Chapter 2: Causes of Distortions
In previous discussions we spoke of the Prophets tradition which stated that:
(There will come a time for my nation when nothing will remain of Islam except a name, and of the Quran only its written word)
Also, in an explanatory introduction given for an understanding of this tradition, we observed that Islam, as God's everlasting religion, has four states of existence:
First Existence
Existence in name (Nominal) which is the very terminology that Islam obtained from the Arabic vocabulary and language, and set forth in the society with new meanings.
Second Existence
Islams' existence in meaning, or its conceptional existence which consists of the very meanings that Islamic religious law gave to its chosen terms.
Third Existence
Islams' existence in practice, found in its believers and followers. It is here that Islamic identity gains its manifestation, meaning that persons come to exist who have recognized this name, and its meanings and apply it.
Fourth Existence
Or Islamic Society which is based on the three previous existences, and may not possibly exist without them. It is founded when the Prophet finds a society with those persons who practice Islam and have made a promise to obey and be faithful to him. This groups promise of allegiance or loyalty on one hand and the Prophets leadership on the other, lay the foundation for this society.
The formation of an Islamic society and just government is the tremendous religious precept all persons in the society are held responsible for. But most of all the Prophet and Imam. This is not the Prophets or Imams special religious responsibility even if others do not cooperate with him, No! It is this great man's task to strive towards this end, and the obligation of all others to aid him. As such, in the quoted words of the Imam of the Pious we see that he said:
“Behold, by Him Who split the grain (to grow) and created living beings, if people had not come to me and supporters had not exhausted the argument and if there had been no pledge of Allah with the learned to the effect that they should not acquiesce in the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of the oppressed I would have cast the rope of the Caliphate on its own shoulders, and would have given the last one the same treatment as to the first one”.
* * * * * * *
The second point being discussed that according to successive Shi'ite and Sunni traditions, the Prophet, had said that whatever happened in previous nations will also occur in this nation. Following that, we also read in various Quranic Verses that previous nations altered Divine religious laws, concealed some of its realities and changed others. Sometimes, they also mixed falsities with the truth. Thus in the words of the Prophet all of these deeds would also inevitably occur in this nation. This claim is the principal basis of our present discussion and we will prove this point in our following discussions; “God willing”
The Prophet and the Propagation of Sunnat
The most blessed God classified Islamic beliefs, morals and laws into two groups, while delivering them to mankind:
First we have the Holy Quran which contains only the main topics concerning general Islamic matters, truths and laws and one cannot become a Muslim by referring to it exclusively. This means that we would be lacking practical injunctions to pray or fast, or go on the pilgrimage to Mecca and fulfill all of its required duties, or marry lawfully or take a divorce and so on......
The basis for all of these laws is in the Quran, but their detailed explanations, descriptions and commentaries have been made through the teaching of the Prophet and apostles. We do know that the series of Islams first-hand apostles begins with the Holy Prophet and ends with the twelfth Imam, Hujjat Ibn al-Hassan al-Askary. The reasons for this statement were brought to light previously and will become clearer in the future discussions.
The conclusion here being that Islam is in the Quran and in the sayings of the Holy Prophet and his revered executors, in other words in these two we have the great collection of our valuable Islamic inheritance.
Now let us see what those who wished to alter Islam did after the Holy Prophets demise. The accurate answer to this question requires a preliminary study to remove all room for error. Thus, we refer to the era of the prophet.
The Holy Prophet said:
“May God bless he who hears my sayings; takes them to heart, understands and preserves them, then delivers them to those who have not heard them....
(The main topic of this statement being the propagation of the Prophets sayings) For, there may be many a people who bear knowledge and learning but do not perceive it. Whereas a person may bear knowledge and relay it to those more perceiving than themselves. Meaning that they relay this trust to someone who puts it to more use than themselves”.
Elsewhere he says:
“Those who are present and hear my words must deliver them to those who are absent because there is the possibility that the listener will deliver the words to one who is more perceptible than himself”.
In another tradition, the Holy Prophet (S) says:
“He through whom a narration is delivered to my nation, and in this way a tradition (Sunnah) established or heresay eradicated, will be rewarded Heaven”.
And yet elsewhere he says:
“He who learns two of my narrations and benefits from them or conveys them to another who in turn benefits from them, has done better than sixty years of worship void of insight or wisdom”.
Imam Ali (a.s.) narrates:
“The Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) said: My lord, keep my successors in your favour-repeating this phrase three times- Then someone asked him: O' Messenger of God, who are your Caliphs? He replied: Those who will come after me and narrate and relate my sayings and deeds”.
The Terminology Caliph
In previous discussions we observed that according to Quranic stipulation
the special duty of the Prophet as a Messenger of God, is delivering His message alone and of fulfilling the mission of propagating Divine law. It is in this regard that Caliph is required. His Caliph is the person who does the same as himself in other words he delivers religious laws and injunctions to the people.
Of course, during his time the Prophet is the only person rightful and worthy to have leadership over the people. He in turn hands over this authority to his successor meaning that the lawful successor then becomes the only rightful and worthy leader possessing the authority invested in him. This post however, has no connection with the Caliphate being another feature of the Prophets and his executor’s features. In short, government is separate from the Caliphate.
Caliphate, in the sense we have studied and understood it, is inseparable and incapable of nullification from the Prophets' executor. He must in any way possible perform the particular duties of the Caliphate and he does perform them. However, such as we have seen, in leadership (government) others are also involved. In other words, in the required duty of founding a government other Muslims are also included and all of them must strive and work together so that an Islamic society and Just government will be formed.
* * * * * *
In Islamic Sciences two types of terminologies exist: The first is “Estelah-e-Shar'i” or canonical terms and the other “Estelah-e-Motashr'eh” or canonized terms. Coining a term and naming mean the same thing, with the difference that a term is a word existing in a language which has been used by a person or group and given a new meaning not unrelated to its original meaning. In this manner the naming or coining of a term becomes ascribed to that person or group, such as medical terms in Medical science and mathematical terms in mathematical science.
Therefore, if the naming is the Legislator, or in other words God or the Holy Prophet, it is called an Estelah-e-Shar'i. On the other hand if a terminology used by the Muslim public or Islamic scholars it will be known as Estelah-e-Motashareh. For example, the words “Salat”, “Wudhu” and “Hajj” are canonical terms, and these special names come from the Legislator and are given for a series of ritual rites.
On the other hand however, the terms “Ijtehad”
“Ghias” and “Estehsan” existing in Sunni Jurisprudence are terms which are not related by the legislator. Having been used by Muslims in their present meanings they gradually came to appear as “Shar'i” terms.
A big mistake has been made regarding the word “Caliph”, which is a very well known word related to the matter of Imamate and Leadership. Everyone, even those in educated spheres, think that the word Caliph with its well-known meaning is a “Shar'i” Islamic term. In reality this is not true, since the Holy Prophet (S) did not give the term Caliph to his successor in the leadership and governing of the nation. Also, the Caliph which is mentioned in the Quran is not the Caliph of the Prophet but is Caliph of Allah, as such, Adam is a Caliph and David is a Caliph. When we read in the Quran:
لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً
Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the Earth. (2:30)
Or
… يَا دَاوُودُ إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاكَ خَلِيفَةً فِي الْأَرْضِ …
O David! Lo! We have set thee as a viceroy in the earth.(38:26)
It is meant here Divine Caliphate. It is quite clear that David is not the Caliph of a prophet, he being a prophet himself, and Adam is not the Caliph of a previous prophet because there was no prophet before him.
In Islamic canonical terminology, governors are called Bearers of God's command not Caliph. Caliph in its meaning as Islamic governor is a “Motashareh” term, the people first giving it this meaning and later being used as a scholarly term by jurists and scholars.
At first the word Caliph was used as a prefix in addition to another word, for example in Khalifato Rasool Allah being coined in parallel to the original Khalifatollah in the Holy Quran, or Khalifato Abih which was being used by the common people in the society.
In all of these uses the word Caliph was used as possessing its literal meaning and was always accompanied by a noun in the genetive case. Later, because of frequent use in the Islamic community the word Caliph without the genetive case was used for the governor or ruler himself. In other words, because of frequent use the Muslims changed the three segment name for their governor, shortening it. They modified it into something else.
As such, because of the frequency of use it came to be the proper noun for the leaders of the Islamic community. It was from here that confusion was created and it wasn't understood that this coining of a term was gradual, occuring after the Prophet and over a period of time.
Therefore, whenever we come across the word Caliph in the Prophet's Hadiths it possesses the literal meaning given to it in the Arabic language, and not any other meaning. Having this in mind, the Hadith that states: (Allahomma Arham Kholafaie) speaks of the Prophets successors according to the characteristic meaning of Caliphate not of the governors who rule after him. These successors and Caliphs are those who know the Hadiths and precepts of the Holy Prophet well and relay them to the people. Now that we have clarified the term Caliph used in the previous Hadith we will return to our original discussion.
* * * * * * *
86) The term Ijtehad also exist in the school of Ahlu'al bait but does not have the meaning in practice that the caliphate school gave it: Because in the Caliphate school it contained the meanings (Exercising personal opinion) and (giving ones vote) but in the Imamate school it only means striving to understand God's law, and a Mojtahed never allows himself to exercise his own personal opinion.
Of course as an explanation of this term in Fundamentalist texts of both schools one sentence is used. However in practice the Caliphate school allows the interference in Religious law, the opinions of Scholars and Prophetic companions other than the infallible. While the Imamate school only gives validity to the words of and His Messenger.
“The Written Sunnat”
The Hadiths we narrated all clarified one fact, and that being that the Holy Prophet encouraged and urged the Muslims to relay his hadiths to others and to relate and narrate his sayings for others. Leaving these hadiths behind we also come to several narrations of the Prophet which carry the command for the written recording of his hadiths. Not only was the narrating of his hadiths ordered, so was their written recording. As an example of this the Prophet once said:
“Bind knowledge and place it in chains”.
It was asked: How can knowledge be bound? He replied:
“Binding knowledge through writing it down”.
Abdullah ibn Umar relates
“I went to the Holy Prophet and asked him: O' Messenger of God, should I bind knowledge? The Prophet said in reply: “Yes”. “I then asked him how I should go about it”. He replied thus: “By writing it down”.
A hadith exists in creditable Sunnite texts such as “Sahih” by Bukhari and “Sunan” by Tirmidhi which speaks of a Yemenese man name Abu Shat. This man had travelled from his homeland to see the Prophet. The Holy Prophet (S) delivered a sermon. After hearing the sermon Abu Shat said to the Prophet:
“O' Messenger of God! Write down these words for me”.
The Prophet then ordered:
Write (my words) for Abu Shat”.
Thus we see that the Prophet himself had given orders to have his sayings and hadiths written down. No question or doubt remains in reference to this matter, and all have narrated it. Some of you may think, Why we should be talking about this and what meaning it could possibly have? They are the hadiths narrated by the Prophet and must be written down and related. There is no room for any presumptions because this is the way to recognize and understand Islam!
Of course this way of reasoning and rationale is correct. Any Muslim who thinks correctly will come to no other conclusion. Unfortunately however, we will later see how and to what extent the governors of those days prevented the writing and relating of the Prophets' hadiths. First we will prove that the Holy Prophet (S) ordered that his sayings be recorded and related to others. We may later look into the deeds of the leaders who followed him.
In another hadith whose narrator is Abdullah ibn Amr-e-As., we read:
“I asked the Holy Prophet: “O' Messenger of God, should I write down everything I hear you say?” He replied: “Yes”. I then said: “Even when you are happy or angry?” He replied: “Yes, because I speak none other than the truth whether I be happy or angry”.
These examples which we have related to your are a few out of a large group of hadiths which we must be excused from relating because it would greatly lengthen this brief discussion. Now we will go on to another group of hadiths and study a few examples.
Sunnat alongside the Quran
In Abu Davouds “Sahih” and Tirmidhis “Sahih” and those of Ibn Majeh and Darmy and also Ahmad ibn Hanbals “Musnad” a common hadith is related, of which the wording here is from Abu Davoud. The narrator is one of the Prophets' followers known as Meghdam Ibn Ma'adi Karb. He quotes the Prophet as saying:
“Know that God has sent His book the Quran to me and along with it many other truths similar to it.” In explanation of this statement we say that: the Prophet received two types of revelations. In one type both the words and meanings were from God and that being the Holy Quran.
In this sense all other Divine Scriptures are partners with the Quran, with the difference that while the Quran is miraculously possessed of great eloquence, other Divine Scriptures lack such advantage. In the second type of revelation only the meaning is from God while its words are from the Prophet himself. In this form, all of the meanings and concepts are revealed to the Holy Apostle and afterwards formed into words by the Prophet. This group of revelations are called Hadith or Narratives.
In this statement the Prophet says that God has favoured him by sending him the Quran, and also of the same amount as the Quran he has been sent non Quranic revelations. He then adds:
“Beware, there will be many a persons with full bellies who, while resting their belly-pots, out of contentment; you have the Quran, that which you find as lawful within it see as lawful and that which is unlawful therein see as unlawful”.
According to Tirmidhis version he adds after this:
“That which the Prophet has made unlawful in the Quran”.
In a narrative from the book “Musnad” by Ahmad Hanbal, the Holy Prophet (S) makes a strange remark when he says to his followers and companions: “The time is coming when a group of you-my supporters and companions- will refute me! When my hadith is related to them they will lean back and say: The book of God; the Quran is with us whatever is unlawful. Therein we will see as unlawful and what it commands as lawful we will see as lawful! (No, this statement is not correct) Know that whatever the Prophet has declared unlawful is the word of God”.
Another narrator named Obaidullah ibn Abi Rafea relates from his father, the well-known companion of the Prophet that the Prophet had said to his companions:
“Lest there be one among you who while being recited with one of my traditions or hadiths say, (“No I don't know of this and don't accept it”), I act by the command and rule that I find in the Quran”. [or according to another text]
“I don't find this in God's Scripture”.
In our time there are people who speak as such just as the prophet foresaw. Doesn't the Prophets aggravation and protest pertain to them? Doesn't this create a burden on their conscience?
Arbaz Ibn Jarieh-e-Selmy relates:
“We the companions, along with the Prophet arrived at Khaybar. The fortresses had been conquered. The Jewish commander of Khaybar who was a rough, rude man came to the Prophet and with great aggravation said: “O' Muhammad! In your opinion, is it lawful that they should kill our livestock and eat the fruit of our orchards and take advantage of our wives and reputations?'.” The Prophet (S) became angry and told Abdul Rahman Ibn Auf: “Mount your horse and call out “Heaven is only for the believing people. Everyone gather for prayer”.
According to Islamic law communal prayer with the Prophet is only recommended. and Friday prayer is obligatory. However, when the call is given “Everyone gather for communal prayer”, communal prayer also becomes obligatory and everyone should take part and perform the communal prayer along with the Prophet. Because of this, when the call was given the people gathered for prayer. The Prophet led the prayer and afterwards mounted the pulpit and delivered a sermon saying:
“Is there anyone among you who while leaning back in his place thinks that God has prohibited nothing else for you except that prohibited in the Quran? One who thinks that the unlawful is only that which is found in the Quran and other than that there exists nothing else unlawful. Know that by God I have preached to you and have thus commanded and prohibited you. Whatever I said: whether out of necessity or in respect, is the same as if it were in the Quran. God does not deem it lawful that you should enter the homes of the people of the book without permission........”
In the book “Musnad” by Ahmad Hanbal there is another tradition where the Prophet says:
“Don't let me hear that when they relate one of my hadiths for one of you, he will then say: Read the Quran for me, find it for me in the Quran!”
These Hadiths along with all of the prophecies of the Holy Prophet which contained in them, came to pass in reality. From the last moments of the Prophets life until the era of the Ummayads they acted upon this political plan:
“Don't relate Hadiths, don't read narrations and don't write them down. The Quran is enough for us”.
The Whole of Islam
A summary of what we said so far would be that the Holy Prophet (S) in one of Hadiths stressed the point that his hadiths should be narrated and recorded. In another group he said:
“Don't let it be that someone out of annoyance or aggravation should say “Show it to me in the Quran, when one of my Hadiths is narrated for him. No, this statement is incorrect. You must not say that I speak not except on the basis of revelation, I say nothing except the truth”.
Remembering these introductory facts we may now go on to a study of the alterations they made after the prophets death. From that moment on, his supporters (who were the subjects of his speeches address) turned to oppose him, thus becoming the vast source of the alteration of Islamic truths.
In the following discussions we will prove that the Prophet (S) dictated the collection of religious commandments to Imam Ali (a.s.), and the Imam also recorded them in a book called [Al-Jame'ah]. If you had heard the terms, [Jafr] and [Jame'ah] mentioned in the Shi'ite Hadiths, [Jame'ah] is this very book.
After Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) this valuable collection was passed onto each of the Holy Imams (a.s.). And occasionally they would show it to other certain persons and they used to extract Hadiths form it. According to existing reliable sources, this collection was made of leather and was seventy [Dhera] long. As such the Holy Prophet dictated his Hadith or that which was revealed to him and which mankind needed until Resurrection Day, all of it, to Imam Ali and he, in turn, wrote it down and left it for the Holy Imams.
The Holy Prophet (S) communicated to his supporters and companions those of the Islamic religious laws which were needed by the Muslims of his time. This means those laws that concerned events which occured at that time and the Muslims questioned him about, or points that was necessary to notify them of. There was a series of matters however, whose time of enactment had not yet arrived.
These, he left as a trust with his executor Imam Ali (a.s.) so that in their time he or his descendants would relate them to the people. The Holy Prophet proclaimed the command or ruling of that which was needed during his own lifetime and then commanded that his sayings be related to others and for them to be written down for safekeeping as a legacy for future generations. Islam at that time was comprised of the Holy Quran and these types of the Prophets saying and or the relating of his religious actions, together making up the Prophets “Sunnat”, which is in turn comprised of two parts, “Hadith” and “Sireh”.
To Relate the Prophet's Narration Becomes Prhibited
What happened after the Prophets death? Dhahaby one of the great Sunni scholars, relates that after Abu Bakr took over the leadership of the government he gathered the Muslims and the companions of the Prophet (S) saying:
“You relate the Prophets Hadith and certainly you disagree on certain points with one another, and in the future you will find more of these points of disagreement. It is for certain that after you the general public will have even more differences of opinion. As such, you should relate nothing from the Prophet. Tell anyone who asks you that there is the Quran among us, and to see its allowances as lawful and its prohibitions as unlawful”.
(We see what a strange excuse he found and how he disguised wrong as right and we also see to what extent and precision the Holy Prophets' (S) prediction came to pass).
Qarzat Ibn Ka'ab one of the Prophets companions relates another event:
“When Umar was sending us to take over the governing of Iraq he accompanied us to Sarar on foot and then said: “Do you know why I escorted you and saw you off? We replied: “You saw us off to show your respect for us and to honour us!” He said: “Other than that I had something else in mind. You are going to a city where the resonance of the sound of its people reciting the Quran reaches the ears as the resonance of the sound of honey bees in their hives. Be careful lest you keep them from this by relating the Hadith of the Prophet of God (S). Do not narrate Hadith for them. I am your partner in (the spiritual reward of) this deed.
Qarzat added that: “After these words by the caliph, I narrated not so much as one more Hadith of the prophet”.
The inhabitants of Iraq having just become Muslims had never seen the Prophet of Islam (S). These new Muslims who have not seen their Prophet are avid and thirsty to obtain facts concerning him, and to hear his words and Hadith, and to become familiar with his actions and way of life. Because of this it is very probable that they would have said to Qarzat:
“Relate some Hadiths for us”
and Qarzat replied:
“Umar has prohibited us, we cannot relate Hadith”.
There is another narrative on this matter which is very strange and in which the precise meaning of concealment is seen. If in the past the leaders themselves concealed divine truths, here they used strict prohibition so that others would conceal Hadiths and refrain from the relating of narratives.
Historians say that a short while before Umars death he sent persons to various parts of the Islamic world to summon a few of the Prophets companions to Medina. People such as Abu Dharr, Abdullah ibn Massoud, Abu Darda, Abdullah ibn Hudhaifeh and others. After he gathered them he said:
“What are these Hadiths which you have spread throughout the world!?”
Those present said:
“Do you prohibit our narration of Hadiths?”
He replied:
“No, I don't prohibit you but you will stay right here with me in Medina and by God while I am alive you will not leave my sight or this city. We are more intelligent and better know which of the Hadiths you relate should be accepted and which ones rejected. They however, the rest of the people, don't know what to accept and what to reject”.
This group of the Prophets companions remained in the city of Medina and in the vicinity of the caliph until his death, and were in reality under observation. What, type of Hadiths are those which only their administration recognizes, and may separate the acceptable from the unacceptable among them while the rest of the Muslims don't know of and cannot separate? Pay close attention that the Caliph does not accuse this group of lying. Among them there happened to be Abu Dharr “upon whose truthfulness the sun had never cast a shadow”.
We have no choice here but to interpret that the unacceptable Hadiths were those which were not agreeable with the government’s policies at that time because of this the narrators and relators of such Hadiths were kept under observation so they couldn't further circulate them.
Some historians have said: “Umar imprisoned three of the Prophets companions; Ibn Massoud, Abu Darda, and Abu Massoud Ansary in Medina and proclaimed that their crime was narrating the Prophets Hadith too frequently. He said to them: You have excessively related the hadiths of the Holy prophet.
These were examples from a series of existing records related to the prevention of the promulgation of hadith. This matter does not stop here but goes onward. During the second caliphs rule the people possessed writings, in them having collected Hadiths for themselves. For example, one companion remembered fifty of the Prophets Hadith and having written them down on small pieces of leather or bone had created a small book of Hadith. Another had gathered thirty and still another had collected some more and so on..... In this way the people possess numerous writings of the Prophets hadith.
One day while in the pulpit the Caliph made the people swear to hand him their writings. The Caliph is very powerful and no-one has the strength to resist him, since he commanded them they had no choice but to bring them to him. After everyone had brought their writings he ordered their burning.
This was the fate of Hadith and the form of their narration during the time of Umar, of course to the extent that these records aided us. During Uthmans era this situation did not change. During his rule, Uthman declared from the pulpit: “The Hadiths which ere not narrated during Abu Bakr and Umars rule must not be related”. We also know that Umar had said: “Do not narrate Hadiths with the exception of those related to precepts or matters or worship”.
As such, the prohibition of the narration and relating of the Prophets Hadith was in effect during Uthmans lengthy Caliphate and the Caliphates administration controlled this with all of their might.
During Mu’awwiyahs' rule the situation continued in the same manner and even worse. He had said from the pulpit: “O' People! Refrain from narrating the Prophets' Hadith except for those which were related during Umars' time”.
Of course this matter did not have only this one aspect and it is not true that there was no contention with relation to this immense movement to halt the promulgation of Hadith. There was a group, who with regard to the enormity of this destruction began an unending struggle against it. We will content ourselves with only two or three historical events in this regard.
On The Front of Right and Truth
During the time of Hajj, Abu Dhar is sitting in the center Jamareh, the place where the pilgrims stone the statue representing Satan. The people recognize and respect him. A group of them gather around him and pose questions. Of course they are asking about religious matters. Abu Dharr does not answer them of his own but with reliance on the sayings of the Holy Prophet (S). While he is speaking a man comes and stands over him saying: “Haven't they prohibited you from giving your opinions on religious matters?” Abu Dharr looked up at the man and answered:
“Are you my authority? If you were to place your sword here (he points to the back of his neck) and wish to cut off my head and I know that your doing so because I relate Hadith, and if in the time it takes your sword to reach my neck I have the time to repeat one more of the Prophets (S) words, I will do so”.
This Hadith was narrated by Darmy in his book “Sunan” and by Ibn Sa'd in “Tabaqat al-Kobra”. Bukhari has also narrated this Hadith but according to his method he has in a way left out the sensitive points so that no harm would be done to anyones dignity (among the caliphs and governors).
The governors and Caliphs administrations in those days could not silence and estrain Abu Dharr and they therefore, sent him into exile. They deported Abu Dharr from Medina, the city which possessed the body of his beloved Prophet, to Syria.
During his stay in Syria he also continued to repeat Hadiths, encouraging the people to do only what was lawful and keeping them from doing the unlawful. He narrated the Prophets Hadith with regard to the suspended religious commands at that time.
“Ahnaf ibn Ghais Tamimy” the leader of Bani Tamim said that he had gone to the Friday prayer in Sham (Syria): “After the prayer I saw a man from whom the people fled wherever he went in the mosque. He prayed, but quickly. I went to him and sat down. (Ahnaf had witnessed a strange event; what could be wrong with this old and that when every corner he goes to, everyone runs from him.) I asked him: “O' servant of God, who are you? The man replied: “Who are you? I answered: “I am Ahnaf Ibn Ghais!” The man said: “Get up quickly and leave my side so that my illness will not affect you”. I said: “How can your ill affect me? (do you have a contagious disease that your illness will affect me?) He replied: “The man Mu’awwiyah - has ordered that no-one may sit with me”.
Now that the governors administrations commands have no affect on Abu Dharr and exile or threats are not effective on him, he refusing to give up his duty of narrating the Prophet of Islams' forgotten words; the man is sure that no-one may sit with Abu Dharr and hear Gods' words and the Prophets' Hadith.
Is it possible to, better than this, conceal the truths of Islam? Even in Sum, Abu Dharr paid no attention to the orders given by the government. In opposition to it he narrated the Prophets Hadith and said things that were against the interests of the government of that time and the policies of Mu’awwiyah and Uthman.
Mu’awwiyah tried every way with him but this brave, God-fearing old man was not to be overawed. Mu’awwiyah was thus paralyzed. One night one-hundred dinars were brought to Abu Dharr, sent by Mu’awwiyah. That very night Abu Dharr distributed it among the poor and needy. The next morning Mu’awwiyahs' messenger arrived at his door saying: “I brought that money to you by mistake. Help me and save my life, give back the money.”' Abu Dharr said: “Wait, I distributed it among the poor and the needy, I'll go and collect it”.
Neither gold nor force, threats nor tempting had any effect on Abu Dharr, because of this Mu’awwiyah wrote to Uthman saying: “If you have any need for Sham, summon Abu Dharr”. The Caliph ordered that Abu Dharr be sent to Medina. The entire journey was made in misery. The world long route from Sham to Medina was made under the pressure of Mu’awwiyahs' officers on bare-backed camels, without dismounting and at a gallop through scorching deserts. The old mans thighs were chaffed and. worn away from the pressures and suffering he had born on the road.
In this very afflicted state and with a battered body he entered Uthmans governmental palace. Abdul Rahman Ibn Auf, an old supporter of the Caliph, had died and a great amount of his gold had been brought to Uthman so he could distribute it among his heirs. They poured the gold on the floor in front of Uthman. It was so much that a person who was standing on the other side of the gathering couldn't be seen. The Caliph wished to distribute the gold among the heirs. He says: “I wish peace of soul for Abdul Rahman. He gave alms, was a frequent host and has left behind what you see here”. Ka'ab al-Ahbar answered: “What you say is true O' Amir al-Mu'meneen!”.
Abu Dharr in that very tired and depressed state raised his cane bringing it down on Kaab al-Ahbars' head saying: “you son of a Jew! You wish to teach us our own religion!” Then he recited this Quranic verse:
“As for those who accumulate gold and silver making of it a treasure, and don't spend it in the way of God, give them tidings of a painful punishment”.
Of course the accumulating of gold and silver as a treasure is different from owning property. Owning gardens, businesses and capital, etc. is not prohibited or unlawful. According to Islamic law, if money is used, brought to the market or put to some use, there is no objection regardless of the amount, and is not unlawful. On the other hand however, the stockpiling of money is despised by God. The debate regarding treasure is a special topic of study in Islam about which this brief study is incapable of going into in depth.
Some historians have described the gathering of Uthman and Ka'ab al-Ahbar, and Abu Dharrs' argument with them in a different way. To complete this discussion we will now mention this narration. Uthman-”If someone pays the zakat (Islamic poor tax) on his wealth and property, has he any other moral obligation with regard to it?” Ka'ab al Ahbar- “Not at all Amir al-Mu'meneen”.
Abu Dharr placed his hand on Ka'abs' chest and pushed him away saying: “You lied O' son of a Jew”. Then he recited this Quranic verse:
“Goodness is not that you turn your face to the East or West but it is that which......, and spends his money out of love for God.....”
Uthman asked: “Is it wrong for us to borrow money from the Islamic Public Treasury and use it in our own affairs, afterwards returning it?” Ka'abal Ahbar- “No, its alright”.
Abu Dharr placed his cane on Kaabs' chest and pushed him back saying: “How carelessly you express your own viewpoint with regard to our religion”.
Uthman couldn't tolerate these strong outbursts by Abu Dharr in his own presence with his court scholar. This was especially because these statements were backed by various sayings of the Prophet. As a result they threw Abu Dharr out of the home he migrated to, returning him to his original home “Rabadheh” in the bare desert where there was no-one to hear his words, and so he could not relate the Hadith of his friend, the Prophet, and explain the laws of Islam May God rest his soul in Peace and be satisfied with him.
* * * * * * * *
The martyrdom and death of Maytham Tammar and Rashid Hejry were also for this very reason. Maytham Tammar is the distinguished student of Amir al-Mo'meneen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.). He narrates Hadith from him, and became aquainted with Islam at his side. In the last year of his life either 58 or 60 A.H., Maytham went on the pilgrimage to God's house and from there went on to Medina. In Medina he went to the home of Umm-e-Salamah.
Out of respect for him Umm-e-Salamah gave him a special perfume called “Ghalieh”. Maytham said: If at this moment my beard is tinged by this perfume it wont be long before it will be tinged with blood out of my love for the family of Prophet.
Umme-Salamah said: How often I heard the Prophet mention you and recommend you to Ali.
Maytham was a freed slave and of Persian origin and not an Arab. He had been taught by Amir al-Mo'meneen Ali (a.s.) and had learned the interpretation and allegorical explanation for the Quran from him. After leaving the home of Umm-e-salameh, he ran into Ibn Abbas Habr Alameh saying to him (whom was at that time a first class scholar); “Ibn Abbas bring paper and a pen and sit here so that I may recite Quranic interpretations for you, as I learned from Amir al-Mo'meneen Ali (a.s.) and relates the interpretations of these two greatest teachers.
In the midst of this Maytham fortells his future. He says to Ibn Abbas: “How would you feel if your were to see me on a gallow, the ninth of nine persons to be hung, my gallow being shorter than the others and closer to the ground?”
This type of statement greatly surprised Ibn Abbas.
He said:
“Have you become a fortune-teller? Do you tell fortunes and give warnings of the unseen?”
Ibn Abbas said this and moved to tear up the writings he had made of Maythams' Quranic interpretations.
Maytham said:
“Stop! If what I told you occurs as I described and it be proven that I spoke the truth, use these writings and if my words prove false tear them up”.
Maytham returned to Kufa. This was during the rule of Ibn Ziad with all of his oppression, injustice and cruelty. Two days after his return he was arrested by Ibn Ziads officers and taken before the governor.
Ibn Ziad: You are Maytham?
Maytham: Yes I am.
Ibn Ziad: Keep away from Abu Torab.
Maytham: I don't know Abu Torab.
Ibn Ziad: Stay away from Ali Ibn Abi Talib.
Maytham: What will happen if I don't?
Ibn Ziad: I will have you killed.
Maytham: Imam Amiral-Mu'meneen Ali(a.s.) had told me that before long, you would hang me, kill me, and that you would also cut out my tongue.
Ibn Ziad: I will make Ali's prediction a lie. I will cut off you hands and feet and then hang you but I will not cut out your tongue. He then ordered his officers to amputate Maythams hands and feet and hang him on a cross.
At that time the gallows or cross was a wooden pole with its two farthest ends fixed on two supports. They would tie the convicts hands to it and leave him to die on his own, In this state Maytham began calling from the gallows: “O' People, anyone who wishes to learn of the unrelated Hadiths of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, come and hear!”.
The people gathered and from the gallows he related amazing Hadiths for them. Hadiths which had remained imprisoned in hearts and not even a few of their most intelligent had the nerve to relate, the strict censorship existing in that environment not having permitted their circulation. They were now being heard from the tongue of Maytham, the self sacrificing friend of Imam Amir al-Mu'meneen, from the gallows. Ibn Ziad was informed that if he didn't cut out this man's tongue they were afraid he would cause the people of Kufa to rise up against him.
Thus, Ibn Ziad comanded one of his officers to go and cut out Maythams tongue. The officer went to Maytham's cross and ordered him to stick out his tongue. Saying: “O' Maytham stick out your tongue, Amir has ordered that it be cut out”.
Maytham replied: “That son of a whore wished to make myself and my Master-Ali, out as liers. Here, this is my tongue”.
The officer cut out his tongue and after struggling an hour or so on the gallow, he died.
* * * * * * * *
The end of Rashid Hejry's life was also the same, He also had his tongue cut out and was killed because he narrated Hadith. When he was taken before Ibn Ziad, he said to him: “Tell us some of your Master's lie!”
Rashid replied: “I swear to God that neither he nor I are liers and that he truthfully informed me that you will cut off my hands, feet and tongue”.
Ibn Ziad said: “Now is that so. I will prove his statement false. Cut off his hands and feet and throw him out!”
When they took him home in that pitiful condition his daughter asked him: “Does it hurt?”
He answered: “By God no my little girl, except for the discomfort one feels when he is trapped in a crowd, and the crowd presses against him”.
After that his neighbors and friends came to his house. On seeing Rashid in that condition they began to cry. Rashid said:
“Don't cry, instead bring paper and pen so that I may narrate for you what my Master Amir al-Mu'meneen Ali (a.s.) has taught me”.
He then began to speak and told the people of Amir al-Mu'meneens' Hadiths. News of this reached Ibn Ziad and the officer who performed the amputations was sent to cut out his tongue. That night, Rashid the brave said farewell to the transient world.
If Maytham, Abu Dharr and Rashid sacrificed their tongues and occasionally their lives in order to promulgate Hadiths it was because they knew that this was where the main battleground was. They knew that this was the point where wrong doers would plunder Islam and cause the way of humanity to be lost. These men with their deep, accurate understanding of Islam, knew that one of the most fundamental dangers to Islam and one of the strongest means for the destruction of Islams central core was the concealment of the Prophets Hadith. Therefore, they invited death to safeguard this cause, life being worth little in relation to it.
This group with their promulgation of Hadith on the battleground of right, are the keepers of Islamic truths. The opposing side also knows that in order to alter them they must be first of all, taken from circulation. In order to do this they ordered that no-one was allowed to relate Hadith or even to write them. This command for the prohibition of relating Hadith then came to be granted certain limitations.
This was because in principle it was impossible to prevent absolutely, the relating of Hadiths. However, with regard to the writing and recording of Hadith the prohibition remained in effect until 100 A.H. It was in this year that the Caliph gave permission for the recording of Hadith. In all of these the Hadiths had not been officially written and recorded in any form and a compiled collection or book had not come to be.
The order given allowing the writing of Hadith is one of a series of admirable deeds performed by Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz (60-101 A.H). He not only returned Fadak to the Prophets' family and prohibited the cursing of Amir al-Mu'meneen (a.s.), but also during his Caliphate he wrote letter of command to the people of Medina telling those who knew Hadith to write them down because he feared that if not, knowledge and learning would be lost. With this letter, that which had previously there had been no choice, the order was the Caliphs'.
From this time on many Hadiths were related and written. Huge collections of Hadiths were compiled. Classes to teach Hadiths with numerous students were created. We don't know what happened to the Hadiths they had forged which related the Prophet saying not to narrate my Hadiths. These Hadiths disappeared as if they never existed. Yes, the unlawful became lawful because the caliph commanded so. This prohibition became allowable because the Caliph wanted it so. Isn't it true that the Caliph is Ulul Amr i.e. the highest authority. God said:
“Obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those in authority from among you.......”
One Caliph ordered: “don't write Hadith” and they didn't write, and another Caliph ordered: “write Hadith”, and they wrote. As a result, for ninety years, except for Ali (a.s.), Imam Hassan, Imam Hossein, Abu Dharr, Salman, Obaid Allah ibn Abi Rafae, Maytham, Rashid and others like them, no-one wrote Hadith, and the narration of Hadith was limited only to the best interests of the Caliphs and strongmen of that time.
The prohibition of the promulgation of Hadith was the foundation for alteration. The Caliphate wants a type of Islam to be promulgated which will for example not have persons saying, that according to the Prophets' words the palace built by Mu’awwiyah in Sham is unlawful. Or, if Yazid became caliph and was a liquor drinker and a fornicator, no one would say that the Prophets actions and behavior was different and doesn't collate with that of this caliph.
Accordingly, until the Prophets Hadith, the records of his deeds and the true history of his life exist, the Muslims can not be silenced, and at every time it is possible that a God-fearing Muslim will cry out and disgrace the transgressors. It is for this reason that the Prophets Hadith must not be related or appear in writing, must not be repeated or circulated. As for the results they achieved from this primary foundation, and the ways they altered the facts, that will-God willing-be seen in future chapters.
Peace and Blessings be upon Muhammad and his progeny.
* * * * * * *
We were saying that according to traditions narrated successive witnesses in Shiite and Sunni texts, the Holy Prophet (S) foretold that everything that occured in past nations would also occur in this nation. Then we saw the alterations, changes concealments of past nations. The result of which being that all of these sorts of tragic events must also materialize in this nation.
In short, we said that in this nation various forms of change, modification and concealment of the facts also existed, and by these means, Islam in all of its aspects became the victim of alteration. However, at the time when Islam came to resemble a reversed cloak or an overturned bowl, God out of His grace and with the efforts of the Holy Imams of Ahlu'l bait (a.s.) once again revived it and returned it to the society.
That was the basis of our discussion. Now we will go on to a study of the means by which these evil oppressor of the nation were able to alter Islam. Such as we proved earlier, the first means was concealment, just like in previous nations:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَىٰ مِن بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ أُولَـٰئِكَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّـهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ
“Surely those who conceal the clear proofs and the guidance that We revealed after We made it clear in the Book for men, these it is whom Allah shall curse, and those, who curse shall curse them (too)”. (Quran 2: 159)
Concealment also existed in this nation and it became the foundation for the modification and alteration of Islam. Now let us to see what do they conceal? In the previous discussion of this thesis we looked at the traditions and words of the Holy Prophet (S) or in other words the second pillar of Islam. We saw that they not only concealed them but they also silenced the companions and supporters of the Prophet so that they couldn't narrate Hadith from him. This even occured to the point that they didn't even allow the Prophet to write his will from his death bed.
At this point the listeners brought up a problem, according to which it was said that the Prophet shouldn't have made a will. The answer to this question and problem interrupted our discussion and took it to the matter of the Mastership, one of its strongest documentations being the repeated, decisive bequests of the Prophet.
* * * * * * *
My debates have always been from a group that were propounded during the time of the Holy Imams and continued until the major occultation, only later to be entrusted to oblivion, and in the next thousand years acquiring the least attention. The debates which were always under consideration from that time to the present, Shi'ite scholars having thoroughly researched and performing the necessary steps accordingly, had no room for repetition in order for me to try my hand at them.
The Mastership is one of those topics into which research has never ended. Because of this I didn't think that there was still any need for it to be discussed and therefore didn't mention it in my lectures or writings, thus passing it by. However, questions that arose from the subject matter in the previous lesson have forced me to proceed briefly on this matter, and go into the arguments regarding it as much as a short skirting will allow.
“The Basis for the Two Schools' Ways of Thinking”
From the time of the Prophets' (S) death until the present day, two schools have existed in the Islamic world. The Imamate school and the Caliphate School. What do these two schools say with regard to the matter of the governor and leader after the Prophet?
The Caliphate school says: The Leader and governor is elective.
The Imamate school says: The leader and governor is appointed (selective).
The group which says that the appointment of the leader is based on election also believes that the electing is done by the people, and after the Prophet it is they who pick the governor.
On the other hand, the Imamate school says that the designation of the leader is by appointment, this appointment being made by God and not the Prophet (S). God the highest appoints, and the Prophet (S) informs the people of this divine appointment and selection.
This was a summary of the belief of the two schools. Now we must go into a more detailed study of these two schools principals. First of all we will evaluate the Caliphate schools opinions.
The scholars of the Caliphate school possess books in which they have described such things as law and the says and means for forming a government and also the necessities for this, the governors duties, the rights of the Islamic government with regard to the people and the peoples rights with regard to the government, how ministers should be chosen, how the Friday Imam and the judges are appointed, how taxes should be collected, the amounts of “Zakat”, “Kharaj” and “Jezieh”
who should receive it and how, and so on. These books are the official writings of the Caliphate schools famous, authoritative and trustworthy scholars.
We have taken our information on these schools beliefs with regard to the appointment of the Muslims leader from these books and thus proceed to evaluate them. We saw previously that in the Caliphate school they named the leader “Caliph”. The person who was elected by the people was called (Khalifato Rosool) or “Caliph of the Prophet” which for brevity was later changed to “Caliph”.
We also learned that in Islam there are some terms which occured during the Prophets' lifetime, either these terms or names being chosen by the Prophet himself, or chosen by God and narrated by the Prophet. This type of terming or naming being called “Islamic terms” and “Shar'i terms” meaning terms or names that were chosen legally or by the legislator.
There is also another group of words called “Motashareh terms” which were chosen by the Muslims themselves or by Islamic scholars. We said that the word Caliph with its present meaning (religious leader and leader of the Muslim world) is not a Shar'i or canonical term. This means that during the Prophets' lifetime this word did not possess this meaning, the Muslims themselves or the followers of the Caliphate school have given it this meaning.
According to this, whenever we see the word caliph in the Quran or Tradition it has its literal meaning, the very meaning the Arabs understood it to have, its completely literal meaning. If a scholar were to appoint someone to take his place, and leave all of his duties for him to perform, such a person would become “Khalifatul'alim” or “Caliph of the scholar”. Or if a merchant were to appoint someone to take his place in his business making him his successor, he thus becomes “Khalifato-at-tajir” or “Caliph of the Merchant”.
Because it is used in conjunction with God in the Quran it means “Khalifaullah” or “Caliph of Allah”. He is the man who has obtained the power of authority to do Gods work in the world. In the Prophets tradition, caliph means that person who performs the special duty of the Prophet, or first hand propagation, and who in reality was charged with the continuation of the Prophet's work. Since the never ending duty of the Prophet is the propagation of Islamic religious law, his caliph is also the propagator of religious law.
As such, neither in the Quran, nor in Tradition does the word Caliph carry the meaning of Islamic leader or governor. On the contrary, in the tradition of the Prophet, whenever we see this word, for example where it is said “Khalifati feekom” with regard to Ali (a.s.), it does not mean governor or leader but means that; after me the propagation of Islam is his responsibility. The explanation and interpretation of the Quran is his responsibility.
After clarifying this matter we will begin a study of the reasoning of these two schools.
The description and reason behind the Caliphate schools opinions will be extracted from the books we mentioned earlier, named “Al-Ahkamu's-sultaniyyah” by Qazi Mawardi (born in the year 450 A.H.) and Qazi Abu Ya'la (born in the year 458 A.H) both high ranking judges during their time. They describe this matter in the following manner in their books which both have the same name. In The Caliphat School
The Imamate, which is the Caliphate after the Apostle may come to be held in three ways:
1) A Caliph appoints his successor, or the next Caliph. This means that if Haroun al-Rashid said: Amin and Mamoun are the next caliphs after me, the Muslims are obliged to accept, this caliph being the legal Islamic one and according to the religion acceptance of him being required. These two scholars say: There is no room for dispute in this matter and the acceptance of the Caliph in this manner was by a concensus of opinions.
Their reasoning with regard to this kind of appointment, and its genuiness and correctness is because when Abu Bakr appointed Umar as his successor the people did not oppose his choice; the acceptance of the entire Muslim community showed that they saw this method as being correct. As such, because of Abu Bakr's action and the peoples lack of protest, this method of appointment of one Caliph with regard to the next was deemed correct. In the Caliphate school the authenticity and accuracy of this method has no room for dispute.
2) The Caliph is appointed by the people: In this manner of the Caliphs appointment the experts in the Caliphate school differ in opinion. Mowardi says: The majority of scholars believe that the Caliph is chosen by five of the wise men or elders of the nations, or one of them chooses and the other four agree.
The reason he gives for this opinion is that with regard to Abu Bakrs caliphate five persons swore an oath of allegiance to him and this oath gained recognition and was accepted. The five persons mentioned above were Umar Ibn Khattab, Abu Ubaidah-e-Jarrah, Salem (Abu Hudhaifas' freed slave), No'man ibn Bashir, and Aseed ibn Hadir.
This was how the oath was given at Saghifeh and Abu Bakr achieved the post of Caliph. When the Caliph, chosen at Saghifeh was proposed to the people, they also willy-nilly accepted him.
So for this reason - the deed of these five persons - the appointment of the Caliph is made by the oath and consent of five of the elders and is thus carried out. Another reason for this way of thought is the statement of Umar ibn Khattab in the commission for the appointment of his successor. He stated at that time, that if five of the six members agreed on one person, that person will become caliph. Most of the Caliphate schools scholars agree on this idea.
Another group of caliphate scholars say that the Caliphate resembles a marriage contract. Just as a marriage requires a notary and two witnesses, the appointment of a Caliph requires one person to swear the oath of allegiance and two persons to express their agreement. Accordingly, three elders are sufficient for the appointment of a caliph and governor.
A third group believes that it is sufficient for only one person to swear allegiance to a Caliph. The appointment by one person and oath by the same elects the Caliph of the great Islamic nation. Their reason for this belief is that Abbas Ibn Abdul Mutalib told Ali:
“Give me your hand so that I may swear my allegiance to you. The people will say that the Prophets uncle gave his allegiance to his paternal cousin, and therefore no one will disagree on this matter”.
Their second reason for this belief is because the oath of allegiance is like the ruling or directive of a judge since both are valid and binding and opposition to it is not permissible. According to the two reasons, even if only one person swears allegiance to someone with regard to the Caliphate, his Caliphate is thus established becoming legal and official.
3) A Caliph obtains the caliphate by military victory and force. According to this opinion if the leadership of the Muslims comes to be as a result of military strength and superiority, that victor is the rightful caliph and his Caliphate is official in Islamic law; and according to Judge Ya'las' words:
“With regard to the person who gains rule over the Islamic nation by sword and force, thus being called Amir al-Mu'meneen (Commander of the faithful) and Caliph; it becomes unlawful and prohibited for those who believe in God and resurrection day to spend even one night not accepting him as Imam, regardless of whether this person (Caliph) is an infallible person or whether is fallible”.
Fazlollah Ibn Ruzbahaan the authoritative scholar of the Caliphate school in the book of Suluk al-Molk, writes with regard to this manner of establishing the Caliphate:
The fourth means for obtaining the sultanate or Imamate is ascendancy or power; scholars have said that if an Imam dies and afterwards someone takes charge of the Imamate without receiving the allegiance oath, and without being appointed Caliph by someone, forcing the people to accept him with force and military division, his Imamate is lawful without allegiance whether he be of Quraish or not, Arab or other than Arab, whether he possesses the pre-requisits or whether he is ignorant and lewd He may be known as Imam and Caliph”.
The Caliph and the Muslims
If someone attains the caliphate by one of the previous means; force, the allegiance of one person, or three or five persons, or by the appointment of the previous Caliph, it becomes obligatory for the Muslims to recognize him in this name and position just as it is for them to recognize God and His Prophet. This is but one opinion. The majority believe that if the people know only who is Caliph, that is sufficient, a detailed recognition of him being unnecessary and a general recognition sufficing.
They upon narrating a series of narrations found in their most creditable books written by their most famous narrators, say that according to them it doesn't matter what the Caliph does; whatever oppression and tyranny, extortion and debauchery, its not lawful to draw swords upon him and or oppose him or leave him.
Hudhaifeh narrates from the Holy Prophet (S):
“After me there will be leaders who will not follow in my footsteps, and won't act according to my method. Some of them will possess hearts like those of devils while appearing to be human beings!
Hudhaifeh said:
I said: O' Apostle of God, if I should become a witness of such a time what must I do in response?” He said: “You must listen to him thoroughly and obey him absolutely. Even if he strikes you on the back and seizes your property, you must obey him and listen to his commands!”
Ibn Abbas relates from the Holy Prophet (S)
“If someone should witness in his leader or governor some unpleasantness, he must be forbearing; because if someone strays so much as an inch from the Caliphates rule and those Muslims who support it, when he dies he will be as those who died in the age of ignorance”.
In another of Ibn Abbas's narratives the Prophet is quoted as saying:
“No one must choose to stray from a government, even so much as an inch; because if he dies in this condition he will have left the world as those who died in the age of ignorance idolatry”.
As a footnote to these traditions, one of the renowned scholars of the Caliphate school says in a section called “Lozoom-e-Ta'atul Amr” or “The neccessity of obeying the rulers”.
“The majority in the Sunnite sect, in other words the scholars, relators of Tradition and narrators say that a Hakem who is debaucherous and oppressive and who tramples the people's rights may not be deposed or removed from his position. According to law it is also prohibited and unlawful to revolt against him, but it is obligatory to council and advice him, making him fear God and the resurrection day; This is because we have Tradition from the Prophet which prevent us from rebelling against the Caliph. The word in short is that revolt against the leaders and governors of the Muslim majority is unlawful, even if he is a tyrant or a debaucherous person”.
* * * * *
According to this belief, insurrection with regard to Yazid ibn Mu’awwiyah, the drunken, dog-loving murderer, and with regard to Abdul Malik whose soldiers destroyed the Ka'ba with Catapults, and war against Valid who made the Quran the target of arrows, is not permitted and is unlawful.
'Nouve' the scholar and commentator on Muslims “Sahih” says in addition to the above:
“Many consecutive Hadiths were given and they prove the above statement and in addition the Sunnite sect has by consensus agreed that the leader may not be deposed from the Imamate because of debauchery”.
This scholar then claims proof with this Quranic verse:
أطيعوا الله و أطيعوا الرسول و أُولي الأَمرَ مِنكم
“Obey Allah and obey the apostle and those in authority from among you”.(Holy Quran, 4: 59)
Then he added that since the ruler were the authorities in all matters they must be obeyed. This was a summary of the remarks found .in the authoritative books on religious science, Hadith, and their commentaries in the Caliphate school.Then he added that since the ruler were the authorities in all matters they must be obeyed. This was a summary of the remarks found .in the authoritative books on religious science, Hadith, and their commentaries in the Caliphate school.
In The Imamate School
On the other hand this matter has another form, in the Imamate school, just as we have seen, the Imamate is established by Divine appointment. The leaders and scholars of this support their belief with this Quranic verse:
وَإِذِ ابْتَلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ قَالَ إِنِّي جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَامًا
“And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men”. (Quran 2: 124) (translated by M. H. Shakir).
What background did the words that God used to test Abraham (a.s.) have? Did they contain orders for the sacrifice of his son Ismael? Was it a command to battle with the great evil man of that time Namrood, or was it an order to enter the fire and willingly burn? Could this verse mean all of these things together? It's really unclear.
Whatever it is, it must have been tremendous to contend as a test for Abraham. As such, when this great Prophet passed all of the sensitive points successfully, and as always proved his life to be of pure service and devotion to his lord, he attained the exalted rank of Imamate. What can the rank of Imamate be when is attained after prophethood and God's friendship and it brings Abraham the great such joy that he requests it for his son? Apart from all this we have seen that the Imamate is based on Divine division and covenant, and that alone.
Upon hearing this Divine message and attaining exalted position, because of the circumstances of his human nature; Abraham requests of his God that this rank be retained for his sons as well. Because of his human nature he loves his children and wishes them to obtain this heart-felt honour as well:
He asked God:
وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِي
“And of my offspring? (Quran 2: 124)
And God replied:
لَا يَنَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ
“My Covenant does not include the unjust”. (Quran 2: 124)
Who is the unjust? In Quranic use, sometimes a person who does injustice to himself. For example someone who worships idols, drinks liquor or commits suicide has done himself Injustice. Unjust is also used with regard to those who do injustice to others and infringe upon their rights. For example, someone who seizes the peoples property, gains unlawful profit from them, or violates their chastity, and also anyone who in anyway opposes Gods command will be known as unjust according to Islamic insight.
A person who for even just a moment existed in self injustice or injustice to other is called unjust; and according to the precise equilibrium of God's order is unfit to obtain His covenant meaning the Imamate. Just as we have seen and according to clear Quranic reasoning, the Imam must be “Masum” or infallible.
Other then this noble verse, in other Quranic verse the Imamate has been mentioned and has presented it as being based on Divine division covenant:
وَجَعَلْنَاهُمْ أَئِمَّةً يَهْدُونَ بِأَمْرِنَا وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْهِمْ فِعْلَ الْخَيْرَاتِ وَإِقَامَ الصَّلَاةِ وَإِيتَاءَ الزَّكَاةِ وَكَانُوا لَنَا عَابِدِينَ
“And We made them Imams who guided (people) by Our command, and We revealed to them the doing of good and the keeping up of prayer and the giving of alms, and Us (alone) did they serve”. (Qur’an 21: 73).
وَجَعَلْنَا مِنْهُمْ أَئِمَّةً يَهْدُونَ بِأَمْرِنَا لَمَّا صَبَرُوا وَكَانُوا بِآيَاتِنَا يُوقِنُونَ
“And We made them Imams to guide by Our command when they were patient, and they were certain of Our communications”. (Qur’an 32: 24).
For further information refer to appendix 2
According to the school of Ahlu'l bait and based on the Holy Quran the Imamate is established solely by divine appointment, fabrication and covenant, with no exceptions.
The second matter with regard to the Imamate is that of the Imams infallibility (Ismah) which was stipulated in verse 124 of the Surah Baqarah previously mentioned with regard to Abrahams Imamate. Now, if we refer once again to the Quran we will see in this noble verse:
إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّـهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا
“Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O' people of the house! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying”. (Holy Quran, 33:33)
The term “Ahlul bait”
used in this verse is a Shar'i or legal term coined by the Quran. With absolute resolution the Holy Prophet (S) revealed the group as being those who were present during his lifetime. He gathered Ali, Fatemah, Hassan Hussain under his cloak
announcing this verse which had then been revealed to him when been revealed him; and in this way explicitly specified that his wives were not members of this group. In this way “Ahlul-bait” became the name of this group and whenever we hear it spoken of in Islam it means them, and they are “Masum” or infallible (pure). announcing this verse which had then been revealed to him when been revealed him; and in this way explicitly specified that his wives were not members of this group. In this way “Ahlul-bait” became the name of this group and whenever we hear it spoken of in Islam it means them, and they are “Masum” or infallible (pure).
Further Investigation into The First Condition
Such as we have seen, in the school of Ahlu'l bait the Imamate is established by appointment and this appointment must be by God. The Prophet is only responsible for relaying this message. He himself did not appoint Ali or recommend his governorship. The Holy Prophet, just as he propagated the command for prayer thus only acting as God's Messenger, and relayed the command for Haj which was also a command from God as thus only relating His message......... it is same with regard to the Imamate.
He propagandizes the Imamate from God, the appointment an installation being from God. According to this, what the Prophet (S) says in reference to the Imamate, is the same as that which he relates and explain in relating to prayer, Hajj, zakat, and Jehad. Regarding prayer he says pray this way; first of all perform Ablutions like this, recite the Surah Hamd in the first and second Rakat, do such and such in the Rukoo and in Sajdeh such.
It is he who says how many Rakat each prayer should contain or what its preliminaries and requirements are.........of course the Prophet does not say these things on his own, he relates from God, he propagates God's words. In this way it has been completely clarified that the Prophets words on the matter of the Imamate are from God:
Now, in the limits of this brief discussion we will study the Hadiths and statements made by the Holy Prophet on the matter of Imamate. We may divide this type of texts into two varieties:
1) Traditions regarding all of the Imams of Ahlu'l bait (a.s.)
2) Traditions in which the name of a specific Imam of Ahlu'l bait is mentioned.
In the first group of Hadiths none of the proper names of the Imams (a.s.) are mentioned, but the Imamate of Ahlu'l bait in general is propounded in them. First of all we will evaluate this group of Hadiths:
A: Hadithu'thaqalayn (Hadith of Two Precious Things)
Our first Hadith is narrated from the book “Sahih” by Muslim,
but it may also be found in most other reputable books; for example Ahmad's “Musnad”, “Sunan” by Darmy and “Sunan” by Bayhaqi and “Mustadrak al-Sahihain” by Al-Hakim.
Zaid ibn Arqam says:
On the way from Mecca to Medina (on the return trip of “the farewell pilgrimage”), next to a pool called “Khumm” the Prophet delivered this sermon to the people:
“O people, know that I am only a human being. The time draws near when I will be called (to the next world), and for me to accept God's invitation. I am leaving behind among you, two most precious thing: God's scripture which contains guidance and light, don't let it go and hold it tight, and my descendants who are my family members”.
And according to the version in “Mustadrak” he adds:
“Beware how you behave towards these two remaining things after I am gone. They will not separate from each other until they meet me at the pool of 'Kowsar”'. It is with reliance on the Prophets last sentence that we believe one of the Imams of Ahlu'l bait their number being ascertained in other creditable Hadiths - will have such a lengthy life that he will remain alive until the worlds end. So that, joined and allied with Gods scripture they will always be existent in the human world. Also, so that the Prophets statement regarding their lack of separation will come true.
Jabir relates something similar to this from the Prophets' sermon on “the ninth day of Zilhaj” (Arafah). He says:
“O' People, I am leaving something behind among you, which so long as you keep hold of you will never go astray: God's Book and my Descendants: Who are my family members (Ahlu'l bait).”
After relating this narrative, Tirmidhi adds that the Hadith was also related by Abu Dharr, Abu Saeed al-Khudri, Zaid ibn Sabet and Hudhayfeh Ibn al-Aseed. This narration has been related by in so many ways by various persons that their repetition and study requires the proper opportunity for such. At this time we only wish to rely on this Hadith to the point where we may show that the Prophet made the Imamate exclusively in his Ahlu'l bait, and made them allied with and inseparable from the Quran. This is because the Prophet sees guidance as being in their hands and in the Quran.
Holding onto and adhering to them results in inevitable deliverance from deviation and from being misled according to the Prophets insight. He warns that you should beware and be careful how you act towards them after me. He also says that these two will never separate and that they will meet him at the pool of 'Kowsar'; the entrance place for the saved on resurrection day.
The fact that the “Divine scriptures” are theoretically the peoples Imam, and their leader in thought, belief, character and action, is an indisputable Quranic matter.
It is also with regard to and reliance on this very principle that the Imamate of the Prophets Ahlu'l bait is proved because of their being placed along side the Quran. In other words, Islam is described and propounded in the Quran theoretically, and actively and in outer personification it appears in the Ahlu'l bait.
Therefore, if we accept the Qurans Imamate in that form, then we have no choice but to accept the Imamate of Ahlu'l bait in this form. Another point made here in the Prophet's words is with regard to guidance being exclusive in his valuable legacy; (the Quran and his Ahlu'l bait). Since we know that Quranic guidance is confined to the generalities of Islamic matters of faith, morals knowledge; then it is inevitable that the explanation and clarification of these matters related in the Quran will become the duty and responsibility of Ahlu'l bait. In this way, guidance will be complete and consummate.
B: Narratives of the Number of Imams
In another group of narratives the number of Imams, Caliphs, or leaders after the Prophet is ascertained and of course their names are not mentioned. Until now I have found these narratives related by four of the Prophets companions: Jaber Ibn Saorah is one of these persons and his narrative can be found in “Sahih” by Muslim and Bukhari, and the “Sunan” of Abu Davoud and Tirmidhi and also the “Musnad” of Ahmad and the “Musnad” of Teialsi and so on.
Jabirs narrative will be related from the book “Sahih” of Muslim. He says:
“I had gone with my father to see the Holy Prophet (S), (he) the great man said: (Religion «Islam» will always remain until the day of resurrection and until there has been twelve Caliphs, all from Quraish)”
In this narration nothing more is related, but in the “Nahjul Balaghe” Amir al-Mu'meneen adds the part which has been eliminated saying:
Surely Imams would be from Quraish. They have been planted in this life through Hashim. It would not suit other nor would other tie suitable as heads of affairs”.
In another narration related in Ahmads “Musnad”, and Hakems' “Mustadrak” and so on.........A man named Masrough who is the narrator of the Hadith said: “While in Kufa we were sitting with Abdullah Ibn Massoud and he was teaching us the Quran. A man asked him: O' Abu Abdul Rahman didn't you ask the Prophet how many Caliphs this nation will have? Abdullah then said in reply. Since I have come to Iraq no-one has asked me that question. And He then added: Yes we asked the Prophet about that matter and he said:
“Twelve, the same number as the leaders of Israel”.
This narrative was also related by Anas Ibn Malik, Abdullah ibn Amr ibn-e-Aas, each of these narratives having been reported by successive other witnesses which gives them concate notion and greater credibility and reliability.
The Interpretation of this Hadith and the Perplexity of its Commentators
In reference to this type of Hadith, the Sunnite schools commentators and experts arrived at a dead end. They couldn't find a meaning for them in the narrow gulf of the Caliphate schools accepted beliefs. They also could not precisely pinpoint the identity of these twelve persons, or say how a group of twelve consecutive leaders could endure and remain until resurrection day, or what special characteristics this group possessed seeing that Islams' honour and dignity was linked to them. Can anyone, with any type of personality hold this position, or is it necessary for him to be a just righteous Caliph?
First: The famous canonist Ibn Al-Araby in his commentary on Tirmidhis book “Sunan” says:
“We will count the Caliphs after the Holy Prophet. We find them as such: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hassan, Mu’awwiyah, Yazid ibn Mu’awwiyah, Mu’awwiyah ibn Yazid, Marwan, Valid, Suaiman, Uman ibn Abdul Aziz, Yaiz ibn Abdul Malik, Marwan ibn Muhammad ibn Marwan, Saffah, Mansour........
He continues in this manner the listing and counting of the Caliphs and counts up to twenty-seven more of them upto his lifetime (543 A.H). He then says:
“If we were to count twelve of them from the beginning of the Caliphate, having in mind those who possessed the Caliphate of the Prophet in appearance, we find that this twelve ends with Sulaiman Ibn Abdul Malek. However, if we count them keeping in mind those who in reality and in its true meaning possessed the Caliphate of the Prophet [meaning that they were righteous and just], we will only have five members in this group; the first four Caliphs and Umar ibn Abdul Aziz. Because of this I find no meaning for this Hadith”.
Qazi Aiyaz the reputable sunnite traditionalist says in answer to the question:
Haven't a much larger number of persons reached the Caliphate than twelve?!
(That is a futile protest because the Holy Prophet has not said: Other than twelve there will be no other Caliphs. No, he has said that there will be such a number; which there was. This statement of the Prophet does not prevent there being a greater number)
Another scholar has said: The Prophets intention is that there will be twelve Imams throughout Islams existence until resurrection day who will act righteously. However, consecutiveness and succession is not stipulated.....Accordingly, in the Prophets sentence «After that there will. be anarchy» he means the resurrection and the revolts and confusion proceeding it like the exist of the “Islamic antichrist” (Dajjal).
The twelve Caliphs mentioned here are: the first four Caliphs, and Hassan and Mu’awwiyah, Abdullah ibn Zobair
and Uman ibn Abdul Aziz (who are eighty altogether), Mahdi Abbasi (127-169 A.H) may also possible be added to them because he was among the Abbassids the same as Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz was among the Ummayads. Zaher may also be included because of his righteousness. As a result, two remain of which one is Mahdi (Mau'ood-e- Akher-az-Zaman) The Promised One who is of Ahlu'lbait.
It has also been said: “The Prophets intention in this Hadith is that there will be twelve Caliphs in the era of the Caliphates glory and power, and Islams greatest strength and order of affairs. According to this, the Caliphs spoken of by the Prophet are those who ruled in eras when Islam was highly esteemed and upon whom all of the Muslims agreed.”
Bayhaghi the famous Sunnite traditionalsit and legislator after an explanation on this opinion says that: This amount, of those possessing the above mentioned characteristics, concluded with Valid ibn Yazid ibn Abdul Malik, and afterwards there was anarchy and large revolts. After that the Abbassids came to power. Of course if we set aside the aforementioned characteristics we will have more than twelve, and the same is true if we count the Caliphs after the revolts.
As a further explanation of this, they have said:
“Among those who were unanimously agreed upon in the Caliphate we first of all have the first three Caliphs and afterwards there is Ali until the matter of leadership came up in the battle of “Siffeen”. On this day Mu’awwiyah gave himself the title of Caliph (and unanimous agreement concerning Ali's Caliphate was abolished). (This situation remained the same from then on). After Imam Hassan's peace treaty everyone agreed on Mu’awwiyahs' caliphate and after him his son Yazid saw no opposition.
The matter of Imam Hussain and his Caliphate did not achieve agreements and he was killed as a result. Again, after Yazids' death there was dispute untill the time of Abdul Malik Ibn Marwan's Caliphate which had unanimous agreement. Of course we know that this occured after the killing of Abdullah ibn Zobair (73 A.H). After Abdul Malik there was no opposition to the Caliphate of his four sons: These four being Valid, Sulaiman, Yazid and Hesham while according to Sulaimans last will, Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz held the Caliphate after him and before Yazid. The twelfth person in this group upon whom the people unanimously agreed was Valid ibn Abdul Malik who ruled for four years”.
Ibn Hajar the great Shafite traditionalist and Canonist said:
“This is the best explanation for the aforementioned Hadiths”.
Ibn Kasir, the famous historian, traditionalist and Commentator of the eighth century (A.H) writes:
The way followed by Bayhaghi and a group who agreed with him has much room for hesitation: this group saying that the Hadith speaks of the Caliphs who ruled successively until the rule of Valid ibn Yazid Ibn Abdul Malik the libertine. The reason I say this is that no matter how we look at it the Caliphs up until the above mentioned Valid are more than twelve. Our proof of this is such: the Caliphate of the first four Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali was according to unanimous agreement and as such indisputable.........after them there was Hassan ibn Ali because Ali left testimony as to him and his Caliphate and the people also pledged their allegience to him.........up until the time that he made peace with Mu’awwiyah........
After Mu’awwiyah there was Yazid and after him Mu’awwiyah Ibn Yazid, then Marwan and Abdul Malik ibn Marwan, his son Valid Ibn Abdul Malik, afterwards Sulaiman Ibn Abdul Malik, Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, Yazid ibn Abdul Malik and then Hesham ibn Abdul Malik who were rulers and Caliph. This group as such consists of fifteen persons. Even so, after these there was Valid ibn Yazid ibn Abdul Malik (Bayhaghi names as the twelfth person). And if we also take into account the rule of Abdullah ibn Zobair who was before Abdul Malik, this group amounts to sixteen persons.
Despite all of the difficulties with regard to the twelve Caliphs approved of by the Prophet (by counting from the start of the Caliphate), Yazid ibn Mu’awwiyah is included, while Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz whom all the great men praised and eulogized is exclused.
This is even despite the fact the he has been included in the group of orthodox Caliphs, everyone agreeing on his justice and the fact the at his rule was one of the most just in Islamic history. Even the heretics have agreed on this matter.
If someone would say that we only give credence to those whom the nation unanimously agreed upon they will arrive at a dead-end because they cannot include Ali Ibn Abi Talib and his son in the number of Caliphs, seeing that the people did not unanimously agree on their Caliphate, and all of Shams inhabitants did not pledge their allegiance to him with regard to their Caliphate.
Ibn Kasir adds to this: One of the scholars has included Mu’awwiyah, Yazid, and Mu’awwiyah ibn Yazid in the .twelve Caliphs and has excluded Marwan and Abdullah Ibn Zobair, because the people did not unanimously agree on them. I say: If we accept this principle in the counting of the Caliphs, we must count them as such; Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, then Mu’awwiyah, Yazid, Abdul Malik, Valid, Sulaiman, Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, then Yazid and Hesham. These add up to ten.
After them we have Valid Ibn Yazid ibn Abdul Malik (the libertine). The reason being that by following this method it becomes necessary for us to exclude Ali and his son Hassan and this is contrary to the stipulations of Sunnite and Shiite scholars. It is also contrary to the stipulations of Sunnite and Shiite scholars. It is also contrary to a narrative from the prophet related by Safineh which says: After me the Caliphate will last thirty years and after that there will be a truculent king.
Ibn Jozy, in his book “Kashf al-Mushkel” (Discovery of problem), has put forth two says to solve this matter:
First: The Holy Prophet (S) has mentioned in his hadiths the events that will occur after himself and his companions, in reality his companions being united with him in this matter, being the same as himself. The Prophet notifies us of the governments which will rule after himself, in these statements referring to the number of Caliphs at the head of them.
Also, maybe he means by the remark (La Yazaluddin...),
that the government will always be stable and in control, honoured and powerful, until the time when twelve Caliphs have come to power, and after that everything will change and its conditions will be much more difficult.
The first of the Prophets Caliphs is of Bani Ummayad, and is Yazid ibn Mu’awwiyah and the last is Marwan (Hemar). Their numbers amounts to thirteen. Uthman, Mu’awwiyah and Abdullah Ibn Zobair are excluded from this number because they were companions of the Prophet.
Accordingly, if we illuminate Marwan ibn Al-Hakam because of doubt as to whether he was a companion or not, and or because he gained the Caliphate by force while the people then had freely pledged their allegiance to Abdullah ibn Zubair, we will have arrived at the twelve (and thus the Prophets' statement would be proved). When the Caliphate left the family of Bani Ummayed great revolts and unrest occured along with great dangers and events, continuing until the time when the Caliphate was established in Bani Abbas. After that the conditions of the Caliphate took on some very striking changes. (In the book “Fathu'l Bari”, after narrating this opinion Ibn Hajr goes on to reject it and list its inconsistancies).
Second: It's possible that this Caliphate along with the twelve entrusted with it pertains to the period of time after Mahdi who will appear at the end of the world. I have found this in the book of Daniel: When Mahdi leaves this world, after him five sons of the Major tribe (Imam Hassan «a.s») will rule the government.
After that five sons of the minor tribe (Imam Hussain «a.s») will gain this position. The last in this group will then specify in his will that one of the Major tribes sons should be his successor and Caliph. After him his son will take on the responsibility of the caliphate, the twelve aforementioned Caliphs thus completed, each of them being a guided Imam(Mahdi).
After this statement Ibn Jozy adds: Such news also exists in a Hadith which says that after him (Mahdi) twelve men will attain leadership: Six of them the descendents of Hassan and six the descendents of Hussain followed by one more person after whose death the era will become corrupt.
Ibn Hajar Haythami speaking of this Hadith says:
“This Hadith is certainly a false one therefore we cannot rely on it”.
Another group of scholars said: It seems that the Prophet (S) has given news of strange things to happen after him in this Hadith, and has foretold of the unrest and disorder during those eras. Times when the people of one era will gather around twelve Emirs. If the Prophet had intended other than this he would have certainly said: There will be twelve Emirs each of them will do this and that. Since he has offered no information regarding these persons we understand that he meant all of these Caliphs would be in one era or period of time.
They also said that this prediction with that meaning occured in the fifth century A.H because at that time in “Andalusia” there lived only six persons each calling himself Caliph, in addition to these six Caliphs the ruler of Egypt (The Fatimide Caliph) and the Abbasside Caliph in Baghdad also ruled (adding up to eight person). In addition to them those who claimed the caliphate are also counted, meaning the khavarej and Alavian who appeared at this time refusing to obey the Abbaside Caliph and wanting their own Caliphate or government.
After narrating this opinion Ibn Hajar Asqalani remarks:
This is the particular opinion of those who have studied only the abbreviated version of Bukhari and have not seen the other versions of this Hadith (which contain many explanations regarding these Caliphs). Even so, the existence of this large group of self-appointed caliphs is a separate matter and therefore cannot be seen as the Prophets intention.
These were the commentaries on and explanations of this Hadith by the Caliphate school.
140) According to Muslims narrative, 6/4 (Egypt 1334) (meaning: Religion will always be stable until there has been twelve Caliphs and....) The word Religion int his text has been given another meaning and changed to government or leadership which has nothing to do with it.
Now We Will Investigate
Now we will go back and review this collection of opinions so that we may arrive at their true meanings and ascertian and confirm the falsity of all of them, none of them having any similarity to one another. The points that may be confirmed by an accurate study of these hadiths are:
1) The number of the Prophets' Caliphs and Islamic leaders will not exceed twelve persons all of them from Quraish.
Our reason for this claim is the plain and explicit wording in some of these Hadiths. For example:
“For this nation there will be twelve guardians.....all of Quraish”.
And:
“This nation will have twelve Caliphs”,
or
“After me there will be twelve Caliphs all of whom are from Quraish”.
The statements (after me there are twelve Caliphs) and (this nation will have twelve Caliphs) and their like give us the precise opinion the number of caliphs and guardians of this nation is restricted to twelve persons.
2) These leaders or Caliphs will come consecutively in this nation until resurrection day.
To prove this statement we will also refer to the existing narratives.
Muslim in his book “Sahih” quotes from the Prophet: (The Caliphate is everlasting in the world and even if only two persons remain it will be in Quraish).
This Hadith appearing in the most reputable Sunnite writings of Hadith precisely announces the continuity of the Caliphs until resurrection day. Now let us repeat the Hadith we reported earlier: (This religion will remain until resurrection day and the Caliphate of twelve Caliphs).
Clearly, this gives us the promise of religion remaining until the day of resurrection, and alongside it the Caliphate of twelve Caliphs. This means that the Prophets intent was: My religion will remain until resurrection day and this length of time will be the era of twelve Caliphs, it being necessary for one of these caliphs to have along enough life span to last this long period of time.
3) These Caliphs and Emirs, according to the Prophets explicit statement, have been compared with the twelve leaders of Bani Israel. We read in the Holy Quran
“And certainly Allah made a covenant with the children of Israel, and We raised up among them twelve chieftains”.
Bani Israel was divided into twelve tribes. These divisions had historical roots and pertained to the time of Jacob (Israel). Jacob had twelve sons. The descendants of each one of them created an enormous tribe. During the time of Moses and Bani Israels' rise to power, according to Quranic verses, a leader was chosen from each of these twelve tribes who was responsible for taking care of his clans affairs.
In some of the traditions we have seen the twelve Caliphs are compared to these twelve guardians, firstly because of their definite and inarguable number, secondly because they possessed the guardianship and leadership of a nation and thirdly because they were appointed by God and presented by the Prophet of their time Moses (a.s.).
Now it is necessary for us to also pay attention to this sensitive point; and that is to see how these types of Hadiths were narrated or in other or better words, how it was set at liberty from the claws of the strict censorship and stern oppression in the Caliphates administration-especially that of the Ummayeds. I think that the first time one of the prophets companions related this Hadith for others the Caliphs were still very few in number; and of course it is very easy for us to imagine that they couldn't foresee what difficulties they would run into later trying to interpret it and explain it away.
If at that time they had realized what a dead-end they would reach, this Hadith would not have come down to us in the caliphate schools most authoritative texts, and or it would have been neutralized in some way like many of the creditable enlightening Hadiths of the Prophet (S) were neutralized. As such, the reason for the promulgation of this Hadith was because at the time of its narration the number of Caliphs had not yet reached twelve.
Its narration continued up until the rule of Mu’awwiyah or Yazid Ibn Mu’awwiyah, at which time the number of official Caliphs did not exceed six or seven. For this reason the administration at that time could see no danger in its promulgation, and by the time the number of Caliphs exceeded twelve it was too late to prevent its narration or to subject it to alteration.
Looking at all of the various, far-fetched suppositions given to explain these Hadiths we can see that only the Shiite schools proposition, in other words the twelve infallible Imams, is capable of collating with this Hadith. In conclusion we must remind you that this Hadiths importance is mostly based on the fact that it is found in all of the Sunnite schools authoritative texts of Hadiths, everyone agreeing on its credibility and accuracy.
Narratives in which the Imams name is stipulated
Just as we have seen, in the previous Hadith the Caliphs have not been named. Now we will proceed with the Hadiths containing a stipulation of the Caliph or ruler after the Prophet (S), and wrap up our discussion with an investigation into them.
The warning in “The First Invitation”
The first text in our supporting documents on these lines is the Hadith of Endhar or Youm al-Dar. This Hadith exists in many of the Sunnite schools reputable historical records, commentaries and narratives; such as Tabaris “Tarikh”, Ibn Asirs “Tarikh” and also that of Abu al-Fada, “Musnad” by Ahmad and “Kanz ul-Ummal”, Ibn Alvardi's “Tarikh” and Bayhaghis' “Dala'ilu'n-nubuwwah” etc......of course differing in each as to length and detail. We will relate this event according to Tabaris “Tarikh”, being one of our oldest sources dealing with it and because it is one of the most reputable historical writings in the Caliphate school.
Amir al-Mu'meneen (a.s.) said:
“When the noble verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet sent for me saying: “God has commanded me to call my relatives and close tribesmen unto Him and to warn them”.
This is the first time that the prophet has taken the invitation outside of the home in which himself, Ali, Khadija and Zaid lived. Until this time - the third year of the mission - Islam existed only in the Prophets home and the only Muslims on the face of the earth were the inhabitants of this house.
“After the revelation of this noble verse I became anxious as to what I would do with persons like Abu Lahab? If I begin to speak they will certainly rise to oppose me and they will destroy everything I have built and maybe they will leave a bad and negative influence on my invitation in the future.
However, Gabriel came to me several times and said that this command may not be infringed upon and if you turn your back on it you will earn the wrath of God. Now that this is so, prepare some food and invite all Bani Hashem to a feast at our house”.
The Imam said:
“At that time the sons of Abdul Mutalib amounted to about forty persons and all of them came. The Prophet served the food with his own hands and told them to begin eating in the name of Allah. Everyone ate and was satisfied. I swear by He who holds Alis' life in his hands that one person could have eaten all of what I brought, but forty persons ate until they were full and still some was left over. Then the Prophet ordered me to make them quenched. I brought the Yoghurt and water I had prepared and gave it to them to drink.
When the Prophet wished to speak, Abu lahab took the lead, hastly interrupting him and said: (Your friend has performed some fascinating magic). The Prophet remained silent and said nothing. He had been given the responsibility to “call” them and had gathered them for that very purpose, but in a gathering where his actions had been called magic, speaking was no longer appropriate. Because of this the gathering ended and everyone went home.
On another day the Imam was told to invite them and a feast with the same conditions and participants was given and this time of course, the Prophet did not allow Abu lahab to speak and he addressed his relatives saying: O sons of Abdul Mutalib. I swear by God! I know of no other Arab youth who has brought to his tribe something better than that which I have brought as a gift. I have brought you the best of this world and the next. God the Highest has commanded me to call you unto him. Which of you will be a partner to my suffering and aid me in performing this mission, becoming my brother, executor, and Caliph among you?”
Those who see the Caliphate as being statesmanship and governorship give this meaning to that statement: (And the governor after me among you) However, we understand it to mean successor in the propagation, promulgation and preservation of Islam.
The Imam said:
The whole group became silent and no one gave a positive answer to the Prophets call. But I, the youngest of them all, said:
“O' Prophet of Allah, I will be your minister and aid in bearing the burden of this mission).
The Prophet placed his hand on my neck and said:
(This is my brother, my successor and my Caliph among you. Listen to him and obey him).
The old men of Bani Hashem and the tribes elders stood up laughing out of ridicule and scorn saying to Abu Talib: This nephew of yours is telling you to take orders from your young son while you are the leader and Shaikh of Quraish!
This was the first time that the Prophet designated Ali for the Imamate of the nation. On this day, the first day of the Prophets and Ismas official, public invitation, he called them to accept three principle things: The sovereignty of “The one true God”, His own prophethood, and the ministry, Caliphate and executorship of Ali Ibn Abi Talib.
The first of these titles (ministry), pertained to the lifetime of the Prophet while the other two pertained to the time after his death. The ministry means Alis' cooperation with the Prophet in enduring the hardships of the mission during the Prophets' lifetime, while the executorship and Caliphate means the responsibility of bearing this heavy burden alone after his death.
We previously informed you that a persons Caliph does exactly what that person did. As such the prophets Caliph is responsible for the Prophets' duties.
He is his partner in his individual duty; the propagation for Islam, and after his death he is the continuer of his way (not meaning that he rules). Of course the leadership is one of the Prophets' inseparable duties, not the entire prophethood. Consequently it is only one of his caliphs duties not the entire Caliphate. The Prophet must be governor and during his lifetime no other governor is justified and not to her government is legal or right.
However, the Prophet has not come to only rule so that if he doesn't attain the governorship his prophethood would sustain some deprivation or damage or be considered null and void. Throughout Jesus's (a.s.) prophethood he never gained governorship or material power but during this time he continually delivered the Divine Message. Was there something wrong with his prophethood as such?
For thirteen years in Mecca before the migration, the last prophet (S) was not the governor nor did he possess the power for governing but his prophethood received not even the smallest injury or inadequacy. Also, the time that Ali (a.s.) was governor, ruler and leader of the nation in contrast, while the basis for his Imamate received no impairment.
Which senses of the word did the Prophet have in mind when he introduced Ali as his Caliph on that day? Did he wish to introduce him regarding the governorship and director-ship of the Islamic community thus affirming his rule after his owner? No, he did not appoint a governor, he appointed someone much better and more important.
He introduced the executor and minister of the Prophet and the missionary of the Divine Mission after the Prophet. The true meaning of the Caliphate, the one that manifests its exalted position, includes the safeguarding and propagation of pure, unaltered Islam, the establishment of a righteous government, the high rank of arbitrator and also the Imamate of Friday and communal prayers, but not only one without the others.
The Guardian After The Prophet
In another narrative mentioned in the previous lesson, pertaining to Imam Ali (a.s.)'s military excursion to Yemen, we saw that the Prophet sent two groups of soldiers to Yemen: One was under the command of the Imam and the other under the jurisdiction of Khaled Ibn Valid with the stipulation that if these two divisions should meet, their leadership would be taken over by Ali (a.s.). Khaled, who possessed the habits and particularities of the ignorant Arabs, was angered by this order. Therefore after the completion of his mission he sent several persons to the Prophet with a letter of complaint against Ali (a.s.).
Barideh, the companion who bore the letter said:
“I gave the letter I was carrying to the Holy Prophet. The letter was read to him. The Prophet became so enraged that I saw its traces in his blessed face. It was then that I said: “O' Holy Prophet! I seek refuge to you. Khaled sent the letter and ordered me to deliver it to you. I obeyed him because he was my commander”. The Holy Prophet (S) then said: “Do not speak against Ali, he is of me and I am of him and he is your guardian, leader and authority after me”.
In one of the texts of this Hadith something is added to the above. According to it, after Barideh saw the Prophets reaction and his great rage he begins to doubt his own faith in Islam. Because of this he says:
“O' Prophet of God! I swear you by the friendship between us---since I have enraged you --- give me your hand so that I may once again pledge my allegiance to Islam with you, and that my sins may be forgiven”.
According to this narrative the Imam is the guardian, authority and master over the Muslims after the Prophet; precisely meaning the Prophets successor in the guardianship he has over the peoples lives and property --- of course, this power and authority being used in all aspects in the best interests of their religious and worldly duties.
In another narrative by Ibn Abbas we read that the Prophet had said to Amir al-Mu'meneen:
“Your are the master, guardian and authority of every believer after me”.
In the fourth narrative, we observed that because the narrator had brought a complaint against the Imam to the Prophet, he says:
“No, don't speak like this regarding Ali. After me, he has the highest mastery, weight of judgement and strength of determination over the people”.
On the basis of the narratives spoken of until now, we saw that the Prophet spoke of and described positions such as his Caliphate, ministry and executorship in relation to the Imam (Ali), introducing him as possessing those honours and positions and also saying that he is the Master of all believers after him.
In the story of the ring and its bestowal on a beggar in the mosque, this caused the revelation of this noble verse:
إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّـهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ
“Verily, your Master is only Allah and His Apostle and those who believe, those who establish prayers, and pay the Zakat while bowed (in worship)”. (Qur'an, 5: 55).
There is also mention of the Imams mastership over the nation with regard to which there have been many references made in the writings of the Imams mastership over the nation with regard to which there have been many references made in the writings of the Sunnite school. These were all narratives from the authoritative books of the Sunnite school, and they showed the final testimony of the Holy Prophet. As such, at the time of his death what happened? In those serious moments the Prophet wished to write down his last testimony which pertained to the peoples Caliph, executor and master, and have it witnessed.
According to the Prophets orders in times like these, a letter would be written, he would stamp it, sign it, and have it witnessed and then for example he would have it sent to the Arab tribes or the leaders of other countries. In the last hours of his life he had this very intention but they didn't allow it and spoke to him in a way that endangered the foundation for the acceptance of his prophethood in the community. It was because of this that the Prophet preferred to remain silent.
We have also seen that the matter of the executorship was not only mentioned at this time but throughout the Prophets lifetime at all critical times. This matter was proclaimed at times of war, treatise and in hours of danger to Islams existence, in all of its aspects.
This was done so often that these creditable texts have come down to us in the Sunnite schools most authoritative writings; despite all of the strangulation in subsequent eras, and the killings of the Ummayeds and Abbasids. Killings and pillage, with all of those amputations of legs and arms, done to prevent the narration of this heritage, so that it wouldn't gain circulation in following generations.
According to all of the proceeding research the fundamental beliefs of the Shiite school is that the Imamate is an appointment by God and the Prophet is the messenger of this order from God among the people.
May God make us one of the followers of Ahlu'l bait.
AMEN
***
We were discussing how the Islamic nation altered the last Prophets religious law (Shari'ah). We also saw how in the past the powerful of certain nations with the aid of Jewish Rabbis and priests altered the religious law of their own prophets to the point that nothing was left of that law which would cause the growth and guidance of the people. They covered so much truth with falsity and altered the divine truths to such an extent that if all of mankind endeavoured that could never arrive at the true law and way of God. It was at this time that God once again gave life and renewal to religion by sending the Arch Prophet (Ulul Azm).
In the past nation divine wisdom deemed it appropriate that the Prophethood should end with that of Muhammad Ibn Abdullah (S). Also, by necessity of His lordship, the laws for perfecting mans way of life must be kept at his disposal. Under these circumstances, after the religion had been upturned by the powerful and evil, as the unchanging laws of creation dictated, what should the people do? There will never be another prophet and the people cannot live correctly without laws of guidance, so what must be done?
It was because of this that God renewed and established the religious law of the Last Prophet in the environs of this nation. Each of the Imams of Ahlu'l bait were a part in the re-establishment of true Islam in the nation; which will be studied after the discussion on concealment and alteration. We will see precisely how God re-established Islam with the treaty of Imam Hassan (a.s.), the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (a.s.), the imprisonment of Imam Musa ibn Ja'far (a.s.), the speeches of Imam Baqir, Sadiq and Reza (a.s.) and the occultation of Imam Hujjat ibn al-Hasan al-Askary.
In the proceeding discussion we spoke of means and agency the powerful in the nation resorted to in order to alter and separate true Islam from the community. That agency, was the prevention of narrating the Hadiths and quotations of the Holy Prophet (S). I thought that the discussion we had on this topic was sufficient but from the question that were posed it became clear that the discussion on this matter must be enlarged.
The question posed on this matter was; why did the Caliphs and powerful in the nation prevent the narration of the Prophets words? In return I must ask if in principle this question is relevant or not? What do you mean by “Why”? Could anything justify this deed? Take for example Moses who was named prophet among the tribes of Israel to guide them. Now, the descendants of Aaron who were the peoples religious leaders after Moses say; No, do not repeat the words and opinions of Moses (a.s.).
We see that this command could have no possible justification but even so we will look into the factors behind this prohibition and we will quote and assess the very words of this agents pertaining to their reasons for it:
1) Aishah said: My father had collected five hundred of the Prophets Hadiths in a book and had given it to me for safe-keeping. One night I noticed that he was very restless in bed, tossing and turning about and unable to go to sleep. I said: Is there a problem or some bad news that has made you so upset?
In the morning he said: My daughter, bring me the Hadiths you have. Then he asked for fire and he burned the book containing the Prophets Hadiths. After burning the book he calmed down. I asked him the reason for this deed and he said: I was afraid that among the Hadiths I had written in this book there would be a Hadith that had no grounds and I had narrated it out of my trust in someone, and then I would be held responsible.
2) Historians narrate: During the era of his Caliphate Umar ibn Al-Khattab decided to gather and write down the Prophets Hadiths. He asked the Prophets companions for their general opinion and they all gave their ideas about it. For a month Umar deliberated on the matter and at last he arrived at his final decision. In the morning he informed the people of his final decision: I had been thinking of writing down the Prophets Hadiths but then I remembered that other nations before you had written books and had become so engrossed in them that they forgot their Divine scripture. I swear to God that I will not mix His scripture with anything.
We will look into both of these, Hadiths so that we may discover the reason the prohibition of the narration and written recording of the Prophets Hadiths. Primarily, these two Caliphs had the idea that if it was possible they should do something to gain control of the narration, propagation, and recording of the Prophets Hadiths. This in reality meant that only those Hadiths should be narrated and recorded which did not oppose the political policies of the Caliphate and government of the time. This was the first stage.
But after much attention and deliberation; keeping Abu Bakr awake at night, and forcing Umar to undergo one months consideration and thought, they arrived at the conclusion that the controlled, limited propagation of Hadiths is impossible. If Abu Bakr was supposed to write down the Hadiths and then deliver them to the people, could it be said and could the people be made to believe that these alone are the Prophets Hadiths and other Hadiths are not the Prophets? Salman also says in relation to this: I remember the Hadiths and I write them down. Its not right that you should write them down while I may not. You understood the Prophet and I also understood him. You heard his words and saw his actions, I also heard and saw. Therefore our Hadiths are not at all different.
Abu Dharr can say the same thing. He will also be able to write down Hadiths, and no one will have the power to prevent the recorders of Hadiths from doing so. Ammar will also write them down. Meghdad will then say: I will also write them. Other companions will also have the same kind of remarks each in some way or form. Under such circumstances there will no longer be any excuse for the Caliph being able to record Hadiths while others may not.
So, to begin with, the reason Abu Bakr began to record Hadiths himself, and the reason Umar told the people they could only narrate Hadiths related to acts of worship,
was because they wanted to control the Hadiths. However, when they realized that this way was practically impossible; Abu Bakr burned the Hadiths in the book he had written himself and Umar spoke to the people saying:
O' People! I have heard that you possess certain books. The dearest of these books according to God is the one which is based on greater truthfulness and authority. Everyone possessing one of these books should bring it to me so that I may look it over and consider its (veracity). The people thought that he wished to read them and correct them and alleviate all controversy over them, they brought him their books and he burned them all.
Abu Bakr said: “I feared that I had heard a Hadith from someone I trusted but as a matter of fact that Hadith would be false. I didn't wish to be responsible for the promulgation for a false Hadith. If this was really true then why did he say at another time, Do not narrate Hadiths from the Prophet.
Does the narration of other persons, even reputable ones who themselves remembered the Prophets words, cause the Caliph to be responsible? He offers the excuse that: “because you differ with one another on the narrations of these Hadiths, in future generations their differences will be even more than yours”.
We must learn the meaning of the words “differences” before we can arrive at the true meaning of Abu Bakrs statement. The variances of literal or written form in one Hadith is not seen as a “difference”. In the terminology of the “study of Hadith” this type of difference is called “narration according to meaning”, and there is no objection to it. This is because the original meaning is retained even though it might differ slightly from another in words or expressions. The Holy Quran itself contains many examples of this type of difference. For example in the Quran we read:
وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَوْلَادَكُم مِّنْ إِمْلَاقٍ
“Don't kill your children because of hunger”. “(Quran, 6:151)
and in another place
“Don't kill your children for fear of hunger”.
These two verses are literally slightly different but their original meaning is the same and they had the same aim. They do not call this - a difference because it was only narrated according to its meaning can never be seen as a true “difference”.
Now, let us see how these literal differences which result in narrations according to meaning come to be. This type of difference may have one of two reasons:
1) Sometimes the holy prophet spoke of some fact in different places at different times, which of course was because of its importance. In these circumstances, every time the Prophet repeated his message he spoke using particular words and expressions.
Therefore, one of his companions would narrate one of these wordings, and another of his companions another wordings, and another of his companions another wording. When we saw that the Prophet had said in one Hadith:
“Ali is your leader and authority after me”.
and in another place:
“Ali is every believer’s authority after me”.
These were two separate Hadiths not one Hadith with literal differences. In such circumstances they do not call this a difference because the Prophet himself had spoken two separate time. We know this because in the Hadith itself it states that this remark was made by the prophet in such a place -- the place also specified -- and spoken in such terms; while in another Hadith in another place --- that place also specified there exists another wording that delivers the very same fact or reality. The result is that in two places two phrases were spoken to express one special meaning, and this form of literal difference is not in principle called a “difference”.
2) Sometimes a large number of persons heard a Hadith from the Prophet in a certain gathering or meeting. All of them understood its meaning but when they relate, (because they can't remember the exact words used by the Prophet), each of them expresses the understood meaning in the form of certain wards and expressions. We have seen that this is no real difference, and has been called “narration according to meaning in the study of Hadith”.
So where are the differences and what form do they possess? Real difference is where there is contradiction, the denial of a fact or when something proved is denied. For example when we have one Hadith that states the Prophets said: “Write down my Hadiths” and another one which says he said: “Don't write down my Hadiths”. This is a true difference.
However according to Abu Bakrs words, the differences he mentioned did not mean that and really meant literal differences. We say this because if he meant differences as far as contradictions there could be no more than what already existed and future generations could not come along and increase them.
Also, if he meant differences resulting in contradictions and nothing else, then only such Hadith should have been prohibited, not the unconditional prohibition of all Hadiths! And last of all, if no Hadiths - according to Abu Bakrs words -- were to be related, where are they supposed to gain an understanding of Islam? Isn't the explanation and commentary on the Quran supposed to come from the Prophet? Shouldn't the detailed account of the rules of prayer, fasting, almsgiving and Hajj be received from the Prophet?
And isn't it true that Islam is in the Quran and life and words of the Prophet and if nothing is narrated from the Prophet, Islam cannot be understood and known?
Here the primary aim of the caliph in preventing the narration of Hadith is made clear. But when the Caliph Umar said: “I will not mix Gods' scripture with something else like previous nations did, then forgetting the scriptures”.
We ask, wasn't it possible for them to write down the Quran and say: This is the Quran, thus preserving it in a book, and also for them to do the same with the Hadiths? They transcribed Gods scripture, the Quran, and after it was written it was distributed throughout the Islamic world, not one copy but thousands of copies. After this the possibility of it being confused with Hadith had been eliminated. So why was there a prohibition of the recording of Hadith until the year 100 A.H? Why?
The official authorities and Caliphs could have collected the Hadiths of the Prophet in the following manner: After gathering a group of the Prophets close followers who were of the first to embrace Islam, a committee could be formed for the collection of Hadiths, such persons as; Abdullah Ibn Massoud, Abu Dharr, Ammar Ibn Yasir, Khabbab, Bilal, and others like them. Afterwards they would announce to the Prophets companions (99% of them living in Medina), that any of them who had heard a Hadith of the Prophet should come to the committee and relate it. The committee after studying them would record them.
In this way a collection of the Prophets Hadiths, thus carefully recorded would take its place in the peoples minds and view, so that opinions regarding the credibility of the Hadiths would be unified just as they did with the Quran. The Quran, which was compiled in this very way has remained in the hands of mankind as thus to this very day there being no form of alteration in it. With this plan the Hadiths could have been collected and would in no way become confused with the Quran.
This is the way the books “Sahih” by Muslim or Bukhari have remained the same today as they were the day they were written. So it becomes clear that the real reason for the prohibition was not what they said it to be. Now we will point out two historical documents, narratives which clearly show the real reason for the prohibition of the propagation of these Hadiths:
1) The first narrative is by Abdullah Ibn Amr-e-Ibn Aas. He says: I wrote down everything I heard come out of the Prophets mouth. The men of Quraish prohibited me from doing so, saying: You write down everything you hear the Prophet say. The Prophet is only human and speaks during times of anger and happiness (meaning that the reason the Prophet speaks at these times is because of those feelings not because of some fact or reality.
When I heard this I refrained from writing down these words. One day I told the Holy Prophet of this occurance. That Holy Man made a gesture towards his mouth and said: Write, I swear by He who holds my life in the palm of his hand, that nothing but truth comes out of this mouth.
In order to understand this Hadith it is necessary for us to recognize the speakers of the prohibition Abdullahs writing? We know that the Prophets companions in Medina were separated into two groups. The immigrants and the helpers. The immigrants - for the most part - were the Quraishites who had migrated there from Mecca. The helpers were the native Medinans who had come to the Prophets and their immigrant fellows aid, thus receiving the name “Helpers” (Ansars).
In terms of lineage and in special historical terminology they gave the name to the Helpers, and the name to the immigrants of Quraish. As such, those who prohibited Abdullah from writing down the Prophets sayings were the Quraish meaning the immigrants. Here it is necessary for us to go into a brief study of the groups in Arabic society in order to clarify this discussion: The groups which fought against Islam during the Prophets lifetime consisted of two large groups: The Jews and The Quraish.
Most of the wars wages against the Prophet were instigated by the Quraish. The battle of Badr took place with one thousand Quraishite warriors. In the battle of Uhud three thousand persons of the inhabitants of Mecca, Quraish and their sworn mercenaries came to battle with the Prophet of Islam. During the battle of Khandaq the leadership was held by the Quraishite warriors and leaders. They were the ones who for several years in the life of the Muslims in Mecca, tortured and tormented them making them homeless in deserts and foreign countries.
They were the ones who repeatedly planed to murder the Prophet, at one time coming close to accomplishing it. They broke the teeth and forehead of the Holy Prophet, and killed his honourable uncle. The worst, most rigid enemies of Islam and the Prophet were from this tribe: Abu Jahl, Abu Lahab, Abu Sufyan, Utbah, Aas, etc. These persons and their descendants hid behind a veil of hypocrisy after the victories of Islam. Even though the Jews were a strong group and relentless, clever enemies they lost to the Prophets decisiveness and Islams power, and after the fall of Khaybar they were removed from Arabias political and social scene.
Despite all of this Islam remained, and the Qurasishite enemies a group of whom wished to protect themselves from the sharp eyes of Islam, hid behind a camouflaging veil of hypocrisy without forgetting their enmity with Islam and the Prophet. All of those verses revealed about the hypocrites, warning of their great danger, were revealed about this group and the hypocrites of Medina. Of course the Quraishite hypocrites were more dangerous because they were better hidden and less known of.
Hakam ibn Abil Aas came to Medina and had accepted Islam but sometimes he would walk behind the Prophet and mock his distinctive movements. When the Prophet walked it was as if he was walking down-hill and or as if he were walking in mud. He picked up his feet heavily and his shoulders moved back and forth. Behind him Hakam also made the same movements, making faces and sometimes even sticking out his tongue. After a while, in which he shamelessly repeated these movements the Prophet (S) turned around and said to him:
“Remain as you are”.
Hakam was never freed from this curse and until the end of his life remained in that ridiculous form. This man was Hakam the father of Marwan, the fourth Ummayed Caliph and the grandfather of all the Ummayed Caliphs after him, Abdul Malik, Valid etc.
One day the Prophet was sitting in his house. Hakam came along and placed his eye at the keyhole looking inside the room. Ali was also present in the room. The Holy Prophet said: Ali bring him inside. Amir al Mu'meneen quickly went outside and brought Hakam inside by the leg, the same way they drag sheep. The Prophet then said: “May Gods curse be upon him and all of his descendents, except for the faithful among them whom are few”.
Abu Sufyan was another of the important men of Quraish. When he was their chief he opposed Islam with all his might and tried to destroy it by any means available. After Mecca was conquered, to all outward appearances he became a Muslim and went to Medina. One day the former Shaikh and chief of Quraish, Abu Sufian, was astride a mule while one of his sons walked before and one of his sons walked behind the mule. When they passed the Prophet he said: God Almighty, curse the rider, the leader and the propeller of this mount.
We know that the two sons who accompanied Abu Sufian were Muawieh who later became the governor of Shaam (Syria), and later the ruler over all the Muslims, and the other was Yazid who during the rules of Abu Bakr and Umar became Major General of the army and had a hand in the conquests of the northern part of Arabia. These were two examples.
There were also other examples. For example Aas, Amr's father, Mu’awwiyahs advisor and governor of Islamic Egypt is one of them. He is included in the group of persons cursed by the Prophet. The Holy Prophet said many similar things which severely stained the reputations of the Quraishites who became leaders after him. Wasn't the correct policy for them to adopt upon coming to power, that of preventing the words of the Prophet from being repeated?!
Isn't it true that Quraish came to power after the Prophet; Mu’awwiyah, and Marwan ibn Hakam and persons before and after him and after them becoming Caliph, governor and powerful. It was very easy for them to by any means possible prevent the narration of these types of remarks; which ruined their own and their family members reputations. They even used the excuse of not wishing to confuse the Quran with Hadith when asking the prohibition. The truth and basis of their words was what Abdullah ibn Amr-e-Ibn Aas related from them:
“The Prophet is only human and speaks out of happiness and annoyance”'.
We observed that the second Caliph had commanded the people to only narrate hadiths on matters of religious practice, which was only the beginning. Afterwards, this amount of freedom was taken away from them. He said that they could only narrate Hadiths related to prayer, fasting, Hajj and their like.
But Hadiths which for example stated: “Ali is the authority and leader after me”.”This Iranian man Salman is a member of our household”, “Abu Dharr is similar to Jesus in asceticism”, or Hakam, Mu’awwiyah and others are such and such, also that which in the Prophets lifetime was said about the remarks of two Caliphs in the battle of Badr, or their escape from the battle of Khaybar or Uthmans fleeing at Uhud, must not be related. The minute freedom the narration of Hadiths quickly gave way to a complete, unconditional prohibition.
Here I will relate to you story which most of you have more or less heard so that we may more accurately understand the reasons and means for the prohibition of the promulgation of Hadiths.
The Holy Prophet (S) was in his death bed. These were the last moments of mankinds contact with the Divine before this connection would be severed and the era of revelation would end. A few of the Prophets companions were gathered at his bedside. The wives of the Prophet, naturally his daughter Fatimah (a.s.) among them, were there behind a curtain. The narrator of this occurance is Umar Ibn Khattab who narrates it for Ibn Abbas, saying: We were there with the Prophet. Between us and the women a curtain was drawn.
The Messenger of God (S) began to speak saying: Rinse me with seven skins of water, (in those days cold water was used to bring down some types of fever) after you have done this bring me a piece of paper and some ink so I may write you something with which you will never go astray. [the expression used was لّن تَضِلُّوا which means so you will never go astray. because means 'never'] The Prophets wives said from behind the curtain:
Do as the Prophet wishes. I (Umar) said: Be quiet. You are like the women who gathered around Joseph wanting him. If the Prophet is sick you cry and if he regains his health you seize him by the collar wanting your spending money. The Holy Prophet (S) said: They are better than you.
Jabir narrates as such: At the time of the Prophets death and during his last hours he asked for a piece of paper in order to write his nation a letter, so that they would never go astray nor lead others astray. Those who were around his bed made so much noise and spoke such idle nonsense that the Prophet refrained form doing so.
Ibn Abbas said: The Holy Prophet said at the time of his death; Bring me a piece of paper and ink so that I may write something so that afterwards you will never go astray. Umar Ibn Khattab began talking and making a lot of noise saying: All of these cities remain and haven't been conquered, who should conquer them!? Zainab binte Jahsh the Prophet's wife said: Do as the Prophet ordered don't you hear that he wishes to make his last will?! Once again the noise began. It was then that the Prophet said: get up and leave. When they stood and left the room the Holy Prophet passed away.
Judging from the differences which exist in these Hadiths and the ones that will be related later, I presume that the Prophet repeated his directions several times each time the opposition group saying something to sabotage it. The Prophet insisted because of the love and avidity he had for his guidance, and they in turn prevented the progress of his speech by creating noise.
I think that the first time the Prophet asked them to bring him paper and ink so that he could write his last will, those around him who knew what he would write, said: No, it's not necessary, we have the Quran and that enough for us. The second time the Prophet repeated his desire they said: Sickness has overcome the Prophet, the Quran is all we need. The third time his orders were repeated they said: This man is talking in delirium. The Quran is enough, for us.
In Bukhari's book “Sahih”, there is a Hadith regarding this event from Saeed Ibn Jobair. He quotes from Ibn Abbas who witnessed the occurance. (Ibn Abbas said: “Thursday, what a thursday!” Then he began to cry and he shed so much tears that the pebbles on the ground in front of him were soaked.
Then he said that the Prophet's illness gained severity on that day, and he said: Bring me a piece of paper so that I may write you a letter and after this you will never be led astray. Those present differed, one group said: Do as the Prophet commands, while another group said: No, don't bring the paper!)
If in these circumstances someone wished nothing to be done its possible that he would create confusion in some way, bringing up words and remarks that would defeat the original matter at hand, and prevent it being carried out. It was such at that time. (Those around him began to argue even though it wasn't right for them to create such noise and dispute in the Holy Prophets presence). The Holy Quran has told us:
لَا تَرْفَعُوا أَصْوَاتَكُمْ فَوْقَ صَوْتِ النَّبِيِّ
Do not speak louder than the Prophet. (Quran 49:2)
Ibn Abbas then adds: (the bystanders said: The Prophet speaks in delirium - and the Prophet, just like a kind and sympathetic father who has been confronted by his child's impolite, rebellious, disobedient words said: Leave me alone. This pain and suffering is more agreeable to me than your degrading statements).
In the Hadith of this same narrator in Muslims books “Sahih” we read such: (Thursday! what a sinister Thursday!? Then tears fell from Ibn Abbas's eyes and I saw them as streams on his cheeks, then he said: Bring me the shoulder-blade bone of a sheep and ink (or a clay slate and ink) so I may write you a writing that will prevent you from ever going astray. They said: The Prophet speaks irrelevantly)
Another narrative is related in Bukhari's book “Sahih” in which Ibn Abbas says: [At the time when the Prophet's death was near there were certain men present in his home and room, amongst them Umar Ibn Khattab. The Prophet said: Bring me something so I may write you a letter that will keep you from ever going astray.
At this Umar said: The Prophets' illness has prevailed over him and his words are not based on sufficient health and mind we have the Quran, Gods scripture being enough for us]. (Those who were present began to argue and they divided in two groups. One group agreeing with Umar and the other opposing him. The Prophet said: Get up from my side.
This noise and dispute in my presence is not allowed).
We see that in the Prophets' presence, in front of him, at the moment he wished to write down his last message, in order to leave as a heritage his last and most important words of guidance for the people, what they said and did. How do you think the Prophet felt at that time and what suffering did his dear ones Ali, Fatimah, Hassan and Hussein endure?
At the most sensitive moments of ones life, the time of death and that of a great, learned man, not allowing him to speak or deliver his last will, this brings great grief and suffering. If also the guidance of one nation, the guidance of millions of human beings and even all human beings until eternity is at stake, what then is the enormity of this suffering?
In another place we find these words: When the noise and dispute heightened and the Prophet became upset at their actions he said: “Get up” and in some other narratives Ibn Abbas adds this sentence: The tragedy, the whole tragedy was that they didn't allow the Prophet to write his will”.
It is completely clear that the great tragedy and suffering o f the Prophets and their executors was not their being killed, because martyrdom in the way of God was their honour. The true tragedy and suffering was when a prophet in his last hours wished to write for his nation his final message; (a message which would be their sure way to salvation and would prevent their possible fundamental differences) and his closest followers didn't allow it and prevented it. Meaning that they obstructed guidance and were a barrier to salvation. We understand the depth of the Prophets' inner suffering when he said: “No Prophet was tormented as they tormented me. Indeed, which prophets' companions treated their prophet in such a way?
Alright, lets see why they didn't allow him? In one narrative, after Umars last remark (This man speaks in delirium) we read: They said to the Holy Prophet: Should we bring the tablet and pen? He answered: After that remark what do you want to bring! What did the Prophet mean by that remark? A person who after years of claiming to follow him stands before him and looking him in the eye says: This man speaks in delirium. This very person, especially if he obtains a group of supporters - which he will later be able to prove that the Prophet wrote this letter when he was “not of sound mind”, and that his words in this letter are based on delirium and nothing else!
Maybe he would even add something like: - - in such a state the Prophet couldn't write his will. Even if he had written it, he (Umar) would have said: We had said that at that time the Prophet was speaking in delirium. This will is as such based on delirium.
Then persons such as Abu Ubaydah Ibn Jarrah, and Amr-e-Aas would also back him up (their good friend) saying: Yes we were witnesses to the fact that the Prophet was not well and his mind was not clear, and in that state the will was written. If remarks made in delirium had been proved regarding the Prophet, his words would have lost their credibility and his prophethood would have been harmed bringing about doubt in the minds of some. Later this would become an unabolishable point of disgrace in Islams' pure being. They certainly would have every means to prove their point and further their aim.
Now we will return to our original discussion.
Did Umar and his friends prevent the Prophet from writing his will because they were afraid the Prophets will would be confused or mixed with the Quran? Was it for this reason they told Abdullah the son of Amr-e-Aas not to write down the Prophets words? Or is the matter something else and the reason elsewise. We see that it is clearly proved that they were afraid some remark would remain from the Prophet which would become a barrier to their own interests and desires, and destroy the hopes and aims they had nurtured for many long years.
This powerful group prevented the recording of the Prophets words during his lifetime, and after the Prophet they tried to prevent the words memorized by his companions from being recorded and related. Weren't those who gained the governorship and leadership after the Prophet all from Quraish, and all of the Immigrants (Muhajerin)? Weren't the Prophets words in reproach of and damnation for them and their descendants?
Up until now our discussion has been on the first means of alteration which was the prohibition of the narration of the Prophets Hadith; preventing his words from reaching the people outside of Medina and the new Muslims, those who had not seen the Prophet in person. This was so that the Caliphates administration could train them in thought just as they themselves wished, and raise them as they so desired.
History Confirms Our Opinions.
In order to better clarify the events we narrated we will once again return to history.
During the Prophets dying moments, Abu Bakr was in his own home (which was on the outskirts of Medina in 'Sunh'.
Historians, writers of Hadiths, and geographical experts all agree that Sunh, the location of Abu Bakr's home, was outside the city of Medina. Even upon gaining the leadership he remained there for some time, sometimes coming mounted to lead the communal prayers and sometimes not coming at all, when Umar prayed in his place.
As such, Abu Bakr was not in Medina at the time of the Prophets death. The events that led to him leaving for home were as such: Abu Bakr led the morning prayers without the Prophets permission. When the Prophet heard his voice he opened his eyes and lifted his head from Ali's lap saying: Pick me up. Ali took him under one arm and Fadhl Ibn Abbas took him under the other and they brought him to the mosque. The Prophet was so ill and in so much pain that he couldn't put his feet on the ground. According to Bukhari in his book “Sahih”.
The Prophets legs were like two sticks being pulled on the ground and as such drew lines in the dirt. In this condition he went towards the “Mehrab” (pulpit), pushed Abu Bakr aside thus interrupting the prayer, then he himself beginning the prayer........
Abu Bakr was thus confronted with defeat, and so he wouldn't be completely broken and totally set aside from the scene, after prayers he went to the Prophet saying: Allow me to go home! The Prophet possessing modesty and decency gave him permission without saying anything else to him and he left for Sunh. Therefore all of the events before and simultaneous with the Prophets death occured without the presence of Abu Bakr.
The political directors on the scene however felt danger and were afraid that an oath of allegiance would be pledged without Abu Bakr being there, and so to say the god of the governorship and leadership of the nation would inevitably slip from their hands. Because of this they acted out another plan. Umar began screaming: The Prophet has not died. Like Moses he has gone to his lord - Moses disappeared from among his people for forty days and after forty days he returned, but the people had said he had died - I swear to God that the Prophet will return just as Moses returned and he will cut off the arms and legs of those who thought him dead.
And in another narration; I will cut off the head of any one who says he is dead with this sword. These actions, which were performed with great energy and vigor, surprised everyone and made them hesitate, some asking him: Has the Prophet spoken to you about this or made a special testimony to you on the matter of his death? After which he gave a negative reply.
Umar screamed and threatened so much that his mouth foamed.
In the middle of all this, Salem, Abu Huzaifehs freed slave, one of his close aids and one of those loyal to his party (cause) went to Sunh to bring Abu Bakr. The raving and threats continue until Abu Bakr enters the center of the crowd. When Umar saw Abu Bakr his shouting and clamour was forgotten and he sat down.
During that time one of the Prophets companions had recited Quranic verses for him which proved the Prophets' death; but he had not listened, and payed no attention. Amr-e-Ibn Ghais Ibn Zardeh read this for him:
وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَىٰ أَعْقَابِكُمْ159
Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels [to unbelief](Holy Quran, 3:144)
and others mentioned other reasons but it had no effect on him. Just seeing Abu Bakr and hearing his speech (even though he only repeated those very verses) pacified Umar.
Historians have given various explanations for this occurance. Some say: Because of Umars great affection and love for the Prophet he couldn't believe his death. Some said: He had lost control of his senses because of the severity of the tragedy and thus his actions on that day were not based on a sound state of mind. But we think that the great scholar Ibn Abi al-Hadids opinion is correct when he said:
[When Umar heard of the Prophets death he feared the peoples revolt and uprising on the matter of the Imamate. He was afraid that the Ansar (helpers) or some others would take over the leadership and government. Consequently he saw it expedient to keep the people quiet in any way possible, and for this reason he said what he said and caused the people to hesitate and doubt so that the religion and government remained intact. All of this went on until Abu Bakr arrived.]
As such we see that the party was at work and was striving to gain control of the events taking place. Preventing the Prophet from writing his last testimony in the final moments of his life was only for fear of the written, decisive appointment of the next leader. After his death they also took control of events so that this appointment could not be made by oath of allegiance.......
Here, although it does not deal with the particular incident at hand the narration of this historical point is necessary in our discussion We may read in Tabaris book “Tarikh” and in other creditable records; When Abu Bakr was at his dying hour he called for Uthman. No one else was present. Abu Bakr said; Write this down:
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. This is what Abu Bakr testifies as his last will to the Muslims...... saying this he fained. Uthman continued writing:
‘I have appointed Umar Ibn al-Khattab as my successor and in doing so had your best interest in mind.’
At this moment Abu Bakr came to and said to Uthman:
‘Read to me what you have written.’
Uthman read the will to him: Abu Bakr said:
“Allahu Akbar”
and then added:
‘I think you feared if I died in this state of unconsciousness the people would end up in dispute?’
Uthman said:
‘Yes!’
Abu Bakr then said:
جزاك الله عن الاسلام و أهله
and then signed Uthmans' writing.
Afterwards they took the will to the mosque. Umar was sitting among the people and with a stick in his hand he says:
‘O' People, listen to and obey the words of the Holy Prophets' (S) Caliph, he says: I have done all I could in your best interests!’
Pay attention here that Umar does not say Abu Bakr was talking in delirium and doesn't think that pain has overtaken him, and does not take refuge in Gods scripture. Those were all peculiar to the Prophets last testimony. We ask you, was the matter as simple as it appeared or did they by any possible means wish to prevent the Prophet from writing his will?
Was the real reason for the prohibition of narrating Hadiths fear that they would become confused with the Quran. Or did they fear that the pure and good men among the companions would be clarified, who were not of their group and party - or that the insurgents and hypocrites would be revealed.
Haven't we read in the Quran:
وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مَرَدُوا عَلَى النِّفَاقِ لَا تَعْلَمُهُمْ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ
“There are some people in Medina who are so experienced at hypocrisy that you don't recognize them, We recognize them… (Quran, 9:101)
You as a human being even with all of your greatness, intelligence and insight can not distinguish them from the others who are faithful, we must inform you of their existence in revelation”.
According to explicit Quranic verses these persons existed in Medina among the Muslims and were so mysterious and sly that the only way to recognize them was to rely on divine revelation and the words of the Prophet. Because of this the words of the Prophet must not be related so that in their midst curtains would be drawn and a group discovered.
In this way we have come to understand the reasons for the occurance in Abdullah Ibn Amr-e-Aas's Hadith and the events subsequent to the Prophets death. We have also arrived at the reasons for the prohibition of the narration and recording of Hadith. We have discovered the mysteries and secrets surrounding this important event.
Up to this point we have studied the first means for the alteration, change and concealment of Islamic truths which was the prohibition of the relating and writing of the Prophets Hadiths; and we have judged it within the limits of these short discussions. For one hundred years Hadiths were not written, and they trained the Muslims just as they wished.
In other words, the ruling administration took hold of the peoples religious, political and social limits and rules and in all of these subjects gave the people their own way of thought, controlling them as such. They gained this power when the Prophets Hadith, the second pillar of Islam, was eliminated from the social scene and lifestyle for the Muslim community. Only that which caused no harm to the ruling administration and did not oppose the governments political policies was propagated.
Notes
0%
Author: Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Askari
