S) are sufficient for quorum of consensus. But the consensus of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) is not acceptable whether of two people or two hundred

Fourthly, this jurisprudence removed the belief of the infallibility of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) from the common people and this indirectly benefited the non-Ahlul Bayt people. Without any doubt, this type of jurisprudence showered untold honors on the non-Ahlul Bayt people and went to great lengths to decrease the respectability of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Thus, there is no doubt that Karbala’ was the culmination of the intrigue against Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) that was initiated just after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S). This continued till Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). Rather, it exists even after that and will remain till there remains enmity to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

Inappropriate Titles That Decreased The Respect Of Muhammad’s Progeny

The fourth example of decrease in the respectability of Muhammad’s Progeny is given below: It should be clear that in the view of this writer, one of the causes of insult to Muhammad’s Progeny is the transferring of the titles of thousand. Farooq Aazam,1 Siddiq Akbar2 and Saifullah3 which were exclusive for Ali (a.s.). And the majority of Muslims do not once remember His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) with these titles. Rather, only one or two from a hundred thousand Muslims may be aware that these titles belong specially to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

The same is the case with the title of Siddiqa4 , which was exclusive for Lady Fatima (s.a.). But the majority Muslims have separated this title from her. The following matter also tells us of the insult to Muhammad’s Progeny that the majority Muslims have turned the title of Imam into such a common appendage that people like Fakhruddin Razi and Ghazzali are decorated with it, whereas this title is exclusive for the Imams from the family of the Prophet. If the majority Muslims had valued Muhammad’s Progeny, they would not have transferred their titles to ordinary people. But since the majority Muslims are bent on disrespecting Muhammad’s Progeny, what else would they have done?

If the majority Muslims had valued Muhammad’s Progeny, they would not have transferred their titles to ordinary people. But since the majority Muslims are bent on disrespecting Muhammad’s Progeny, what else would they have done?

Notes

1. The great discriminator

2. The great truthful one.

3. Sword of Allah.

4. Truthful lady