Excellence of the Two Shaykhs
(Published in ‘Al-Jawwad’, February 1956 A.D. issue)
After objecting to the existence of the Master of the Age (a.t.f.s.), Rizwan editor says: Shias in the view of Musa Kazim (as): “Now let us see this narration on page 159 of Usul al-Kafi: Imam Musa Kazim (as) said: ‘Allah sent wrath upon the Shias.’ If I select my Shias, I will not find any but talkative ones and if I test them, I will not find them but apostates.”
This verdict is not of the Shias but of Imam Musa Kazim, which is present in their books. Now Shias should contemplate on what is the opinion of their Imam about them, because if we say anything they would complain. Not only this, but it is mentioned in the reliable book of Shias, Ihtijaj of Tabarsi:
“All the twelve sects of Shias would go to Hell.”
It is mentioned in Rijal Kishi that the Shia community consists of three parts: First is sinful and unfortunate while the other two are foolish.” Similarly, it is narrated in Furu al-Kafi
that Imam Ali (as) said, “I pity the deeds of the Shias.”
Killers of Husain were also Shias!
“It is mentioned in Majalisul Muttaqin (page 29) that: Imam Husain (as) holding his son Ali Asghar in his arms said to the disbelievers, ‘O Shias! You killed me as well as the people of my house (Ahlul Bayt).’ It is mentioned in Rijal Kishi (page 13) that Imam Husain addressed the Shias, ‘O Shias! You killed me and plundered all my belongings.’
Shia books say that the killers of Husain were Shias themselves.”
I am amused that along with his slyness, deception, fraud, distorting nature and malice, the gems of the knowledge of the Rizwan editor are also exposed. It has become evident that the foundation of his religion cannot be laid without deceit. Some of the wordings of the above passage are blatant lies, some intentional distortions and some miracles of misunderstanding. I write these three aspects separately so that it is easy to answer them.
Blatant Lies
“The editor of Rizwan has mentioned on the authority of Rijal Kishi Pg. 13: Imam Husain addressed the Shias, ‘O Shias! You killed me and plundered all my belongings.’ Hence it is proved from Shia books that Shias were only the killers of Husain.”
I never before felt to say that the editor of Rizwan never got an opportunity to himself read all the books he has mentioned and quoted. Its proof is that he has not quoted the correct page number of a single reference. As a result, I had to read whole books to find the reference. If at all I found it, it was in such a way that the objection of the Rizwan editor was not applicable to it. It is clear that his editorship is wholly dependant on gossips.
However, this passage and reference has crossed all limits of deceit. I challenge that if the Rizwan editor or anyone of his religion shows me this saying of Imam Husain (as) not only from page 13 but from the ‘B’ of ‘Bismillah’
to the end, I would reward him a thousand rupees.
The editor of Rizwan has also resorted to a similar deception in a later topic. Though restriction of maintaining a serial order had restrained me from discussing it, I feel that I would have to write all these things once again next month. The editor of Rizwan would not be ashamed of being exposed again and again but I am very conscious about my time, so I shall discuss that also here itself. He writes as follows:
Siddiq and Farooq
“Ali al-Murtada, the lion of God, most proximate to the Merciful Lord, says in his sermon regarding the Siddiq Akbar (Abu Bakr) and Farooq Azam (Umar), “They both (Siddiq and Farooq) were just Imams (as). They were righteous and died righteous. May Allah’s blessings be on them on the Day of Judgment.”
I request the Shias to read this sermon of Ali (as) al-Murtada Karamullah Wajhul Karim properly. Ali (as) says that the caliphates of Siddiq and Farooq were lawful and they both trod the path of truth.
Not only this, they even died on truth.
Not only this, but Allah would shower blessings upon them on the Day of Judgment.
Just think upon it!
Shia scholars say that Ali (as) paid allegiance to Siddiq and Farooq under Taqiyyah or due to some other reason. Firstly, it is against the honor of the Lion of God that he should feel afraid and approve the caliphate only out of fear. Even if we agree to this, the above sermon of Ali (as), which he delivered after the death of Hazrat Siddiq and Farooq, contradicts it. He said that Siddiq and Farooq were righteous and died righteous and Allah will send His blessings upon them on the Day of Judgment.
When Ali (r.a.) had power, what was the need to fear?
Allah had agreed upon the caliphate of the three caliphs.
“The right of choosing the caliph belongs to Immigrants and Helpers only. If these Immigrants and Helpers unite over the Imamate or caliphate of a person, and they appoint him as the Imam, it has the approval of Allah.”
Now Shias should decide that if the caliphates of the three caliphs were not valid, how could Haider-e-Karrar (Imam Ali) state thus?
Does it not prove that the caliphates of the three caliphs were correct in the view of Ali (as)?”
According to some narrations Shaitan told Lady Hawwa (Eve), “The nearness of that tree which God had prohibited is over and there is no harm in eating the fruits of that tree.” When Lady Hawwa hesitated, the Shaitan immediately swore by Allah. Lady Hawwa thought how someone could swear by Allah falsely (because this was the first swearing which proved false) and she believed the saying of Shaitan to be true.
Poor semi-literate subscribers of Rizwan were deceived by these hypothetical sources and sermons in a similar manner. They would have thought how someone could print a wrong account in a journal. Hence, whatever the Rizwan editor quotes must be present in Shia books and is a saying of Imam Ali (as). Today there is no dearth of such people in villages who pick up pages of novels and fictions lying on the ground and keep them safely thinking that since it is a printed-paper, there would surely be a thing worthy of respect and a true subject in it. How could they know that it contains useless matters?
In order to strengthen the belief of the readers, Mr. Editor has challenged in later issues that whosoever proves a single reference wrong, would be awarded a thousand rupees.
Those readers who have read my earlier issues might have clearly understood the fact that none of the references were free of deception. He has resorted to distortion and deception everywhere but I did not repeat this challenge on purpose. For instance, he has said that ‘Mus’haf-e-Fatima’ and ‘Jame’ are both Qurans. While the complete account of these two books are present in the same narrations whose parts he has quoted. If I had quoted the whole narration and asked him, “Since you have given a wrong description that these two books are also Quran, now give me a thousand rupees,” he would have humbly said, “The narration was in Arabic and hence I could not understand it clearly. I had just quoted what I understood, so the Shias should forgive me.” Thus the matter would have ended.
However, there is no excuse of such ignorance in the narration of Rijal Kishi’ and sermon of Amirul Momineen (as) because both of them are not even found anywhere. Hence, the Rizwan editor should either show the saying of Imam Husain (as) in Rijal Kishi’ or cough up a thousand rupees. Further, he should either show that saying of Amirul Momineen (as) in a Shia book which is acceptable (not the one quoted by Ahlul Sunnat) or present a thousand rupees more.
Anyone among the believers of Pakistan can file a lawsuit against the Rizwan editor over the bet of reward and recover two thousand rupees along with legal expenses. Half of the money should be donated to the Association of Scholarships of Sayyids and believers (Pakistan) for scholarships in jurisprudence. While half of it should be donated to the Association of Scholarships of Sayyids and believers (India). So that students of religious schools may be given scholarships through this.
After proving the fact that there is no existence of such a saying of Amirul Momineen (as), no need remains to object to the blessed wordings of the Rizwan editor. Still, let us ignore this fact for a moment and for the sake of completion of argument, let us glance at this concocted saying and interpretation of the Rizwan editor so that he reaches home.
Firstly, all the words of this saying have multiple meanings and do not make any clear sense:
1) Imamah: According to the Holy Quran, there are two types of Imams – ‘Guiding Imams’ and ‘Imams of hell’. Refer to the following verses:
“And We made of them Imams to guide by Our command…”
“And We made them Imams who call to the fire…”
How can we judge whether the Imam here does not imply Imams leading to hell?
2) Adilan or Adil: Adl (Justice) and Udool (to deviate). Both are active nouns (Ism-e-Faail) and the meaning can be both ‘justice’ and ‘to deviate’. What is the proof that here it does not imply ‘deviation from truth’?
3) Qasitan or Qasit: It means both, just and equitable, and unjust and sinner. Jabir (r.a.) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (S) said regarding the circumstance of revelation of the verse of: But if We should take you away, still We shall inflict retribution on them…
“This verse was revealed in the honor of Imam Ali (as) because after me he would fight with the oath breakers (Nakiseen), the unjust (Qasiteen) and apostates (Mariqeen).”
Now, how can we say that ‘Qasitaan’ does not mean unjust and sinners here?
4) Kaana Alal Haq (The two were upon the truth): ‘Ala’ (upon) is used in various meanings. One of them is ‘upon’, according to which, the sentence would mean, ‘they both were rightful’. However, second meaning is ‘opposite’. It is said that if ‘Shahida lahu’ (gave witness in accordance with it) is said ‘Shahida alaiha’ then it would mean ‘gave a testimony against it’. What is the reason that the second sense is not implied here, that ‘they both were against the truth’.
5) Wa maa taa alaihe (And the two died upon it): There would be two meanings of this sentence also due to ‘Alaa’ viz. ‘they both died rightful’ and ‘they both died when they were against the truth’.
6) Fa alaihimaa rahmatullaahi yaumal Qiyamah (May mercy of Allah be on them on the Day of Judgment): ‘Ala’ is present here also. Hence both interpretations are possible: viz. ‘May God’s mercy be upon them on the Day of Judgment’ and ‘May God’s mercy be against them on the Day of Judgment.’
The editor of Rizwan should tell us how he could force a person to believe only in the former meaning and not the latter one?
That is: “They both were leaders taking others to hell. They were deviated from the ‘Right path’ and were unjust. They were against truth and died against truth. Thus, may God’s mercy be against both of them.”
Secondly, context is required to find the meaning of similar words. The editor of Rizwan does not have any historical or literary proof for his translation other than his belief. I have the context and proof of my translation that Amirul Momineen (as) really considered the Shaykhs unjust and deviated from the Sunnah of Prophet (S). The books of Ahlul Sunnat are replete with such discussions. Allamah Qutaybah writes in Al-Imamah Was-siyaasah about the battle of Naharwan: Amirul Momineen (as) asked a Khatha’mi man to pay allegiance. He said that he would pay allegiance to him on the command of Quran, Sunnah of Prophet (S) and method of Shaykhs. Amirul Momineen (as) asked, “Why do you mix the method of Abu Bakr and Umar with the Book of God and Sunnah of Prophet (S)? The two were tyrannical and unjust rulers.”
In the same way the following tradition of Amirul Momineen (as) is quoted on Pg. 154 of Tanqeed-e-Akhbar on the authority of Kanzul Ummal, Kitabul Iktiqa and Tabaqat of Ibn Saad:
Amirul Momineen Ali (as) said, “So I came to know, that by Allah, Umar would surely not act on justice according to the Sunnah of Prophet (S).”
That is why Amirul Momineen (as) never considered the two Shaykhs just and rightful. So he did not accept the condition of the Shaykhs’ practice at the time of consultation (Shura) and spurned the apparent caliphate. These thoughts of Ali were not such that they be hidden and only revealed after the death of the Shaykhs but they were obvious in their lifetime also. Even caliph Umar was aware of it. Thus, according to one of the narrations of Sahih Muslim (belief on whose traditions is one of the necessities of religion of Ahlul Sunnat), Umar himself complained inter alia a long discussion with Amirul Momineen (as) and Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib and said, “You both considered me a liar, sinner, disloyal and treacherous.”
Obviously, when other proven sayings of Amirul Momineen (as) show that he considered Abu Bakr and Umar unjust, deviated from the way of the Prophet (S), liar, sinner, disloyal and treacherous, hence if a saying of Amirul Momineen were presented whose meaning is somewhat similar to this we would surely have to believe in that meaning only but it would be necessary to reject the meaning, which is opposite to these sayings.
Thirdly, the Rizwan editor has not given any reference for this saying in any issue after the ‘Sayyadush Shohada Number’. Instead he has given the proof that Allamah Hairi has interpreted this saying and given selfish meanings. It is concluded from his interpretation that if he had not considered it a saying of Amirul Momineen (as) why he had interpreted it?
The interpretation of Allamah Hairi is not present with me but I am sure that the explanation would not be dissimilar to that of mine because the aspects of these similar words are very lucid. However, my explanation does not prove that I really believe that this is a saying of Imam (as). Similarly, Allamah Hairi (May Allah exalt his status) might have given an amusing explanation of this saying. So how the Rizwan editor got involved in a pleasant thought that the Allamah also believes that it was a saying of Imam? O gentleman! It is the favor of Allah, the Almighty, upon we Shias from eternity that not only Sunnis but all other opponents are caught guilty by us through their own testimonies and writings and struck dumb with such amazement that they can’t even find a way to escape to even Mount Uhad.
Hence, it had been our ever-lasting method that when opponents cook up and narrate hypothetical issues, we accept them for a time being and then refute them using their own sources. It is about our Shia religion that Allah has promised: “that He might cause it to prevail over all religions…”
We are proud to give such a series of blows to the opposite sects from every angle that they become satisfied. Hence, you can see the result of your concocted saying. Allah put such a seal on the mind of its forger that he wrote every such sentence, which would be used against him only. For the kind information of the Rizwan editor, let me tell him that this is neither a sermon of Amirul Momineen (as) nor a saying of an Imam but an invention of an over-smart Ahlul Sunnat gentleman. Its mention can neither be found in Shia books nor in traditions of Ahlul Sunnat. Hence you could not write even a reference heard by you for this hypothetical saying. Just estimate your worth from this.
Fourthly, if the Rizwan editor was not aware of the references presented by me, before raising the objection, he should have at least thought that if Amirul Momineen (as) considered those leaders so just, rightful and worthy of Divine Mercy why he would have said the Book of God and recommendations of Prophet (S) are all right but he would not follow the Shaykhs when Abdur Rahman bin Auf placed forth this condition at the time of consultation (Shura) that they would pay allegiance to Amirul Momineen (as) if he followed the Book of God, Sunnah of Prophet (S) and Sunnah of the Shaykhs. These incidents are so famous and in safe custody of history that there is no need for a special reference for them. Any Islamic history containing incidents of Shura committee can be referred on this issue.
Did Amirul Momineen not want to (God forbid) perform the duties of caliphate with justice? Or did he not want to live and die rightfully? Or did he want to (God forbid) remain aloof from Divine Mercy? After all, Amirul Momineen (as) wanted to live such a life. Hence, if he considered Shaykhs just, why he remained so wary of them?
Let me mention one more point at the end of the discussion that Abu Bakr and Umar are mentioned as ‘Siddiq-e-Akbar’ and ‘Farooq-e-Azam’ in the preface of an account after associating it to Amirul Momineen (as). This injustice is also worthy of attention because the Holy Prophet (S) himself says that only Ali (as) is ‘Siddiq-e-Akbar’ and ‘Farooq-e-Azam’. Refer to the following narration:
Salman al-Farsi (r.a.) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (S) used to say regarding Imam Ali (as), “He was the first to bring faith on me, he would be the first to meet me on the Day of Judgment, and he is ‘Siddiq-e-Akbar’ and ‘Farooq-e-Azam’ and the Master of the faithful ones while wealth is the master of believers.”
One should not think that maybe Ali (as) is ‘Siddiq-e-Akbar’ and ‘Farooq-e-Azam’ but the Shaykhs are also given this title. Because the Messenger of Allah (S) has already negated it saying there is no ‘Siddiq’ save Ali (as) in this community. Refer to the following tradition:
Ibn Abbas and Abu Laila narrate that the Messenger of Allah (S) said, “There are three ‘Siddiqs’ (truthful ones). (1) Habib Najjar, believer of the Al-Yaa Seen, (2) Hizqil, believer from the community of Firon and (3) Ali Ibn Abi Talib; and Ali is most exalted of them.” Imam Bukhari has narrated this from Ibn Abbas and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal from Abu Laila.
This shows that Abu Bakr being called ‘Siddiq’ is not in accordance with any lawful proof or divine decree. Now refer to this saying of the Holy Prophet (S) regarding ‘Farooq’:
Abu Laila narrates that the Messenger of Allah (S) said, “Shortly after me, sedition will raise its head. If such a condition arises remain attached to Ali (as) because he is the only ‘Farooq’ (distinguisher between right and wrong).”
Khwarizmi, Dailami and Allamah Ibn Abdul Bar narrate this tradition in Istiab.
It clearly proves that the Holy Prophet (S) did not regard anyone except Ali (a.s) as ‘Farooq’. He commanded them to remain attached to Ali (as) in the rising sedition i.e. of the issue of caliphate after him. What is the right to call Umar ‘Farooq’ or ‘Farooq-e-Azam’?
The great Ahlul Sunnat scholar, Maulana Ubaidullah Amritsari has quoted eleven traditions from Pg. 22 to 25 in his book, Arjahul Matalib on the authority of the following narrators that Imam Ali (as) is ‘Siddiq-e-Akbar’ and ‘Farooq-e-Azam’:
1) Allamah Muhib Tabari (in Riyazun Nazara fi Fazaelul Ashara)
2) Imam Tibrani (in Mojam)
3) Dailami
4) Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (in Musnad)
5) Imam Nasai (in Khasais)
6) Imam Hakim (in Mustadrak)
7) Hafiz Abu Zaid Uthman bin Abi Shayba (in Sunan)
8) Ibn Asim (in Sunnat)
9) Hafiz Abu Naeem (in Hilyatul Awliya)
10) Abu Ja'far Aqeeli
11) Ibn Qutaybah (in Maa’rif)
12) Imam Bukhari (in Sahih Bukhari)
13) Ibnul Hijam (in Tafsir)
14) Allamah Ibn Abdul Basr (in Istiab)
The following companions narrate these traditions:
1) Salman Al-Farsi
2) Abu Dharr Ghiffari
3) Ibad bin Abdullah
4) Muaazat Aduyah
5) Ibn Abbas
6) Abu Laila
7) Amirul Momineen Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as) himself.
Hence, Amirul Momineen (as) declared from the pulpit, “If anyone other than me claims to be ‘Siddiq-e-Akbar’ he is a liar.”
Imam Ali (as) said, “I am the servant of God and brother of the Messenger of Allah (S). I am ‘Siddiq-e-Akbar’. None other than me can say this except a liar. I prayed for seven years before anyone did.”
This tradition is narrated in Arjahul Matalib of Amritsari, Manaqib of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Khasais of Imam Nasai, Mustadrak of Imam Hakim, Sunan of Hafiz Abu Zaid, Sunnat of Ibn Asim and Hilayatul Awliya of Hafiz Abu Naeem.
Notes
0%
Author: Allamah Sayyid Sa'eed Akhtar Rizvi
