Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

WIPING THE FEET OR WASHING THEM IN WUDU’

The Muslim scholars disagreed upon the kind of ablution of the feet from among the parts included in wudu’. The Sunni jurisprudents, including the four imams,[153]determined that washing the feet in wudu’ was obligatory. Dawood bin Ali and an-Nassir lil-Haqq, who were from among the imams of the Zaydites, said it was obligatory to perform both of washing and wiping the feet.[154]Some of them might say that it was optional to choose between washing and wiping.[155]The Shia, according to their pure imams, thought that wiping the feet was prescribed by the holy Quran.[156]

The evidence of the Shia

The evidence of the Shia for this matter was the Quranic verse(O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows and wipe your heads and your feet to the (two) ankles. 5:6)

Imam ar-Razi sufficed us in showing the point of the argument in this verse when he declared: “The evidence of those, who thought that wiping the feet was obligatory, was based upon the two kinds of reciting the phrase(and your feet) mentioned in the verse of wudu’. Ibn Katheer, Hamza, Abu Amr an Aasim recited the phrase in genitive and Nafi’, ibn Aamir and Aasim recited it in accusative. Reciting it in genitive determined that(your feet) was coupled to(your heads) and then as it was obligatory to wipe the head it would be obligatory to wipe the feet. As for reciting it in accusative, it also determined that it was obligatory to wipe the feet because the saying(and wipe your heads) made(your heads) as object and(your feet) was coupled to(your heads) so both of them were objects of the verb(wipe) ”

This was his very saying.[157]But he said: “Many traditions were narrated about the obligation of washing the feet (in wudu’). Washing included wiping but wiping didn’t. So washing was nearer in taking precaution and hence it had to be performed in wudu’ as wajib.[158]Therefore it had to be determined that washing the feet would replace wiping them…”

You will see the thought of the infallible imams of the Prophet’s progeny and their followers about the traditions talking about washing the feet soon inshallah.

As for his saying that washing included wiping, it was a clear fallacy because washing and wiping were two different acts literally, traditionally and legally.[159]It had to be determined then that washing wouldn’t replace wiping but ar-Razi stopped between two precautions; either to contradict the Quranic verse or to contradict the traditions as he thought and so he contradicted himself when saying that washing included wiping and that it was nearer in taking precaution. He thought by saying so that he would reconcile the verse with the traditions. Whoever pondered at the justification of ar-Razi would find that he was confused. Since the verse was clear in determining the obligation of wiping so he didn’t need to put washing instead of wiping.

Some of the great jurisprudents and linguists declared that the verse had showed the obligation of wiping the feet and not washing them. Among them was the jurisprudent Sheikh Ibraheem al-Halabi in his book Ghunyatul Mutamalli feeSharh Munyatul Musalli according to the Hanafite school. He said: “The verse was recited (according to the rules of Arabic) by putting “your feet ” either in accusative form or genitive form. The most famous reciting was to put “Your feet” in accusative form by coupling it to “your faces ” or in genitive form according to (neighboring). But the most correct form was to couple “your feet ” to “your heads ” because “your feet ” wouldn’t be coupled to “your faces ” that the two phrases were separated by a different sentence (and wipe your heads ). The rule in linguistics was not to separate between the two with a word so how about a full sentence.”[160]

Among those, who followed this clear way in dealing with this verse, was Imam Abul Hasan Muhammad bin Abdul Hadi as-Sindi. He said: “Wiping the feet was declared by the verse because reciting the phrase in genitive form was clear according to the wording of the verse and reciting the phrase in accusative form would be not acceptable according to the linguists because the two coupled phrases were separated by a full sentence and so the apparent meaning of the verse showed wiping the feet.”[161]He also, like the others, tried to subject the Quran to the traditions that determined washing the feet.

Az-Zamakhshari philosophized in his Kashshaf when talking about this verse. He said: “The feet were among the (three) organs that were to be washed (in wudu’) by pouring water over them. Perhaps it was considered as bad wasting, which was prohibited, so “the feet” were coupled to “the heads”, which were to be wiped, not in order to be wiped but just to draw the attention to the necessity of economizing in pouring water over them. It was said “to the ankles ” as an end of washing in order to clear the meaning for those, who thought that the feet were to be wiped, because no end was determined for wiping in the Sharia.”

This philosophy of coupling “the feet” to “the heads” and in mentioning the end (limit) of washing the feet had nothing to do with deducing the legal verdicts out of the verse at all. The verse had nothing of that at all but it was his way in submitting the verse to his doctrine instead of deducing the legal verdicts out of the evidences the verse had. He was so odd in his affectation, which no one would listen to except who thought that washing the feet was irrefutable according to one’s belief but as for it was the point of the dispute then no one would listen to because many of the Sunni had confessed that the verse declared the obligation of wiping the feet. The rules of Arabic determined that “your feet ” was coupled to “your heads ” which must be wiped according to the consensus, and this sufficed as clear evidence.

A look at the traditions of washing

The traditions talking about washing the feet were two kinds:

1. The traditions that didn’t evidence washing like the tradition narrated by Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aass and mentioned in al-Bukhari and Muslim’sSahih s. He said: “In one of our travels with the Prophet (s), the Prophet (s) retarded a little. Then he joined us when it was the time of Assr prayer. We began to wipe our feet (in wudu’). He said: Woe be to the heels from Hell!”[162]

If this tradition was true, then wiping the feet would be the correct act of wudu’ because the Prophet (s) didn’t deny it but he confirmed it. He only denied the filthiness of the heels. Among the Muslims were ignorant bare-footed nomads, who often made water over their heels especially in travel, so he threatened them of Hell lest they offered prayer with those impure heels.

2. The traditions that referred to washing the feet in wudu’ like the tradition narrated by Hamran the freed slave of Othman bin Affan. He said: “I saw Othman pouring water from his vessel over his hands and washed them three times and then he rinsed his mouth and his nose… then he washed each foot three times… then he said: I have seen the Prophet (s) doing wudu’ like mine.”[163]

Another tradition of Abdullah bin Zayd bin Aasim al-Ansari when he was asked: “Would you do wudu’ before us like the wudu’ of the Prophet (s)?” He asked for a vessel of water. He poured some water over his hands…then he washed his feet to the ankles. Then he said: “The Prophet (s) did wudu’ like this.”[164]There were other traditions having the same meaning.

We had some notes about these traditions as the following:

First: these traditions contradicted the holy Quran and the traditions of the infallible imams of the Prophet’s progeny, who agreed upon the obligation of wiping the feet in wudu’. The Quran and the Prophet’s progeny were the two weighty things the Prophet (s) had left for the umma. If the umma kept to them, it would never go astray. Hence every thing contradicted these two things would be brushed aside.

It sufficed as evidence for denying washing the feet in wudu’ and refuting the traditions talking about it that the scholar of the umma and the vessel of the Quran and the Sunna, Abdullah bin Abbas often said: “Allah determined two washes and two wipes (in wudu’). Didn’t you see that when He mentioned tayammum, He determined two wipes in stead of the two washes (of wudu’) and cancelled the two wipes (of wudu’).”[165]

Abdullah bin Abbas often said: “Wudu’ is two washes and two wipes.”[166]

When he was informed that ar-Rabee’ bint Afra’ al-Ansariyya pretended that the Prophet (s) performed wudu’ at her house and washed his feet, he came to her asking her about that. When she told him of that he said denyingly: “The people insisted on washing (the feet in wudu’) whereas I didn’t find in the Book of Allah save wiping.”[167]

Second: if these traditions were true, they would be recurrent and would be narrated by the all because knowing about the purity of the feet in wudu’ was a necessary need of the Muslims; men and women, frees and slaves, and it was a necessity needed every day and night. If it was else than the wiping mentioned in the Quranic verse, then it would be known by the Muslims, who lived at the time of the Prophet (s) and after that. It would be a certain thing among all the Muslim and it would spread in every country and at every age and there would be no way to deny it or to doubt about it. But since it was not so, the traditions appeared to be so weak and then to be brushed aside.

Third: the traditions talking about the kind of the purity of the feet contradicted each other. Some of them showed that it was to wash the feet in wudu’ like the traditions narrated by Hamran and ibn Aasim and some showed that it was to wipe the feet like the tradition mentioned by al-Bukhari in hisSahih and narrated by Ahmad, ibn Abu Shayba, ibn Abu Omar, al-Baghawi, at-Tabarani and al-Mawardi. All of them narrated the tradition from a trusted and reliable series of narrators.[168]The tradition reached Abul Aswad from Abbad bin Tameem from his father, who said: “I saw the Prophet (s) performing wudu’ and wiping his feet.”

Also there was the tradition narrated by Zurara bin A’yun and Bukayr bin A’yun that Imam Baqir had imitated the Prophet’s wudu’ by wiping his head and his feet with the leftover water of his hands.

It was mentioned in Majma’ul Bayan that ibn Abbas had imitated the Prophet’s wudu’ and wiped his feet.

Since there was a contradiction between the traditions, so we had to depend upon the Book of Allah as our reference.

A look at their excuse of approval

The Sunni might justify washing the feet that they found it more suitable for the feet than wiping as that wiping the head was more suitable than washing it because the filthy feet often wouldn’t be purified unless they were washed unlike the head, which would often be purified by wiping.

They said that the reasonable interests could be reasons for performing the religious obligations until the Sharia noticed two meanings; one referred to interest and the other referred to worship. They meant by interest what referred to the perceptible things and by worship what referred to the purification of the soul.

We believe that Allah the Almighty has noticed His people in all what He has charged them with of the legal obligations. He hasn’t ordered them to do anything unless it is for their benefit and He hasn’t forbidden them from doing anything unless it causes corruption to them. In spite of that He hasn’t let the divine verdicts be decided according to the people’s thoughts whether they cause benefit or corruption. He has ordered them to worship Him according to irrefutable evidences and He hasn’t left to them any outlet to slip to other than His verdicts. The first of these evidences is the holy Quran. The Quran has determined wiping the heads and the feet in wudu’ and it must be obeyed. As for the cleanness of the feet, it must be done before performing wudu’ according to special conditions saying that the purity of the organs, which were to be washed or wiped in wudu’, must be confirmed before performing wudu’.[169]Washing the feet done by the Prophet (s) as it was mentioned in those traditions might be of this kind or it might be for cooling or it might be to exaggerate in cleanness after performing wudu’.

Note

Ibn Maja mentioned in hisSunan a tradition narrated by Abu Iss~haq that Abu Hayya had said: “I saw Ali perform wudu’ and then he washed his feet to the ankles. He said: I wanted to show you how the Prophet (s) performed wudu’.”

As-Sindi said: “This was a serious refutation against the Shia, who believed in wiping the feet, where Ali believed in washing the feet. Therefore the author mentioned it and began his chapter with it. He did well in mentioning this tradition in this concern. May Allah reward him good. The apparent meaning of the Quranic verse required to wipe the feet as it was narrated by ibn Abbas and so it must be interpreted to mean washing the feet.”[170]

May Allah forgive him, ibn Maja and all the Sunni scholars. They knew well that this tradition was null in many ways:

First: Abu Hayya, the narrator of this tradition, was nobody and was one of the most obscure narrators. Ath-Thahabi mentioned him in his Mizan and said: “No one knew who he was.” Then he mentioned that ibn al-Madeeni and Abul Waleed al-Fardhi had said: “He was unknown.” He also said: “Abu Zar’a said: His name was never mentioned.”[171]Then ath-Thahabi said: “I researched more and more on Abu Hayya but I got nothing about him save ignorance and obscurity. This name might be fabricated by the one, who had fabricated the tradition. Allah is the most Aware!”

Second: this tradition was narrated from Abu Hayya by Abu Iss~haq only.[172]Abu Iss~haq became too old, dotard and often forgot; therefore the people brushed his traditions aside[173]and no one narrated from him save Abul Ahwass and Zuhayr bin Mo’awiya al-Ju’fi,[174]who were criticized by people for that.[175]

There was no doubt that if a narrator became dotard, then all of his traditions narrated after his dotage would be null whether it was known that the traditions were narrated after the dotage like this tradition or it was unknown when they were narrated.

Third: this tradition contradicted the holy Quran and it contradicted the certain traditions of Imam Ali and his infallible sons (s) and then it must be brushed aside.

To the ankles

The ankle mentioned in the Quranic verse was the joint between the foot and the leg. Zurara bin A'yun and Bukayr bin A’yun asked Imam Baqir (s) about the ankles and he answered them so.[176]So was mentioned by Sheikh as-Sadooq.[177]The linguists said that every joint of bones was called “ka’b” ankle.

The Sunni scholars said that the two “ka’bs” ankles were the two protruding bones on the two sides of the leg. They justified that by saying that if the “ka’b” was the joint between the foot and the leg, then each leg would have one “ka’b” and so it should be said (and your legs to the “ka’bs” ankles)[178]as each hand had one elbow so it was said (and your hands to the elbows).

I said: if it was mentioned in the verse (the two elbows), it would be right too without any confusion. Then the meaning would be (wash your faces and hands to the two elbows of each of you and wipe your heads and feet to the two ankles of each of you). The duality or plurality of the two words in the verse didn’t affect the meaning and also the duality of one of them and the plurality of the other wouldn’t affect the right meaning. Perhaps diversity in expression required that.

This would be if each leg had one ankle but if each leg had two ankles then there would be no way for their justification.

The anatomists confirmed that there was a round bone like the ankle of a cow or a sheep beneath the bone of the leg forming a joint between the leg and the foot. It was called ankle (ka’b) too.[179]Hence wiping each foot ended to “ka’bayn” two ankles, which were the very joint and the round bone under it. In dualing the word “ankle” only without the word “elbow” in the verse there was a wonderful point referring to something that was not known except by the anatomists. Glory be to Allah, the Creator, the Aware, the Wise!

WIPING OVER SLIPPERS AND SOCKS

The Muslim jurisprudents disagreed upon wiping over slippers and socks so widely that we couldn’t discuss all the details in this short chapter. Generally the research concerned its permissibility or impermissibility, specifying its position, time, conditions and contradictions.

As for its permissibility, there were three sayings:

First: it was permissible at all whether in travel or residence.

Second: it was permissible only in travel and not in residence.

Third: it was impermissible at all because it had not been confirmed by the laws of the religion.

These three sayings were narrated from the first age (of Islam) and from Malik.[180]

As for specifying its position (on the feet), it was disagreed upon it. Some said that what was obligatory was wiping the upper side of the slipper and that wiping its lower side was mustahab.[181]Some said it was obligatory to wipe the upper side and the lower side of the slipper.[182]Some said it was obligatory to wipe the upper side only and wiping the lower side was neither obligatory nor mustahab.[183]Some might say that it was optional to choose between wiping the upper side and the lower side. Which of them was wiped would be obligatory.[184]

As for the position of wiping, those who believed in wiping over the slippers disagreed upon wiping over the socks; some permitted it and others prohibited it.[185]

As for the kind of the slipper, they disagreed upon wiping over the torn slipper; some said it was permissible as long as it was called a slipper even if it was so badly torn;[186]some prohibited it if there was a tear in the front of the slipper that something of the foot might appear even if it was so little[187]and some permitted it if the tear was small.[188]

As for the time of wiping, they disagreed upon it too. Some said it was not timed and that the wearer of the slippers could wipe over them as long as he didn’t take them off or he didn’t become impure.[189]Some said it was timed with a certain time for the resident and another time for the traveler.[190]They disagreed upon the kind of travel and its distance.

As for the conditions of wiping over the slippers; the feet must be pure (by wudu’) when wearing the slippers. Most of them decided this condition but it was mentioned that Malik had considered it as not necessary.[191]They disagreed in this concern about one, who washed his feet and put on his slippers and then completed his wudu’ that if he would be satisfied with washing his feet or he had to wipe over the slippers. There were two different sayings.[192]

Among the contradictions of wiping over the slippers was taking off the slippers. Some said that one would remain pure if he took his slippers off until he committed something invalidating his wudu’ and he didn’t have to wash his feet.[193]Some said that one’s purity would be invalidated as soon as he took his slippers off.[194]Others said that one would remain pure if he washed his feet after taking off the slippers but if he offered the prayer without washing his feet he would have to offer the prayer again after washing his feet[195]besides other different sayings and beliefs concerning wiping over the slipper, which we didn’t want to detail them in this chapter.

The Shia believed, according to their infallible imams (s), that wiping over the slippers was impermissible whether in travel or in residence. Our evidence for that was the saying of Allah the Almighty:(…and wipe your heads and your feet to the (two) ankles). Allah had ordered to wipe the feet themselves so who had decided to wipe over the slippers? Was this Quranic verse annulled? Was it allegorical? Certainly not! It was one of the decisive verses of the Quran according to the consensus of the umma. The interpreters agreed upon that no verse of sura of al-Ma’ida, which included this verse of wudu’, was annulled except one verse(O you who believe! do not violate the signs appointed by Allah…) [196]5:2.

The traditions talking about wiping over the slippers were not evidenced by the Shia according to the conditions determining the rightfulness of traditions besides other things that showed the weakness of those traditions:

First: those traditions contradicted the Quran and the true traditions of the Prophet (s). The Prophet (s) said: “If someone narrates a tradition to you pretending that I have said it, you are to compare it to the Quran. If it complies with the Quran, then you are to accept it but if not then you are to deny it.”[197]

Second: those traditions contradicted themselves and contradicted each other; therefore much disagreement happened between those, who acted according to them and tried to justify them in a way or another. Their sayings were contradictory because the traditions themselves were contradictory.[198]

Third: the infallible imams (Ali and his progeny) agreed upon the impermissibility of wiping over any obstacle (other than the bare foot) whether it was slippers, socks, shoes or anything else.[199]The traditions narrated by them contradicted clearly that ones narrated by the Sunni that permitted wiping over slippers.

The basic rule in dealing with the contradictory traditions was to depend upon what complied with the holy Quran. This would be if the traditions were equal in the reliability of the series of the narrators and the subject of the traditions. But would anyone be equal to the Prophet’s progeny; the infallible imams, who were as equal as the Quran?

Fourth: if those traditions were true, they were recurrent in every age and in every country because knowing the purity of the feet in wudu’-as we said before-was necessary for all the men and the women of the umma. It was necessary in every day and every night whether in residence or travel. If it was other than the wiping mentioned in the Quranic verse, it would be known by the Muslims at the age of the Prophet (s) and after that and it would be famous among all the Muslims throughout the ages especially when it was abnormal and odd! But as it was not so, the weakness of those traditions appeared clearly and made them be brushed aside.

Fifth: if it was supposed that those traditions were true, then they would be annulled by the sura of al-Ma’ida because it was the last sura of the Quran that nothing was revealed after it, with which Allah (had perfected the religion, completed the favor and chosen Islam as a religion) so its obligations were obligatory until the Day of Resurrection and its haram was haram until the Day of Resurrection as Aa’isha had said to Jubayr bin Nufayr, who had visited her after performing hajj: “O Jubayr, did you recite al-Ma’ida?” He said: “Yes, I did.” She said: “It was the last sura of the Quran that was revealed. Whatever permissible thing it has (it orders to be followed), you are to do it and whatever impermissible thing it has (it forbids from) you are to avoid it.”[200]

In spite of that the Sunni clung to the act of wiping over the slippers even after the revelation of al-Ma’ida. They depended upon a tradition narrated by Jareer. Once he made water and then he performed wudu’ and wiped over his slippers. He was asked: “Why did you do so?” he said: “I saw the Prophet (s) do so. He made water and then he performed wudu’ and wiped over his slippers.”

Muslim mentioned this tradition and said that it was admired by them and he justified that by saying that Jareer became a Muslim after the revelation of al-Ma’ida.[201]

Jareer became a Muslim before the revelation of al-Ma’ida because he was present with the Prophet (s) during the last (farewell) hajj of the Prophet (s). He was ordered, at that day, to ask the people to be silent-as it was mentioned inal-Issaba .

So definitely he became a Muslim before that hajj and definitely al-Ma’ida was not revealed before that hajj.[202]

At-Tabarani mentioned a tradition that Jareer had said: “The Prophet (s) said: Your brother an-Najashi died…” The death of an-Najashi was before the revelation of al-Mai’da. There was no doubt that he had died before the tenth year of hijra.

Al-Qastalani had another odd saying about wiping over the slippers. He said: “Wiping was not annulled because the tradition narrated by al-Mugheera showed clearly that the Prophet (s) had wiped over his slippers during the battle of Tabook, which was the last battle of the Prophet (s), and al-Ma’ida was revealed during the battle of al-Muraysee’…”

The battle of al-Muraysee’ was the battle of bani al-Mustalaq itself. It was in the fifth-and it was said in the fourth or in the sixth-[203]year of hijra. After this battle many suras were revealed besides al-Ma’ida. What was revealed during this battle was the verse of tayammum, which was a part of sura of an-Nissa’:(…and if you are sick, or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving) 4:43.

The true saying about that was narrated by Aa’isha and mentioned by al-Wahidy in his bookAsbab an-Nuzool . Refer to it to be sure that al-Qastalani was confused between the verse of wudu’ and the verse of tayammum.

In fact al-Mugheera and Jareer were among those, whom we couldn’t trust or rely upon. Soon you shall see the history of al-Mugheera that makes us not trust in him.

Jareer had a situation towards Imam Ali that made us not trust in him too.

Sixth: Aa’isha, the Prophet’s wife, who was so clever and aware of the Sunna and who lived in the house, where the Quran was revealed, denied wiping over the slippers very strongly. Ibn Abbas, who was the scholar of the umma and the vessel of the Book and the Sunna, also denied wiping over the slippers so insistingly. They both denied this matter to a degree that Aa’isha said: “To cut my feet is much more desirable to me than to wipe over the slippers” and ibn Abbas said: “To wipe over a donkey’s skin is much more desirable to me than to wipe over the slippers.”[204]

Would this kind of denying comply with those traditions?

Certainly not! If these sayings were said by these persons, who lived with the revelation of the Quran and knew every corner of it, then would we brush them aside to rely upon sayings said by persons coming centuries after the revelation of the Quran?

Whoever pondered impartially on the denying of the Prophet’s wife, the Prophet’s cousin and the Prophet’s pure progeny, definitely would suspect those false traditions.

Then you would know well that saying that those traditions were recurrent was just a lie. Were they so recurrent whereas those close persons to the Prophet (s) ignored them or pretended to ignore them? Glory be to Allah! This was but a great fabrication!

In fact if those traditions were recurrent, they wouldn’t be denied by Abdullah bin Omar,[205]Imam Malik[206]and many other Muslims.

He, who said: “I am afraid that whoever doesn’t believe in wiping over the slippers will be unbeliever”[207]had done wrong so badly.

It was mentioned that wiping over the slipper was neither of the bases of the religion nor of the necessities of its branches nor was determined by the Quran or the Sunna nor was agreed upon by the consensus of the umma. It was just a concession among a group of the Muslims away from the others. Would it be a sin if a Muslim gave it up in order to de according to the clear Quranic verse of wudu’, which all the Muslims agreed unanimously upon the validity of acting according to the verdicts mentioned in? They agreed upon that unanimously unlike wiping over the slipper, which was a point of dispute and disagreement among the Muslims and which would never lead to remove any impurity from the feet and so the validity of the prayer would be uncertain.

Then would he, who followed the orders of the Quran and performed his obligations with precaution, be considered as unbeliever? O you Muslims! What would you say about Aa’isha, Ali, ibn Abbas and the rest of the Prophet’s progeny, who denied wiping over the slippers?

Wiping over the turban

The Shia ulema thought that wiping over the turban was impermissible. This was the belief of ash-Shafi’iy, Abu Haneefa and Malik.

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Abu Thour, al-Qassim bin Salam, al-Awza’iy and ath-Thawri[208]contradicted that and said that it was permissible according to their analogy in applying wiping over the slippers to the turban and depending upon a tradition narrated by al-Mugheera bin Shu’ba that the Prophet (s) had wiped over his forelock and over his turban. In some ways of his tradition he said that the Prophet (s) had wiped over the turban and he didn’t mention the forelock.

The Quran sufficed us when saying:(… and wipe your heads…) and the Sunna proved that the Prophet (s) used to wipe his forelock and this was confirmed unanimously and didn’t need any explanation.

Their excuse by applying analogy to the divine verdicts was not acceptable because the religion of Allah was not to be taken by analogy.

Wiping over the slippers was denied as you already knew. The tradition of al-Mugheera was null even if it was mentioned by Muslim in hisSahih . Abu Omar bin Abdul Birr said about this tradition: “It is a suspicious tradition.”[209]Perhaps Abu Haneefa, ash-Shafi’iy and Malik didn’t care for this tradition because it was suspicious for them too.

Al-Mugheera had a biography full of cunning, deception, changeableness, trickery, immersing in sins, plunging into lusts and exceeding in perfidy. He exceeded all the limits in supporting the enemies of the Prophet’s progeny and in opposing the loyal believers.

He became a Muslim in order to spare his blood from bani[210]Malik. Once he went with some notable men of bani Malik to visit al-Muqawqas in Alexandria. The people of bani Malik won the prize of the king but al-Mugheera didn’t. Greediness led him to betray them. He invited them to drink while they entrusted in his companionship. He made them drink until they became drunken. Then he killed them one after the other and seized their monies. Since he couldn’t find any shelter to resort to in order to be safe from being revenged on except to join Islam, he went to the Prophet (s) in Medina and said the shahada. The Prophet (s) accepted his shahada as he used to do with everyone saying the shahada. When al-Mugheera offered to give the monies to the Prophet (s), the Prophet (s) with his holy soul disdained to accept them because they were seized by betraying.[211]In this way al-Mugheera became a Muslim.

Abu Bakra, who was one of the great prophet’s companions, and his companions witnessed that al-Mugheera had committed adultery, which would have led him to be punished by being stoned until death according to the Islamic laws. This was very famous case among the events of the year seventeen A.H.[212]O you people! How could we then deny the holy Quran and depend upon a tradition narrated by such a man?!!

Does wiping the head have a limit?

The Shia ulema thought that there was no limit in wiping the head whether for the wiping organ (the hand) or for the wiped organ (the head). It was enough for the Shia to wipe the least part of the head as possible.[213]This was the belief of ash-Shafi’iy too. Imam Malik, Imam Ahmad and others thought that it was obligatory to wipe all the head. Abu Haneefa thought that it was obligatory to wipe a quarter of the head with three fingers and less than that would not suffice.

Our evidence (the Shia’s evidence) was the Quranic verse(… and wipe your heads…). [214] The real meaning of the verse referred to the general wiping of the head. Since wiping the head was achieved by wiping all the head or a quarter of it, also it would be achieved by wiping less than that even by passing one finger or a part of a finger over a part of the head. There was no any evidence confirming what they said in this concern. If Allah wanted all the head to be wiped, he would say: (wipe your heads-without using the preposition) as He had said: (wash your faces) and if the required thing to be wiped was certain, Allah would specify it with some kind of definition as He had said when talking about washing the hands (… and wash… your hands to the elbows ) and when talking about the feet He said: (… to the ankles ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The excuse of our opponents

They justified the matter with some excuses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECITING QURAN IN THE PRAYER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAKBEERATUL IHRAM

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

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

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