Wahabism And Monotheism

1

2

3

4

5

Chapter: 9 The Corporalists are Set Free. Shias are Under Arrest

Waves of persecution Shias have been suffering since the Prophet's decease up to now are adequately enough to eradicate any nation or sect other than them. Similarly floods of accusation and mass medial campaigns consecrated against Shias are commensurate enough to fade out any nation or sect. Despite the all Shias are still enjoying considerable fitness and wholeness living in good livelihood and increasingly forming about quarter of the Islamic nation.

Their habituating themselves to circumstances of persecution in such a piercing form was the main reason beyond their importunate endurance. They adjusted themselves to receiving accusals. They are the best example of encountering cataclysms of iniquitous accusals and insults by relaxed and calm nerves. "We are the opposition. We do not expect our Islamic history to consent to us." this is the statement usually said by Shias when they are wondered about receiving such accusal and insults. As a matter of fact Shias do recognize history. From historical occurrences such as the attack on house of Fatima daughter of the Prophet who departed the life few hours before and whose body had not been buried yet practiced by the ruling authorities who heaped up firewood around her house and warned that they would set it on fire while Ali Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein besides Fatima herself the Prophet's household had been inside it. Form this occurrence and many others Shias learned that the Islamic history is too intolerant to treat the opposition party fairly or even equitably. In a like manner We the Shias do not expect governments that persecuted chased banished and massacred us to praise or speak fairly about our beliefs. We anticipate they would revile at us and accuse us of every unfitting affair. Moreover we did realize that they would fabricate rumors and vituperation too constructed to be attained by the most proficient specialists in profession of fabrication.

After all these years we do expect our brothers the fair scholars to disinherit those styles of accusation and reviling at the Prophet's progeny and their adherents. We do seek them to acquaint faiths jurisprudence and beliefs of Shias from their own reference books. We do hope that our brothers would shun false information inscribed in reference books of those who persecuted and hated Shias and books of those yesmen who reviled at Shias just because they heard some people revile.

BOOKS OF ISLAMIC SECTS FORGE LIES AGAINST SHIAS AND COVER UP CORPORALISTS

It is quite accurate to describe books dealt with the Islamic sects as 'a group of journalistic politicized and unauthenticated accounts that are similar to a western journalist's report concerning the group of bodies associations and trends in a definite Arabic country who writes down what he hears and some of what he externally sees on bases of his personal backgrounds and aims.'

Al-Ashari's Maqalatul Islamiyin As-Shehristani's Al-Milelu WenNihel Ibn Hazm's Al-Faslu Fil Milel and An-Nubekhti's Al-Farqu Beinel Furaq are examples of such reference books.

We can only cite models of these books so that we may open the door to fortuitous criticism. Authenticity of accrediting these writing works to those scholars should be the foremost matter to be discussed since a number of testimonies suspects for example relating the book of Maqalatul Islamiyin to Abul-Hassan Al-Ashari.

EXAMPLES ON COVERING UP CORPORALISTS IN THESE BOOKS

Maqalatul Islamiyin; Abul-Hassan Al-Ashari part 1 page 211:

Mutazilites contend that prevalence is the meaning of God's settling. Some people claim 'settling' stands for sitting and aptitude.

Those 'some people' are majority of Asharites and Hanbalites. What for then does the writer shun naming them?!

part 1 page 213:

They engaged in discrepancy about seeableness of the Excellent Creator. Some asserted that it is possible to see Allah with eyes in this world and that they might have met…

Those some are the corporalists; the Asharites Hanbalites and Hashawites. What for then does the writer shun naming them?!

part 1 page 211:

People cited different opinions about bearers of the Throne. Some claim their bearing the Creator that when He is irate it becomes heavy for them to carry.

When he becomes pleasant it becomes light. Others claim bearers of the Throne are eight angles. Some said eight species…

Since his likes and he (AhlusSunna) decide authenticity of hadith of ibex and its likes Al-Ashari covers up identity of those who claim such ridiculous statements. He is used to doing so whenever he is unable to impute such rejected sayings to Shias or Mutazilites. He shelters sayers of such statements so that Allah may protect him!!

By the way Hanbalites and Asharites have uttered calamitous sayings about bearers of the Throne. All can be viewed at exegesis of God's saying (The Beneficent settled on the Throne.) They imitated the Jews and the pagans when they claimed that bearers of the divine throne are animals; tame and wild. They rested upon authentic reports. Previously we have provided examples of these opinions.

part 1 page 214:

Some opted for possibility of the Lord's incarnation in corporealities. They used to revere handsome men expecting that their Lord might have incarnated in his corporeality. Majority of those who opt for the Lord's seeableness decide possibility of shaking hands touching and visitating Him the Lord. They added "The sincere servants shall hang their Lord in this world as well as in the Hereafter." Others abstained from claiming God's seeableness in this world… They claimed the Lord's seeableness in the Hereafter.

Those incarnationists who decide possibility of hanging the Lord in the Hereafter are the Hashawites and groups of Hanbalites and Asharites. The abstinent are some of Asharites and few of Hanbalites. Other Muslims do contradict so.

Ashehristani's Al-Milelu Wen-Nihel volume 1 part 1 page 141:

Anthropomorphists related that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had said "My Lord shook hands with me when he met me…He put his hands between my shoulders that I could feel coolness of His forefingers."

This is an indication to the hadith found in reference books of hadiths compiled by Sunnis our brothers. The Hanbalite corporalists Ibn Teimiya and their likes ruled the authenticity of this narrative. Imams of the Prophet's household and their adherents did deny such a false narrative.

Maqalatul Islamiyin; Abul-Hassan Al-Ashari part 1 page 210:

They dispute whether the Lord occupies a definite space or not… Husham Bin Al-Hakam avers that his lord occupies a specific spatial point. He referred to that point which is the Throne. He also asserts that his lord touches the Throne which comprises him alone… Some of false hadithists claim that the

Lord shall sit His Apostle (peace be upon him) next to Him on the Throne. This means that the Throne is not filled up with Him…

Narratives of the Throne's cracking creaking and sundering and the four finger vacant distance of the Throne or the Lord; all these and others are authentically documented and related by Omar the caliph and Abdullah the son as well as many others. Whatever is ascribed by Al-Ashari to Husham the Shiite is faiths of corporalists who are contradictory to the Prophet's household and progeny (peace be upon them). Nowadays corporalists are the Hashawites and Wahabists and those who joined them; the fanatic Asharites and the adorers of Riyal!!

Maqalatul Islamiyin; Abul-Hassan Al-Ashari part 1 page 211:

AhlusSunna and hadithists assert that Allah in not a corporeality and He resembles nothing at all. They also aver that the Lord is settling on the Throne without a certain condition and that He is illumination… He has a face… He has two hands… He shall come on Resurrection Day and descends to the lowest heavens.

As he accredits principals to promoting Allah against unfitting affairs and denying anthropomorphism Al-Ashari refers to Sunnis by their names. But when he mentions their beliefs of corporalism and anthropomorphism he uses some others and the like.

Hanbalite corporalists renounce denying the Lord's corporeity as Bin Baz asserts and reject denial of anthropomorphism as Ibn Teimiya affirms. Meanwhile they claim their being the only AhlusSunna (people of the Prophet's traditions) whose opinions have been already attested by the worthy ancestors!!

ENSAMPLES ON CONFUSION AND FALSE IMPUTATION OF BOOKS OF ISLAMIC SECTS

Ashehristani's Al-Milelu Wen-Nihel volume 1 part 2 page 23:

Mohammed Bin An-Numan vouches for Husham Bin Al-Hakam's claim that Allah does not know a matter before its falling. For him God's adaptation is His will. His will is His deeds. He also claims Allah's being illumination on the form of a human without being a corporeality. But he asserts "Through reports it is related that the Prophet contended Adam's being created on the look of the Lord or as to other narrative the Beneficent. It is necessary to believe so."

Muqatil Bin Suleiman as it is said adopts the same faith. Dawud Al-Jawaribi Nueim Bin Hemmad Al-Misri and many other hadithist claim of Allah's bearing a look and organs…

Ashehristani's Al-Milelu Wen-Nihel volume 1 part 2 page 139:

A group of exaggerative Shias such as Hushamites and Hashawite hadithists such as Kuhmus and Ahmed Al-Hujeimi declare anthropomorphizing the Lord. They claim that their god has a certain look with organs and limbs that are either physical or mental. They also claim their god's moveableness and descending.

As a matter of fact Muqatil Bin Suleiman is Nasibite notorious foe of the Prophet's household and their followers. He was died in 150 A. H.

In his Al-Mujruhin part 3 page 14 Ibn Hebban records:

Muqatil Bin Suleiman Al-Khurasani. The bondservant of the Azds… He was wont to receive instructions of Jews and Christians regarding knowledge of the Holy Quran. He was anthropomorphist. He anthropomorphizes the Lord to His creatures. Moreover he forges lies against hadiths.

Though Muqatil is a nefarious corporalist the author of Al-Milelu Wen-Nihel imputes corporalism to this man indirectly. On the other side he imputes it to a group of Shias so directly and positively.

Mohammed Bin An-Numan to whom corporalism is imputed is the master scholar and juriscounsult of Shias whom is called Sheik Al-Mufid. He is one of descendants of Saeed Bin Jubeir and the teacher of Sharif Al-Murteda and Sharif ArRedi. His death was on 413 A.H.

Despite the fact that written works of Sheik Al-Mufid especially in fields of beliefs jurisprudence and history are too abundant and famous to be disregarded author of Al-Milelu Wen-Nihel could not refer to any text since all these books did not comprise a single letter of what he claimed.

Husham Bin Al-Hakam was one of disciples of Imam AsSadiq (peace be upon him). He was such a skillful eloquent and expert arguer in fields of monotheism prophecy and Shism that reference books of Shias as well as others refer respectfully to narratives of his discussions and argumentation. In the year 200 Husham was dead. Opposing anthropomorphists and corporalists is a doubtless matter for Shism. It is said that Al-Jahiz was the originator of the false claim of Husham's opting for corporalism.

Disreputable confusion of author of Al-Milelu Wen-Nihel is so evident. In addition to lack of documentation the author reckoned Kuhmus and Al-Juheimi with Shias! He confused Shias with their direct opponents and made them rest upon beliefs of their foes! He alleges that Shias admit hadith of 'creating Adam on look of Allah'! While Imams of Shias (peace be upon them) warn their followers against such hadiths and clarified their distortion the author of Al-Milelu Wen-Nihel impute corporalism to Shias because they as he misalleges decide authenticity of the forecited hadith of the 'look'!!

DIVIDING SHIAS INTO FICTITIOUS GROUPS

Maqalatul Islamiyin; Abul-Hassan Al-Ashari part 1 page 31:

Rafidites followers of imamate disputed in their opinions of corporalism. They are six parties. Hushamites claim that their god is a corporeality that is a shining illumination. They also state that their god has been being when there was no space. Spaces were originated owing to his moving.

We have neither seen such Shias nor did we hear of them in a reliable book all over history!! Writers of books of Islamic sects in fact level disastrous charges against Shias without referring to any documentation or reference.

part 1 page 31:

The second party of Rafidites claim their god's being neither an aspect nor resemblant to corporealities. Depending on their claim of their god's being a corporeality they prove his existence. They also do not substantiate that the Creator is compound of parts and fractions.

There is one faith only adopted by Shias since time of Ali (peace be upon him) up to now. We do never claim God's being a corporeality. We assert that He the Exalted is a thing unlike other things. By averring so we are free from the two edges; edge of Tatilism and that of anthropomorphism. For Shias it is erroneous to express that Allah is a corporeality unlike other corporealities. Only meaning of this statement should be correct when the sayer intends to say that the Lord is an unparalleled thing.

part 1 page 31:

The third party of Rafidites are those who claim their god's having a human's look. They reject regarding him as a corporeality. The fourth party are Hushamites who claim their god's having a human's look. They deny his being constituent of flesh and blood but they decide him as a shining illumination. They assign senses to him.

We have neither seen nor heard or read in a reliable reference book of existence of such parties among Shias. Likewise there is no single authentic reference book reveals existence of such individuals. These rumors are nothing but falsities of books of Islamic sects forged by the authors or by the agents of the ruling authorities who ascribed such writings to such authors dishonestly.

part 1 page 31:

The fifth party are those who claim their god's being pure light and sheer illumination. They contradicted the god's having a human's look.

We have neither seen nor heard or read in a reliable reference book of existence of such parties among Shias if the ordinary illumination and light is intended. But if the light of the heavens and the earth that is unexampled is

intended the holy Quran proves so obviously and the entire Muslims believe of its existence.

part 1 page 31:

The sixth party are those who deny their god's being a corporeality an aspect or a thing that has resemblant. They adopted the same ideas of Mutazilites and Kharijites.

This statement is not different from that cited for the second party according to his division. It seems that authors of books of Islamic sects are similar to correspondents who are fond of prolonging their reports by repeating their words or (adding illusory groups and parties.)

Everybody confesses that Shism preceded Kharijites and Mutazilites; how is it then practicable for a foremost sect to cull faiths of a following one?

Maqalatul Islamiyin; Abul-Hassan Al-Ashari part 1 page 35:

Rafidites divided into two groups in respect with question of bearers of the Throne. Yunisites followers of Younus Bin Abdirrahman Al-Qummi the servant of Al-Yaqtin claim that bearers of the Throne do carry the Creator. Another party claim that those bearers carry the Throne since it is impracticable for Allah to be carried.

Correspondingly Bin Baz who asserts that bearers of the Throne do carry Entity of Allah the Exalted should answer us clearly whether he has been Shiite since he carries the same (misalleged) faiths!

part 1 page 59:

Rafidites disagree with each other in the topic of the Lord's corporeality. Some declare that meaning of the tall spacious and deep corporeality of the Lord is His existence. As long as the Creator is being an existent thing He should be corporeality. Others say that the Creator is not a corporeality since corporealities are composite beings.

Al-Miqrizi's Al-Mawaidu Wel Hikem part 2 page 348

Jawlaqites are followers of Husham Bin Salim Al-Jawlaqi. They are Rafidites as well. One of the ugliest claims of that man is his saying that Allah the Exalted is having a look of humans and that His upper part is hollow while the lower is full.

It is quite clear for inspectors of reference books of Shias that such parties and sayings are thoroughly nonexistent in Shiite heritage. They are sayings of their opposers. Similarly the Prophet's household and scholars of this sect had led a sweeping campaign against corporalism and anthropomorphism. Antagonists accused the Prophet's progeny and their adherents of opinions and deeds they themselves had perpetrated. Opinions of corporalism were dominantly

widespreading among Nasibites; the direct enemies of the Prophet's household (peace be upon them). Fair researchers can assuredly aver that corporalism exists wherever there is a Nasibite. However there are always those against the rule. By the same token Promoting the Lord against unbecoming affairs exists wherever there is an adherent to the Prophet's household.

In brief words there are two eminent problems that are unanswerable by authors of books dealing with the Islamic sects and parties. First those authors did not refer to reference books form which they quoted these beliefs sayings and names. Second they rested upon policy of censuring the opposition parties when they falsely ascribed the strange and unceremonious beliefs to them by citing fabricated names. On the other hand they covered up names of the real sayers and embracers of such beliefs as they were loyal to the ruling authorities or masters of their sects. These problems are enough to disregard such reference books. THE WESTERN IMITATED BOOKS OF ISLAMIC SECT. PROFESSORS IMITATED THEM.

Dr. Hassan Ibrahim's TarikhulIslam part 2 page 158:

Shias withdrew into three parties; the exaggerative Rafidite and Zaidite. The exaggerative Shias are those who overestimate Ali… Rafidite Shias are those who claim Allah's having an altitude and a look and being a corporeality with organs.

Dr. Hassan Ibrahim's TarikhulIslam part 2 page 424:

Rafidites claim Allah's having an altitude and a look and being a corporeality with organs. Husham Bin Al-Hakam Husham Bin Salim and Shaitanuttaq are Rafidites.

Dr. Hassan Ibrahim's Tarikhul-Islam part 2 page 422:

The Shiite scholars especially specialists of monotheism could employ beliefs of Mutazilites as pillars for their private beliefs and sects. This is evidenced by the matter that Shias claim their being people of justice which is the very name adopted by Mutazilites.

This historian forgot the fact that Shism emerged a century before Mutazilism and that they preceded them in taking in faiths of promoting the Lord against unfitting affairs the free will and the intellectual characterization. As a matter of fact Mutazilites did quote their faiths from Shias.

Al-FAKHR AR-RAZI REFUTES CLAIMS IN BOOKS OF ISLAMIC SECTS

Al-Metalibul Aliya volume 1 part 1 page 10:

Philosophers affirm existence of beings that are spaceless and occupying no location such as brains souls and prime matters. Majority of supreme Muslim

scholars such as Muammar Bin Ebbad the Mutazilite and Mohammed Bin An-Numan the Rafidite take in this faith.

How is it then rightful for authors of books of Islamic sects the western and Wahabists to impute anthropomorphism and corporalism to Mohammed Bin An-Numan who refutes the material placement of some creatures even? How should he then admit this placement for the Lord the Creator?

SHEIK Al-GHEZZALI ANALYZES THEIR MOTIVES OF FABRICATION

Al-Ghezzali's Difaun Enil Aqideti Wesharia page 253:

Such fabricators publicize that Shias are followers of Ali while Sunnis are followers of Mohammed. They misallege that Shias believe in Ali's being more meritorious in the Divine Envoy but he missed it due to a mistake occurred by the conveyer. This is indeed an offensive nonsense and scandalous forgery. As a matter of fact those who aim at engaging this nation in discrepancies are hostile factions. As they lacked reasonable incentives they originated objectives of discrepancy for achieving their goals. They were the predominant in field of falsity and fabrication since they lacked any position in that of honesty.

I could not find a ground on which opponents of Shism depended in broadcasting such an accusal all over the Islamic regions. Finally I had to submit to the matter that they might have misinterpreted the postprayer triple statement of 'Allahu Akbar' Allah is the greatest out of their desires. Shias believe that the best worshipping and supplication after ritual prayers are the triple statement of 'Allahu Akbar' followed by a definite rite the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had passed to Fatima Az-Zahra (peace be upon her). Usually ordinary Shias perform these rites without raising their hands to levels of their faces as it is required; therefore it seems for the ignorant of such rites if they are striking on their knees or thighs as a sign of showing sorrow for a definite concern. Intelligence as well as godfearing of opponents of Shism attained its climax when they could find a (persuasive) interpretation of this rite. They averred that Shias show their grief because prophecy had not been given to Ali!! Hence they say "The Honest betrayed"!!!

They aver such a forgery and insist on it while they do realize that Shias are the best sect in glorifying the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Shias believe of the Prophet's being seal of prophets. They also believe that Gabriel the angel is sinless. Shias narrate that Ali (peace be upon him) addressed at a man who praised him exaggeratively "Woe is you! I am only a slave among Mohammed's slaves." He also said "Whenever wars were at their most vigorous hours we were wont to seek the Prophet's protection."

JURISCOUNSULT OF Al-AZHAR REFUTES THEM ACCEPTABLY

A verdict issued on 17 / Rabi 1378 Office of Juriscounsult of Al-Azhar Mahmud Sheltut:

Q. Some people believe that it is obligatory to rest upon one of the four Islamic sect so that ritual and transactional deeds would be legal. Sects of Imamite and Zaidite Shism are not included within these four sects. Do your excellence admit this idea and decide illegality of resting upon rulings of the Imamite Ithnasharite Shism?

A. First Islam do not impose following a certain sect. We do decide that initially Muslims have the right to refer to any of the sects the rulings of which are authentically recounted and recorded in identified books. Besides it is rightful and not illicit for every Muslim individual to shift to any other sect.

Second like any other Islamic sect it is authoritatively lawful to refer to sect of Jafarism that is familiarly known as the Imamite Ithnasharite Shism in practicing worshipping rites and transactions. Muslims ought to have full acquaintance of such a matter. They are also advised to strip the unrightful fanaticism to certain sects. Religion and decree of Allah the Exalted have never been consecrated or dedicated to a certain sect. The entire scholars are admissible elicitors that are accepted by the Lord. It is licit for the unauthorized to rest upon verdicts rulings and jurisprudence of the admissible eliciting scholars whether in ritual or transactional affairs.

ASSUYOUTI REFUTES THEM ACCEPTABLY

AdDurrul Manthour part 6 page 379:

Exegesis Of God's Saying (Those Who Believe And Do Good Surely They Are The Best Of Men. 98:7)

Ibn Asakr: Jabir Bin Abdillah:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) came towards us stating "I swear by the Prevailing of my soul surely this man (Ali) and his adherents (Shia) shall be triumphing on Resurrection Day." Immediately the Verse (Those who believe and do good surely they are the best of men.) was revealed. "Here comes the best of men." the Prophet's companions used to address at Ali.

Ibn Edi and Ibn Asakir relates the following hadith to Abu Sa'eed: "Ali is the best of men."

Ibn Edi: Ibn Abbas: When God revealed the Verse (Those who believe and do good surely they are the best of men.) the Prophet addressed at Ali "It is your adherents and you who shall be pleased and satisfied on Resurrection Day."

Ibn Merdawayih: Ali: The Prophet (peace be upon him) addressed at me "Have you not heard God's saying (Those who believe and do good surely they are

the best of men.)? They are your adherents and you. My meeting with you all shall be on the divine pool when nations shall be come forth for judgment. You shall be called 'the bright faced the shining.'"

We lack enough space to discuss documentation of such hadiths. It is sufficient to hint at the fact that hadithists affirm that no individual attained forms of praise addressed by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) at Ali (peace be upon him). AnNisai's Khassaisu Ali Bin Abi Talib is quite abundant in this regard.

One of the wonders of history is that no single individual among companions of the Prophet suffered ten percent of the endeavors of screening standings and merits Ali (peace be upon him) had suffered on the hands of the Nasibite state and its officials who issued the decision of imposing cursing and reviling at Ali during Friday prayers all over the Islamic state for about seven decades. Nevertheless such considerable hadiths relating merits of Ali and his adherents could endure in reference books of Sunnis our brothers.

Quite truthful was that who said "What can I say about a man whose opponents hid his merits for their enviously and adherents hid them for their cautiously. Between these two merits too abundant to be endured by hearts emerged." Another veracious individual said "We do not know what to do with Ali Bin Abi Talib. We will miss our mundane affairs if we cherish him. And we will miss the Paradisiacal affairs if we hate him."

IS BASSMALA A QURANIC VERSE? IS IT TO BE RECITED IN PRAYERS?

The Muslim scholars disagreed on this matter.[31]Malik and al-Awza’iy thought that it was not a part of the Quran and they prohibited their followers from reciting it in the prayers whether it was in the beginning of sura of Hamd[32]or in the beginning of the second sura and whether it was recited loudly or softly but they permitted to be recited in nafila.[33]

Abu Haneefa, ath-Thawri and their followers recited bassmala with sura of Hamd but they said that it must be recited softly even in the loud-recited prayers.[34]This showed that they agreed with Malik and al-Awza’iy. We didn’t find any evidence justifying that except that they didn’t consider it as part of the Quran.

Ash-Shafi’iy recited bassmala loudly in loud-recited prayers and softly in soft-recited prayers and considered it as a verse of sura of Hamd. So was the thought of Ahmed bin Hanbal, Abu Thour and Abu Obayd.

Different sayings were mentioned about the thought of ash-Shafi’iy concerning bassmala; whether he believed that it was a part of every sura except Bara’a[35](9) or it was not a verse except in sura of Hamd. But his companions agreed upon that bassmala was a verse of all the suras[36]and justified the two different sayings mentioned about their Imam’s thought.[37]

As for us-the Shia-we agreed, according to our infallible imams, upon that bassmala was a complete Quranic verse of every sura except Bara’a and whoever left reciting it in the prayer intendedly, his prayer would be vain whether the prayer was wajib (obligatory) or mustahab. It must be recited loudly in loud-recited prayers and it was desirable (mustahab) to be recited loudly in soft-recited prayers.[38]It was a piece of a verse in sura of an-Naml. The traditions of our infallible imams were clear in denying the sayings of their opponents. Imam Sadiq (s) said: “What?! They attacked the greatest verse of the Book of Allah the Almighty and they pretended that it was a heresy and then they spread their heresy about the verse(In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful). [39]

Our evidence from the Sunni side is the traditions mentioned in their Sihah and how many they are!

1. Ibn Jurayj narrated from his father from Sa’eed bin Jubayr that ibn Abbas when talking about the Quranic verse(And certainly We have given you seven of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran 15:87) had said: “It is the Fatiha[40]of the Book;In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds…etc.). Ibn Jurayj said: “I asked my father: Did Sa’eed tell you that ibn Abbas had said that(in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) was a Quranic verse? He said: Yes!”[41]

2. Ibn Abbas said: “The Prophet (s), whenever Gabriel came to him and recitedin the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful , knew that it was a sura.”[42]

3. Ibn Abbas said: “The Prophet (s) didn’t know that a sura was completed until a newin the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful was revealed to him.”[43]

4. Ibn Abbas said: “The Muslims didn’t know that a sura was completed untilin the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful was revealed. When it was revealed, they became certain that the previous sura was completed.”[44]

5. Umm Salama said: “The Prophet (s) used to recite(in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds…etc.) and scanned it verse by verse.”[45]

Umm Salama said in another way: “The Prophet (s) recited in the prayer(in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) and counted it as the first verse and then recited(All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds) and counted it as the second, then (The Beneficent, the Merciful) as the third, (Master of the Day of Judgment) as the fourth, then(Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help) and gathered his five fingers.”[46]

6. Na’eem al-Mujammir said: “I was behind Abu Hurayra (in offering the prayer) when he recited(in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) then he recited al-Fatiha until he finished it and said amen and the people said amen! When he finished the prayer, he said: “I swear by Him, in Whose hand my soul is, that I am the most similar to the Prophet (s) in offering the prayer.”[47]

Abu Hurayra said: “The Prophet (s) used to recite(in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) loudly in the prayers.”[48]

7. Anass bin Malik said: “Once Mo’awiya offered a prayer in Medina and he recited(in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) loudly for al-Fatiha but he didn’t recite it for the second sura. When he finished the prayer, some of the Muhajireen and the Ansar,[49]who heard him, shouted at him: “O Mo’awiya! Did you steal the prayer or forget?” When he offered the prayer after that, he recited bassmala for the second sura.” Al-Hakim mentioned this tradition in his Mustadrak and considered it true according to (Imam) Muslim’s conditions.[50]The tradition was mentioned by others like Imam ash-Shafi’iy,[51]who commented on it. It would be better to quote his comment. He said: “Mo’awiya was a very powerful ruler, so unless reciting bassmala loudly was a certain verdict among all the companions of the Muhajireen and the Ansar, they wouldn’t dare to object to him when he didn’t recite bassmala.”[52]

I would like to comment on this tradition to draw the attention of every researcher to the evidence this tradition had that confirmed our thought (the Shia’s thought) about bassmala in the prayer and that it was not permissible to recite bassmala with al-Fatiha only and not to recite it with the second sura, otherwise the companions wouldn’t have objected to Mo’awiya unless the matter of bassmala had been like the Shia’s thought.

8. It was narrated from another way that Anass had said: “I heard the Prophet (s) reciting(in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) loudly in the prayer.”[53]

9. Muhammad bin as-Sariy al-Asqalani said: “I offered Fajr and Maghrib prayers behind al-Mu’tamir bin Sulayman innumerable times. He recited(in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) loudly before al-Fatiha and before the second sura. I heard al-Mu’tamir saying: I haven’t failed to imitate my father’s prayer and my father said: I haven’t failed to imitate Anass’ prayer and Anass said: I haven’t failed to imitate the Prophet’s prayer.”[54]

This tradition and other traditions showed that they (the Sunnis) used to recite bassmala with the second sura after al-Fatiha in the prayers like the Shia. Many other traditions confirmed this matter.[55]

Qatada said: “Anass bin Malik was asked that how the Prophet (s) recited in his prayers. He said: “He used to stress his reciting.” Then he recited (bismillahir-rahmanir-raheem)[56]and he stressed ar-rahman (the Beneficent) and ar-raheem (the Merciful).”

Hameed at-Taweel narrated that Anass bin Malik had said: “I offered prayers behind the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali. All of them recited bassmala loudly.”

All the previous traditions were mentioned by Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hakim an-Nayssaboori in his Mustadrak. He said after the last tradition: “I mentioned this tradition to be evidence for the previous traditions. These traditions showed clear objection to the tradition narrated by Qatada that Anass had said: “I offered prayers behind the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman and I didn’t hear any of them reciting(in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful). ”

Then al-Hakim said: “Many other traditions narrated by Othman, Ali, Talha bin Obaydillah, Jabir bin Abdullah, Abdullah bin Omar, al-Hakam bin Omayr ath-Thimali, an-Nu’man bin Basheer, Samra bin Jundub, Burayda al-Aslami and Aa’isha bint Abu Bakr concerning this subject. I didn’t mention them in order not to overburden the reader with them. I chose from among what might fit this chapter. Also I mentioned in this chapter those, who recited bassmala loudly in their prayers, of the companions, the successors and the successors’ successors.”[57]

Ar-Razi mentioned in his at-Tafseer al-Kabeer [58]that al-Bayhaqi had mentioned in hisSunan some traditions about reciting bassmala loudly in the prayer narrated by Omar bin al-Khattab, ibn Abbas, ibn Omar and ibn az-Zubayr. Then ar-Razi said: “As for Ali bin Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him), it was proved recurrently that he recited bassmala loudly in his prayers and whoever imitated Ali bin Abu Talib in his religion, would be guided. The evidence for that was the saying of the Prophet (s): “O Allah! Turn the rightness with Ali wherever he turns.”

It would be a sufficient evidence for bassmala to be a Quranic verse in the beginning of every sura except Bara’a, that all the companions, their successors and the successors’ successors of every generation of the umma had agreed unanimously, since the Quran had been written down until nowadays, upon writing down bassmala at the beginning of every sura except Bara’a.

They wrote it down as they wrote every other Quranic verse without any difference between them whereas they had agreed unanimously upon not writing anything that was not of the holy Quran unless they would put a distinguishing mark in order not to be mixed up with the Quranic words. Didn’t you see how they distinguished the names of the suras, the symbols of the sections, the parts…etc. and put them out of the text of the Quran in order to be known that they were not of the Quran so that the Quran would be protected as it had been revealed? You knew well that the umma had never agreed unanimously upon any matter as it had agreed upon this matter and this was enough evidence proving that bassmala was independent Quranic verse coming at the beginning of every sura written by the ancestors and the successors.

It was mentioned that the Prophet (s) had said: “Every important task that doesn’t begin with (in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) will be amputated.”[59] and: “Every important task that doesn’t begin with (in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) will be amputated or mutilated.”[60]

It is certain that the holy Quran is the best of what Allah, the Almighty has revealed to His apostles and prophets and that every sura in it is important and great that Allah has challenged all the people, who failed to produce a sura like the Quranic suras. So would it be possible for the Quran to be amputated? Allah, His Quran and its suras be exalted highly above any raving!

The prayer is the success and the best of doings as it is announced from above the minbars and the minarets. It is known by everyone. Nothing is to be compared with it after believing in Allah, His prophets and the Day of Resurrection. Then is it possible for Allah to legislate the prayer so amputated and mutilated? Neither a pious nor a dissolute one dares to say so but the pious imams Malik, al-Awza’iy and Abu Haneefa (may Allah be pleased with them) were distracted from these necessities; and every mujtahid would be rewarded and not to be blamed whether being right or wrong when trying his best to deduce his conclusion from the legal evidences.

The excuse of our opponents

They justified the matter with some excuses:

First: if bassmala was a verse of al-Fatiha and was a part of every sura of the Quran, then repeating(the Beneficent, the Merciful) [61]would be necessary to be repeated one hundred and thirteen times throughout the Quran.

The answer: the situation might require repeating if it was to pay much attention to some great affairs in order to be taken in consideration with much carefulness. The holy Quran had many examples of this thing; for example in sura of ar-Rahman (55), al-Mursalat (77) and al-Kafiroon (109). Was there anything of the affairs of this life and the afterlife deserving utmost attention and greatest carefulness like the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful? Were the prophets delegated, the angels sent down and the Books revealed without in the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful or His guidance? Were the heavens and the earths constructed but with in the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful?[62]

(O men! call to mind the favor of Allah on you; is there any creator besides Allah who gives you sustenance from the heaven and the earth? There is no god but He; whence are you then turned away) 35:3.

Second: the tradition narrated by Abu Hurayra that the Prophet (s) had said: “Allah the Almighty says: I have divided the prayer between Me and My servant into two halves. If the servant says:All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. Allah says: My servant praises Me. If he says:The Beneficent, the Merciful. Allah says: My servant thanks Me. If he says:Master of the Day of Judgment. Allah says: My servant glorifies Me. If he says:Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help. Allah says: this is between Me and My servant…etc.”

Their evidence in this tradition was that he didn’t mention(in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) with the verses of al-Fatiha. They said that if it was a verse of al-Fatiha, he would mention it.

The answer: this tradition was contradicted by a tradition narrated by ibn Abbas when saying: “Allah says: I have divided the prayer between Me and My servant. If the servant says:in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful . Allah says: My servant calls me…etc.”[63]The tradition was too long but our evidence was that it included bassmala and so it contradicted Abu Hurayra’s tradition. In fact Abu Hurayra himself narrated a tradition that the Prophet (s) used to recite bassmala loudly in the prayer and that he himself used to recite it loudly in his prayer. He said: “I am the most of you in imitating the Prophet’s prayer.” This tradition was mentioned previously.

Third: the tradition narrated by Aa’isha that the Prophet (s) began his prayer with takbeer[64]and reciting (al hamdu lillahi rabbil aalameen).[65]

The answer: this couldn’t be an evidence for them because Aa’isha made (al hamdu lillahi rabbil aalameen) as a name for this sura exactly as when one said: “I recited (qul huwal-lahu ahad)”[66]to mean that he recited sura of al-Ikhlass or when saying that someone recited (inna fatahna laka fathan mubeena)[67]to mean that someone recited sura of al-Fat~h and so on. So the meaning of the tradition was that the Prophet (s) began his prayer with takbeer and reciting this sura, whose beginning wasin the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. [68]

Fourth: the tradition narrated by ibn Mughaffal when saying: “My father heard me recitingin the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. He said to me: “O my son! Beware of changing the Sunna! I offered prayers with the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman. I didn’t hear any of them reciting it (bassmala).”[69]

The answer: the scholars of jarh and ta’deel[70]didn’t know who ibn Mugaffal was. They didn’t mention any of his traditions. Ibn Rushd mentioned him when talking about bassmala in his book Bidayatul Mujtahid[71]and brushed him away when quoting the saying of Abu Omar bin Abdul Birr that ibn Mughaffal was unknown man.

Fifth: Shu’ba narrated from Qatada that Anass bin Malik had said: “I offered prayers with the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman. I didn’t hear any of them recitingin the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful .”[72]Another one narrated by Hameed at-Taweel that Anass said: “I offered prayers behind Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman. All of them didn’t recitein the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful .”[73]

The answer: you found in our evidence mentioned previously true traditions narrated by Anass contradicting these two traditions. You might refer to them.

Imam ar-Razi mentioned this tradition of Anass in hisTafseer and said: “The answer to this tradition is in many ways;

First: Sheikh Abu Hamid al-Isfarayeeni said: “Six traditions were narrated from Anass in this concern. The Hanafites narrated from him three traditions. One of them was his saying: I offered prayers behind the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman. They began the prayer with(All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds).

The other was his saying: …they didn’t mentionin the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

The third saying: …I didn’t hear any of them recitingin the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

These three traditions agreed with the thought of the Hanafites and there were three other traditions contradicting this thought;

one of them was his tradition about Mo’awiya, who didn’t recite bassmala in the prayer and then the Muhajireen and the Ansar objected to him and this showed that reciting bassmala loudly in the prayer was a certain matter, which was agreed upon unanimously among them.

The other one: Abu Qulaba narrated from Anass that the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr and Omar used to recite bassmala loudly in the prayers.[74]

The third one: that Anass was asked about reciting bassmala loudly or softly and he answered: “I don’t know about this matter.” Ar-Razi said: “It was clear that Anass’ traditions about this matter became so confused and contradictory and hence we had to depend upon other evidences…and also there was another suspicion in his traditions that Ali (s) exaggerated in reciting bassmala loudly but when the Umayyads seized the rule, they exaggerated in forbidding from reciting bassmala loudly in order to remove everything referring to Ali (s).[75]Anass might be afraid of the Umayyads; therefore his sayings became confused.

Whatever we doubted about something, we would never doubt about that if there was a contradiction between the sayings of persons like Anass and ibn al-Mughaffal and the sayings of Ali bin Abu Talib (s), who kept on that until the end of his life, certainly depending upon the sayings of Ali would be better. This was a final answer…and whoever took Ali as the imam of his religion, would certainly lay hold on the firmest handle of religion and life…etc.”[76]

All praise is due to Allah Who guided us to this, and we would not have found the way had it not been that Allah had guided us.

RECITING QURAN IN THE PRAYER

The jurisprudents disagreed upon reciting Quranic suras in the prayer. Abu Bakr al-Assamm, Isma’eel bin Olya, Sufyan bin Oyayna and al-Hasan bin Salih thought that reciting Quran in the prayer was not wajib but it was mustahab.

This was irregularity in thinking, contradicting the evidences and violating the consensus of the umma.

They depended upon a tradition narrated by Abu Salama and Muhammad bin Ali that once Omar bin al-Khattab had offered the maghrib prayer and he didn’t recite the suras in it. He was asked about that. He said: “How about the ruku’ and sujood?”[77]They said: “Alright.” He said: “Never mind then!”

This was Omar’s own thought and he didn’t ascribe it to the Prophet (s). He might think that leaving reciting the suras inattentively wouldn’t invalidate the prayer. Allah is the most aware.

Al-Hasan al-Basri and others thought that reciting suras was obligatory (wajib) in one rak’a.[78]This was like the previous thought in its irregularity and violating the consensus.

They justified their thought by interpreting the Prophet’s saying: “No prayer (will be correct) except with (reciting) al-Fatiha.” They thought that if al-Fatiha was recited in the prayer even one time, the prayer would be correct.

The answer: this tradition didn’t regard the prayer when it was offered with al-Fatiha and didn’t decide whether it was valid or not but it regarded it when it was without al-Fatiha and decided that it was not a prayer like the Prophet’s saying: “No prayer (is accepted) without wudu’ (or tayammum).” The tradition “No prayer (will be correct) except with (reciting) al-Fatiha” showed the obligation of reciting al-Fatiha in the prayer. Al-Fatiha was a necessary part of the prayer whereas wudu’ was a condition determining the validity of the prayer.

Imam Abu Haneefa and his companions though that reciting al-Fatiha was not wajib in the prayer. They thought that reciting anything of the Quran would be enough. Abu Haneefa was satisfied with reciting one verse of the Quran even if it was one word like (“Mudhammatan 55:64”: both inclining to blackness) but his companions Abu Yousuf and Muhammad bin al-Hasan ash-Shaybani were satisfied with three short verses like(Then he looked. Then he frowned and scowled. Then he turned back and was big with pride. 74:21-23) or with one verse that was as equal as three short verses or a little more. The Hanafites kept to this in their prayers.[79]

Abu Haneefa permitted translating the Quran that was to be recited in the prayer into any foreign language for those, who couldn’t speak Arabic well,[80]but his two companions permitted translating just for those, who were unable to speak Arabic, not for those, who could speak bad Arabic.

Reciting the Quran in the prayer was wajib according to their doctrine in the two rak’as-prayers like Fajr prayer, Friday prayer and the traveler’s prayers (Qasr)[81]but as for three or four-rak’as prayers, reciting the Quran was wajib in any two rak’as of the prayer. The prayer had the option to choose between the first two rak’as, the last two rak’as, the first and the third, the first and the fourth, the second and the third or the second and the fourth. If a prayer recited the Quran in the first two rak’as, he would be free in the last two rak’as whether to recite the Quran, recite tasbeeh[82]or to be silent as long as the time of one tasbeeh.

They depended upon a tradition narrated by Abu Hurayra when saying: “One day the Prophet (s) entered the mosque. A man came in, offered the prayer and then came to greet the Prophet (s). The Prophet (s) replied his greeting and said to him: “Go back and offer your prayer because you didn’t offer it (correctly).” The man came back and offered his prayer as same as the first one. Then he came to the Prophet (s) and greeted him. The Prophet (s) replied his greeting and said to him: “Go back and offer your prayer because you didn’t offer it.” He did that for three times. The man said to the Prophet (s): “I swear by Him, Who has sent you with rightness! I don’t know more than this. Please teach me!” The Prophet (s) said: “When you stand up to offer the prayer, say Takbeer then recite what is easy of the Quran as possible as you can, then bow then stand erect then prostrate yourself then sit. Do this throughout your prayer.”

They depended upon the Prophet’s saying (recite what is easy of the Quran as possible as you can) as their evidence in this matter.

Neither Abu Hurayra nor his traditions had any value near us. He was not trusted or reliable. We detailed all the facts about him in a book called (Abu Hurayra). Whoever liked to know the shiny truth, let refer to it.

This tradition might be not true because it was confused and not clear. We examined the tradition and didn’t find any clear explanation that might fit the prophets (s). The tradition lacked many necessary things that the umma had agreed upon unanimously. It didn’t mention anything about the intention of the prayer, sitting during the last tashahhud[83], saying (blessing and peace be upon Muhammad and his progeny), tasleem[84]and other things. It didn’t fit the Prophet (s) with his high morals to let that man offer invalid prayer for three times and that might not be permissible for him (s).

Abu Dawood mentioned this story narrated by Rifa’a bin Rafi’ al-Ansari[85]that the Prophet (s) had said to the man, who didn’t offer his prayer correctly: “When you stand up towards the Qibla, say takbeer and then recite al-Fatiha and whatever you like to recite.”

Ahmad bin Hanbal and ibn Habban mentioned this story narrated by Rifa’a that the Prophet (s) had said to the man, who didn’t offer his prayer correctly: “…then recite al-Fatiha and then recite whatever you like.”[86]

It was certain that Abu Hurayra would never equal Rifa’a whether in his doings or sayings. When there was any contradiction, the traditions of Rifa’a would certainly be preferred to the traditions narrated by Abu Hurayra. Therefore we found that al-Qastlani when explaining the tradition of Abu Hurayra in his book Fat~hul Bari tried his best to interpret the tradition to be in accordance with the tradition of Rifa’a.

Whoever looked for the sayings of the ancestors and the successors when talking about Abu Hurayra’s tradition, would find them all, except the Hanafites, either refuting[87]or interpreting[88]the tradition to be in accordance with their thoughts. Refer toSharh Sahih al-Bukhari andSharh Sahih Muslim to see their sayings about Abu Hurayra’s tradition in details.[89]

Abu Hurayra himself contradicted his tradition when he narrated other traditions saying: “I heard the Prophet (s) saying: The prayer won’t be correct unless al-Fatiha is recited in it.”[90]Abu Hurayra also said: “The Prophet (s) ordered me to announce in Medina that no prayer (would be correct) without (reciting some of the) Quran, even if it was al-Fatiha and something more.”[91]He also said: “I heard the Prophet (s) saying: Whoever offers a prayer without reciting al-Fatiha, his prayer is aborted, his prayer is aborted, his prayer is aborted, his prayer is aborted.”[92]

Then why did the Hanafites depend upon the outward meaning of the saying (recite what is easy of the Quran as possible as you can) mentioned in Abu Hurayra’s tradition and give up the clear and true prophetic traditions talking about the prayer? In fact they depended upon what contradicted the many true traditions and objected to all the other sects of the Muslims and what they gave up was confirmed by the true prophetic traditions and by all the other sects of the Muslims.

The Hanafites might depend upon the Quranic verse(therefore read what is easy of the Quran 73:20) as their evidence for this matter.

The answer: this verse had nothing to do with the subject of reciting Quranic suras in the prayer at all. The interpreters had explained this verse clearly. Let him, who wants to see its real meaning, refer the interpretations of the Quran.

The Hanafites justified the permissibility of reciting the translation of the Quran in the prayer according to some sayings;

First: Ibn Mass’ood recited to some foreigners:(Surely the tree of the Zaqqum is (ta’am al-atheem)the food of the sinful 44:43-4). One of the foreigners recited (ta’am al-atheem) as (ta’am al-yateem; the orphan). Ibn Mas’ood said to him: “Say: Ta’am al-fajir).[93]Then ibn Mass’ood said: “It is no mistake to recite (al-hakeem; wise) instead of (al-aleem; aware). The mistake is to put a verse of mercy instead of a verse of torment.”

The answer: this was too far from our subject and if the saying was true, it would just show ibn Mass’ood’s own thought and it would never be taken as evidence.

Second: the Quranic verses(And most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients 26:196) and(Most surely this is in the earlier scriptures; the scriptures of Ibrahim and Musa 87:18-9).

Their evidence out of these verses was that the umma agreed upon that the Quran had not been in its Arabic wordings whether in the scriptures of the ancients or the scriptures of Abraham and Moses but it was its meanings that had been mentioned in those scriptures in Hebrew and Syriac.

The answer: this was like the previous justification in not having anything to do with the subject. In fact it was much farther than that one.

Third: the Quranic verse(…and this Quran has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you. 6:19) and the foreigners didn’t understand Arabic unless the meaning would be translated to them into their language; therefore the warning was to be in their language.

The answer: this would be possible as evidence for the permissibility of translating the holy Quran into the foreigners’ languages so that they could make use of its maxims, morals, orders and prohibitions. This was something and jargoning in the prayer would be something else. Would any Arab or foreigner not understand that reciting al-Fatiha did mean to recite the sura as it had been revealed with its original wording written down in the holy Quran? Would any one of good tact not feel that the spirit of the Quran would be deprived of if it was recited in a foreign language whether eastern or western?

I didn’t think that Imam Abu Haneefa would fail in his justifications to a degree that he might fall down to the bottom! It was because he relied upon analogy and approval in deducing the legal verdicts. Hence he found that it would be nice for the foreigners if the Quran was translated into their languages in order to be recited in their prayers. He found that it would be easier for them to understand the meanings and to be more submissive in their prayers. He compared the foreigner’s reciting the Quran in his language with his listening to the sermons and learning the lessons in his language. This was the theory of Atatürk in offering the prayer. He didn’t take it from Abu Haneefa but it was just telepathy! What helped Atatürk with this theory that he didn’t appreciate the legal evidences; in fact he didn’t know them and didn’t want to know them. He determined what he approved. If the Sharia had something leading to the permissibility of acting according to the approval, they would justify their thought but how far!

Ash-Shafi’iy, Malik, Ahmed and others thought that reciting al-Fatiha in all wajib and mustahab prayers in Arabic was obligatory. Their evidence for that was Abu Hurayra’s tradition talking about the story of the nomad, who couldn’t offer his prayer correctly and then the Prophet (s) taught him how to offer the prayer, ordered him to recite some of the Quran in his prayer and then said to him: “Do this in all of your prayers.”[94]

You already knew our thought about this tradition when we said that we had brushed it aside and that it had no value near us.

The Shia believed, according to their infallible imams, that reciting al-Fatiha in correct Arabic was obligatory in the first two rak’as of every wajib and mustahab prayer[95]for the single prayer (one, who offers a prayer alone) and for the imam (one who leads the others in offering the prayer).

As for the ma’moom,[96]he didn’t have to recite al-Fatiha because the imam[97]would undertake that instead of him. As for the last two rak’as, it would be obligatory for the ma’moom either to recite the sura or to recite tassbeeh.[98]The imam was not to undertake reciting the sura or tassbeeh instead of the ma’moom in the last two rak’as.

Our evidence (the Shia’s evidence) in all of that was the sayings of our infallible imams, who were the equal of the Quran.

Reciting al-Fatiha by the Prophet (s) in the first two rak’as of the prayer was confirmed by all the Sihah and Musnads (the books of Hadith) according to the tradition narrated by Abu Qatada al-Harth bin Rib’iy and others.

What the Prophet (s) used to do in his prayer would be obligatory[99]for the all because he had said: “Offer the prayer as you saw me offering it.” As it was proved that the Prophet (s) had recited al-Fatiha in the last two rak’as, it was also proved that he had recited tassbeeh in them. The wording of tassbeeh was as the following (subhanal-lah wel hamdu lillah wela ilaha illallah wel-lahu akbar) according to the imams of the Prophet’s progeny (s). The tradition, narrated by Sa’d bin Abu Waqqass and mentioned in al-Bukhari’sSahih and other Sihah and Musnads, confirmed this.

The people of Kufa complained to Omar against Sa’d until they said to him that Sa’d hadn’t offered the prayer correctly. Sa’d said: “By Allah, I offered the prayer in a way like the prayer of the Prophet (s) without a bit of difference. I expatiated (on reciting al-Fatiha and the other sura) in the first two rak’as and I lightened in the last two rak’as (hastening in them by only reciting tassbeeh or al-Fatiha alone without the second sura).” Allah is the most aware!

TAKBEERATUL IHRAM

The Shia agreed, according to their pure imams, unanimously upon thattakbeeratul ihram [100]was a necessary pillar of every wajib and mustahab prayer. Withouttakbeeratul ihram the prayer would be invalid. The only form oftakbeeratul ihram was (Allahu akbar). If the prayer began his prayer with anything else than Allahu akbar even if it had the same meaning, his prayer would be invalid. Also saying it in any language other than Arabic would invalidate the prayer. It was enough for us thattakbeeratul ihram was obligatory that the Prophet (s) had never begun any of his prayers except with it. You already knew that the Prophet (s) had said: “Offer the prayer as you saw me offering it.”

The obligation oftakbeeratul ihram was confirmed by the Quran, the Sunna and the consensus of the umma. Allah said:(And your Lord do magnify 74:3). [101]The consensus of the umma agreed upon that the verse referred totakbeeratul ihram and the orders of Allah were to be obeyed obligatorily. According to the consensus of the umma too that other than saying (Allahu akbar) at the beginning of the prayer was not obligatory. The Prophet (s) said: “The key of the prayer is the tahoor,[102]its tahreem[103]is saying Allahu akbar and its tahleel[104]is by saying tasleem.”[105]This tradition was mentioned by Abu Dawood in hisSunan .

The Hanafites said that tahreem was not a pillar of the prayer but it was related to standing up towards the qibla. They said that it was not necessary to saytakbeeratul ihram in Arabic and they permitted translating it into any language the prayer liked whether he was able or unable to speak Arabic. They said thattakbeeratul ihram would be valid if the prayer said instead of (Allahu akbar) (subhanallah) or (la ilaha illallah) or any of the attributes of Allah the Almighty on condition that it was not to be said more than the attribute of Allah. The prayer could say (Allah), (ar-Rahman; the Beneficent) or any one of the other attributes of Allah to begin his prayer. This was their belief and their evidence for that was only approval!