Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Translators' Preface

Recently the non-Muslim world has forcibly learned that Islam is divided into two sects, Shi’as and Sunni, but there is so little material in languages other than Arabic and Persian on the Shi’as side of the issue that real understanding is all but impossible. This is the consequence of the historical accident that Western contact with Islam was almost entirely with Sunni communities, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ottoman Turkey, most of Muslim India, etc.

The present work corrects this imbalance in a most extraordinary way, for the case for Shi'ite Islam is argued and supported virtually entirely from orthodox Sunni sources. The political, juridical, and spiritual legitimacy of the Shi'ite position has been argued, and documented in the English language, and from sources that the West has largely overlooked.

In fact, it is shown here that the most authoritative source for interpreting of the message of the Prophet Muhammad was his cousin and son-in-law, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and the eleven other designated successors after him, who constitute the Imams of the Ithna Asheri (Twelve Imam) Shi’as. At various times in history this fact has been more, or, less recognized by the Muslim world.

As recently as 1959, for example, Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut, late Rector of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, and the Grand Mufti of the Sunni Sect, decreed that in addition to the four Sunni schools of Muslim canon law, Hanafite, Hanbalite, Malakite, and Shafi'ite, the Ja'farite or Shi’as school of law was equally acceptable to Muslims.

A brief account of how this came about at the instigation of Imam Mohamad Chirri, Director of the Islamic Center of North American in Detroit, Michigan, may be found in Chirri's book“The Shiites Under Attack,” published by the Center.

* * *

The present work is based on the transcript of a dialogue between several Sunni divines and a 31 year-old Shi'ite scholar, al-`Abd al-Fani Muhammad al-Musawi Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim, of Shiraz, Iran, held over a period of ten nights in Peshawar, India, beginning on 27 January 1927. The dialogues were a model of mutual respect, and in spite of the seriousness of the subject and the presence of an audience of some 200, there was no breach of decorum.

The author refers to himself throughout the book as“Da'i,” that is, one who prays for or invokes a blessing upon someone, translated here as“Well-Wisher.” His success is indicated by the fact that at the end of the dialogue one of his Sunni opponents and five other dignitaries in the audience publicly acknowledged their conversion to the Shi’as sect.

A condition of the dialogue was that only sources acceptable to both sects would be cited. The dialogue was held in Farsi, commonly understood in the city of Peshawar. The transcript, made by four reporters and published in the newspapers daily, was published in book form in Teheran and soon became a classic authority in the East. The present work is based on the fourth edition, published in Teheran in 1971, the year in which Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim died at the age of 75.1

Although the dialogue was extemporaneous, such was the erudition of Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim Shirazi (whose name means“Prince of Preachers from Shiraz” ) that the transcript serves as a detailed bibliographic reference to hundreds of Sunni treatises, well known and little known, in which the claims of the Shi'ites are acknowledged. For this reason, many of the citations refer to the author's recognized sect or school, i.e.,“Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi,” indicating an adherent to the Hanafite Sect, Sibt Ibn Jawzi Shafi'i, of the Shafi'ite sect, and so on.

In spite of the acceptance of the thesis of this book in many parts of the Sunni world, it has also aroused hostility, and unfortunately has inspired misguided and even perverse meddling with the published authorities. In his introduction to the fourth Persian edition, the author writes:

“...it is unfortunate enough that the selfishness of some of the scholars reached the point that their commitment to their own belief overcame them, and they dared to meddle with the great works, supposing that by changing or effacing certain studies the truth would be brought out!”

And since the state of him to whom God Most High has entrusted the security and preservation of the truth (namely al-Wa’adhim, who was near the end of his life at the time of writing tr.) does not allow much time for writing an explanatory introduction to this treatise, confirmation of this mischief will be indicated by one example below.

On page 301 of the third volume of the Commentary, Kashshaf, compiled under the direction of Sheikh Mustafa al-Halabi (2nd edition, 1319 A.H. published by the Main Government Printing House of Amiriah Bulaq of Egypt), verses appear in which Jarullah Zamakhshari, the commentator of the Kashshaf, declared publicly his belief in the legitimacy of the Shi'ites. But in the edition of 1373 A.H. from the printing house Istiqamah bi'l-Qahara the aforementioned poem is not to be found.

This is a sample of the actions of the gentlemen of the Sunnis. By the same token some references which we have indicated in the text of this compendium (i.e., the present book - tr.) are not to be found in the newer editions of those references. This is further indication of what has been said. For this reason some of them have been quoted extensively so that you may read them in this summary.”

We have heard that this kind of mischief is continuing today, with new, well-financed expurgated editions of the basic collections of traditions, i.e., Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, etc., being offered unsuspecting libraries, to replace the older, but complete editions!

It is for this reason that the extensive bibliographic references in the original have been retained here at the price of making the book lengthier and less easy to read.2

Thus, the work will find a place in every Department of Near Eastern Studies and every divinity school concerned with ecumenical problems in the modern world. It should be closely studied by serious students of political science and world history who are attempting to understand the emerging presence of Islam in world affairs.

And it should, of course, be of intense interest to all English-speaking Muslims who wish to have confidence in the sources on which they depend for their understanding of Islam.

* * *

Among the topics treated in detail are the events surrounding the death of the Holy Prophet, his attempt to make a written will, which was frustrated by Omar, and the secret election of Abu Bakr, the first two successors or 'caliphs' of the Sunni Muslims. Also treated in detail are the events at Ghadir Khum at which ‘Ali is believed by the Shi’as to have been explicitly designated by the Prophet as his successor. These are matters of incalculable significance to subsequent history and to the alignment of forces today.

Other topics concern misinterpretation of quotations from the Prophet used to argue that any one of his companions was infallible, thus legitimizing the appalling oppression of the people by many subsequent generations of 'successors,' misinterpretation of the presence of Abu Bakr in the Cave with the Prophet during his flight from Mecca to indicate a singular honor; Abu Bakr's unjust seizure of the property of the daughter of the Prophet; the errors and weaknesses of the Caliph Omar, who acknowledged his dependence upon ‘Ali to interpret Islamic law (Shari'at), and his termination of the practice of Muta' (temporary marriage) contrary to the decree of the Prophet, as supported by correct understanding of the Qur'an.

The cruelty the Caliph Uthman showed to distinguished Companions who supported ‘Ali, such as Abu Dharr; and the strange position of the Prophet's young wife, A’ysha, daughter of Abu Bakr, who led a military campaign against ‘Ali, husband of her contemporary, Fatima, the Prophet's own daughter of whom she was fiercely jealous.

Fundamental to all of these is the question of the authority for transmission, and interpretation of Islamic law and science. This was codified among the Sunnis by four principle legalists in the second and third centuries A.H.

Their opinions contradicted each other incredibly on such issues as the lawfulness of wine and eating dog's flesh, and permissibility of marriage to one's own daughter. By contrast, the Shi’as transmission has been singular and consistent - And in reality was often quoted by Sunni authorities in the past, a fact until now ignored, forgotten, or suppressed.

* * *

A word needs to be added regarding the transliteration of Arabic and Persian words. We have attempted to follow a middle course between rigorous replication of the full range of the Arabic and Persian sounds, and avoiding any forms that would be daunting to the non-Arabist. We have tended toward the latter, reasoning that the Arabist will recognize and resolve any ambiguities in the treatment, while the non-Arabist needs forms that are recognizable and pronounceable.

Therefore we have not attempted to differentiate between aleph (long 'a') and fatiha (short 'a'), using 'a' in all cases. Similarly we have shown yah (long 'i') and kasra (short 'i') as 'i' except for a few cases where the words are commonly known one way, or, the other, i.e., 'Sulayman.'

Nor have we attempted to distinguish the two letters, 'sin' and 'sad.' Both are rendered as 's.' 'Tha,' another letter often transliterated as 's,' we have shown as 'th' in, for example, 'Ibn Thabit.' Similarly 'zay' and 'zah' are both shown as 'z.' The 'dhad,' rendered by some as 'z' we have distinguished by using 'dh' as in 'dhikr' or 'Ramadhan,' instead of 'z.'

The Arabic and Persian 'qaf' is given as 'q' to distinguish it from the 'ghayn' which is given as 'gh.' There is no true 'g' sound in Arabic, but when it appears in Persian words it is transliterated as 'g,' while the 'jim' which in Cairo is transliterated as 'g' and by the Encyclopedia of Islam as 'dj' is here simply 'j.'

The subtleties of the Arabic terminal 'ah', which in some contexts is pronounced like English 'ah' and in others like 'at' have been largely effaced, the rendering being usually simply 'a'. In combination and in certain plurals, however, 'at' is retained.

The Persian 'ezafeh', which is used to indicate possession by linking the possessor and the possessed (the Persians would say Ibn al-Malik to indicated the son of the king, whereas the Arabs would say Ibni'l-Malik) is difficult to handle. It is usually not written, but understood, and it is not readily apparent in titles of works whether they are in fact Persian or Arabic.

For example, 'Kifayatu't-Talib fi Manaqib al-’Ali Ibn Abi Talib' appears to refer to a work in Arabic 'Kifayatu't-Talib' (Intensive Studies) on the subject of the 'Manaqib al-’Ali', i.e., the virtues of ‘Ali. This 'ezafeh' is variously given as 'i' or 'e', coupling either words with hyphens or merely joined to the first with or without a hyphen.

Thus you will see 'Ahlul Bayt' (the people of the house, referring specifically to the immediate family of the Prophet through his daughter, Fatima, and her husband, ‘Ali), and 'Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha,' 'Explanation of the Eloquent Sermons' (by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid) regarding the addresses of ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib.

* * *

Many of the sources quoted are obscure, not available in English, and often referred to in various ways by scholars, and sometimes even by the author, Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim. Where possible, these problems have been resolved, and the name of the work or author commonly used by scholars is given.

Although we have worked from the Persian edition, we would like to acknowledge the help of an English translation published in 1977 by the Peermahomed Ebrahim Trust in Karachi. A similar debate, but by exchange of letters, was published in 1936 and reissued under the title of 'The Right Path' (originally 'al-Muraja'at) by Peermahomed Ebrahim Trust in 1972.

A revised edition was issued by Zahra Publications, Blanco, TX in 1986. This exchange began in 1911 between the Sunni head of Al-Azhar University in Cairo and an eminent Shi’as scholar from Lebanon, explaining the Shi’as beliefs. Its publication no doubt laid the groundwork for the eventual formal recognition by Al-Azhar University in 1959 of the Shi’as Ja'farite school of jurisprudence, identified with the Shi'ite Imam Ja'far Sadiq, mentioned above.

May Allah forgive our errors, and accept our intention, and bless Muhammad and his family!

Hamid Quinlan

Charles ‘Ali Campbell

11 Jamadi al-Awwal 1416 A.H.

7 October 1995

Notes

1. The death of Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim in 1971 is mentioned by Michael M.J. Fischer in Iran - From Religious Dispute to Revolution - p.178, Harvard University Press 1980.

2. For instance, see Tahrif! Investigating Distortions in Islamic Texts for a few documented examples of such changes in Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Tirmidhi, and other books [Ed.]

The Book

Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Rahim

Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim Shirazi, an eminent scholar of Iran, visited India in 1927 A.D (1345 A.H.) when he was 30 years old. He was given a rousing reception everywhere he went. People benefited from his knowledge of tradition, history, and commentary on the Holy Qur'an.

He was persuaded to enter into a religious debate on 23rd Rajab, 1345 A.H., with people of another belief in Peshawar, in what was then India and is today Pakistan. The discussion took place on ten successive nights.

The two principal participants from the opposite side were renowned scholars of Kabul, Hafiz Muhammad Rashid, and Sheikh Abdu's-Salam. Four reporters recorded the discussions in the presence of approximately 200 people (Shi’as and Sunni Muslims).

Local newspapers published these accounts each following morning. Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim Shirazi compiled thenewspaper accounts of the discussions in a book in Persian, published in Teheran as Shabhaye-Peshawar, or Peshawar Nights. The following is a translation of that book.

The First Session, Thursday night, 23rd Rajab, 1345 A.H.

Hafiz Muhammad Rashid, Sheikh Abdu's-Salam, Sayyid Abdu'l-Hayy, and other scholars of that region were present. The discussion began in the presence of a large gathering. In the magazines and newspapers, they referred to the writer as“Qibla-o-Ka'ba,” but in these pages I have referred to myself as“Well-Wisher” and to Hafiz Muhammad Rashid as“Hafiz.”

Hafiz: We are very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the basic points on which we differ. We should first decide how we should proceed.

Well-Wisher: I am willing to participate in discussions on the condition that we cast aside all pre-conceived ideas, and discuss matters reasonably, like brothers.

Hafiz: I may also be permitted to make one condition: that our discussions should be based on the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an.

Well-Wisher: This condition is not acceptable since the Holy Qur'an is so concise that its deep significance must be interpreted through reference to other facts and hadith.

Hafiz: Right. This is sensible, but it is also necessary that reference be made to hadith and events that are based on indisputable evidence. We should refrain from referring to doubtful sources.

Well-Wisher: Agreed. For a man like me, who is proud enough to claim relationship with the Prophet, it is not fair to go against the examples set forth by my ancestor, the Prophet of Islam. He has been addressed in the Holy Qur'an as follows:

“And, most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality.” (68:4)

It is also unbecoming to act against the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an which says:

“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner....” (16:125)

Relationship with the Holy Prophet

Hafiz: Excuse me; you refer to your relationship with the Holy Prophet. It is commonly known, but I ask that you let me know your genealogy so that I may know how your ancestral line reaches the Prophet.

Well-Wisher: My ancestral line reaches the Prophet through Imam Musa Kazim as follows: Muhammad, son of ‘Ali Akbar (Ashrafu'l-Wa’adhim), son of Isma'il Mujtahidal-Wa'iz, son of Ibrahim, son of Salih, son of Abi ‘Ali Muhammad,son of ‘Ali (known as Mardan), son of Abi'l-Qasim Muhammad Taqi, son of (Maqbulu'd-din) Husain, son of Abi ‘Ali Hasan, son of Muhammad ibn Fathullah, son of Ishaq, son of Hashim, son of Abi Muhammad, son of Ibrahim, son of Abi'l-Fityan, son of Abdullah, son of Hasan, son of Ahmad (Abu Tayyib), son of Abi ‘Ali Hasan, son of Abu Ja'far Muhammad al-Hairi (Nazil al-Kirman), son of Ibrahim Az-Zarir (knownas Mujab), son of Amir Muhammad al-Abid, son of Imam Musa Kazim, son of Imam Jafar Sadiq, son of Imam Muhammad Baqir, son of Imam ‘Ali Zainu'l-Abidin, son of Imam Husain, son of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali binAbi Talib.

Hafiz: This line of descent reaches the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali (may Allah bless him) although you have said that it ends with the Holy Prophet. In fact, with this genealogy, you should call yourself among the relations of the Holy Prophet and not among his direct descendants. A descendant is one who is directly linked with the Prophet.

Well-Wisher: Our ancestral line reaches the Prophet through Bibi Fatima Zahra, the mother of Imam Husain. I don't understand why you insist so much on this point.

Hafiz: I think I am misunderstood. It is my point of view that descent is recognized from the male side only. I quote an Arabic couplet:“My sons, grandsons, and daughters are from me, but my daughter's sons are not from me.” If you can prove otherwise, please do so.

Well-Wisher: There is strong evidence, both from the Holy Qur'an and from authentic hadith, to establish my point.

Hafiz: Please relate it so that we may understand.

Well-Wisher: While you we’re speaking just now, I recalled a discussion between Harun ar-Rashid, the Abbasid caliph, and our Imam Musa Kazim on this topic. The Imam gave such a convincing reply that the caliph himself accepted it.

Hafiz: I would like to hear about that discussion.

Well-Wisher: Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali, entitled Sheikh Saduq, in the fourth century A.H. in his Uyun al-Akbar ar-Ridha (Major Sources for Imam Ridha), and Abu Mansur Ibn ‘Ali Tabarsi, in his Ehtijajj (Supports) give a detailed account of the conversation that took place between Harun ar-Rashid and Imam Musa Ja'far in the caliph's court.

The caliph asked the Imam,”How can you claim that you are a descendant of the Holy Prophet? The Prophet Muhammad had no descendant. It is acknowledged that descendants are from the male side and not from the female side. You belong to the generation of his daughter.” The Imam recited verses 84-85 from Chapter VI of the Holy Qur'an:

“And, We gave to him Isaac and Jacob; each did We guide, and Noah did We guide before, and of his descendants David and Solomon and Job and Joseph and Aaron; and thus do We reward those who do good. And, Zakariyya and John and Jesus and Elias; every one was of the good.” (6:84-85)

The Imam asked the caliph:“Who was Jesus's father?” Harun replied that Jesus had no father. The Imam said:“There was no one, and yet Allah included Jesus in the progeny of the prophets through Mary. Similarly, He has included us in the progeny of the Holy Prophet through our ancestor Bibi Fatima.”

Moreover, Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, in his Tafsir al-Kabir (Great Commentary), Bk IV, P. 124, Problem V, says regarding this verse that the verse proves that Hasan and Husain are the descendants of the Prophet of Islam. Since in this verse God has verified Jesus as a descendant of Abraham, and Jesus had no father, this relationship is from the side of the mother.

In the same manner, Hasan and Husain are truly the descendants of the Prophet. Imam Musa Kazim asked Harun if he wanted further proof. The caliph asked the Imam to continue.The Imam read verse 60 from Chapter III,“Aal-’Imran,” of the Holy Qur'an:

“But, whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: come, let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves, and your selves, then let us be earnest in prayer and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.” (3:61)

He continued, saying that no one has ever claimed that on the occasion of the spiritual contest (Mubahala) against the Christians of Najran that the Prophet took with him anyone except ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, Fatima, Hasan, and Husain. It follows, therefore that“selves” (anfusana) means ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib.“Women” (nisa'ana) means Fatima and“sons” (abna'ana) means Hasan and Husain whom Allah has identified as the Prophet's own sons.

Upon hearing this argument, Harun exclaimed,“Bravo, O Abu'l-Hasan.” Clearly, this reasoning proves that Hasan and Husain are the sons of the Prophet and that the ‘Sa'dat Fatima’ (descendants of Bibi Fatima) are of the progeny of the Holy Prophet.

Additional evidence proving that the descendants of Bibi Fatima are of the progeny of the Holy Prophet

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, one of your greatest scholars, in his ‘Sharh-i-Nahju'l-Balagha’ (Commentary on the Peak of Eloquence [writingsof Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali]), and Abu Bakr Razi in his commentary, have cited the same verse, arguing that Hasan and Husain are, from the side of their mother, the sons of the HolyProphet in the same way that Allah in the Holy Qur'an has included Christ in the progeny of Abraham from the side of his mother, Mary.

Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i, in his book Kifayatu't-Talib, and Ibn Hajar Makki on pages 74 and 93 of ‘Sawa’iq Muhariqa’ from Tabrani and Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari, and Khatib Khawarizmi in ‘Manaqib’ from Ibn Abbas - all relate that the Prophet said:“Allah created the progeny of every Prophet from his own generation, but my progeny was created in the generation of ‘Ali.”

Also, Khatib al-Khawarizmi in ‘Manaqib’, Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'iin Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, in ‘Musnad’, and Sulayman Hanafi Balkhi in ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’ relate, in more, or, less the same words, that the Holy Prophet said:

“These, my two sons, are two flowers of this world, and both of them are Imams (leaders), whether they are Imams openly, or, silently sitting at home.” And, Sheikh Sulayman Hanafi, in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, devotes Chapter 57 to this topic, and cites many hadith from his own learned men, like Tabrani, Hafiz Abdu'l-Aziz Ibn Abi Shaiba, Khatib al-Baghdadi Hakim, Baihaqi, Baghawi and Tabari - all relating in slightly differing versions that Hasan and Husain are the sons of the Prophet.

Towards the end of the same Chapter, Abu Salih writes: HafizAbdu'l-Aziz Ibn Al-Akhzar, Abu Nu'aim, Tabari, Ibn Hajar Makkion page 112 of ‘Sawa'iq Muhriqa’, from Muhammad Ibn Yusuf GanjiShafi'i at the end of Part I after 100 Chapters of Kifayatu't-Talib, and Tabari in the narration of the life of Imam Hasan relate that the second caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, said:

“I heard the Prophet say that on the Day of Judgement every ancestry will be disconnected except my generation. Every generation of a daughter is from the father's side except the generation of Fatima, which is connected with me. I am their father, and ancestor.”

Sheikh Abdullah Ibn Muhammad Ibn Amir Shabrawi Shafi'i, in his book Kitabu'l-Ittihafbi Hubbi'l-Ashraf, quoted this hadith from Baihaqi and Darqutni from Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar, and he from his father, on the occasion of the wedding of Umm Kulthum.

And, Jalalu'd-din Suyuti quoting from Tabrani in his ‘Ausat’, has related from Caliph ‘Umar and Sayyid Abu Bakr Ibn Shahabu'd-din Alawi on pages 39-42 of Chapter III of ‘Rishfatu's-sadi min Bahra Faza'il Bani Nabiu'l-Hadi’ (printed in Maktabi A'lamiyya, Egypt in the year 1303 A.H.), proving that the descendants of Fatima are of the progeny of the Prophet of Islam.

Hence, the couplet that you quoted has no force in the face of all this contrary evidence. Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i, in his“Kifayatu't Talib,” proves that the sons of the Prophet's daughter are the sons of the Holy Prophet. Our ancestral line goes back to Imam Husain; we are, therefore, descendants of the Prophet.

Hafiz: Your argument is reasonable and convincing. The people dispersed for the Isha prayer.

During the recess Nawab Abdu'l-Qayum Khan, who belongs to a noble family of the ‘Sunnis’, asked permission to ask Well-Wisher some questions.

Why Shi’as combine their prayers

Nawab: Why do the Shi’as combine the prayers of Zuhr and Asr and Maghrib and Isha? This is not in keeping with the practice of the Holy Prophet.

Well-Wisher: In the first place, among your own learned men, there is much difference of opinion concerning this issue. Secondly, you say that we go against the practice of the Prophet. Here you are mistaken since the Holy Prophet used to offer these prayers in both ways, sometimes separately, and sometimes together. Nawab Sahib, turning to his learned men, asked them if it was true that the Prophet offered the prayers in both ways.

Hafiz: He did, but only when he was on a journey, or, when there was some other hindrance, like rain. Otherwise, when he was at home, he always offered his prayers separately.

Well-Wisher: It is recorded in your own ‘hadith’ that the Prophet used to offer prayers separately as well as combined at home, and without any obstruction. Many hadith confirm this fact. Muslim Ibn Hajjaj in his Sahih, in the Chapter“Jam'a Baina's-salatain fi'l-Hazar,” says that Ibn Abbas said:

“The Prophet used to say Zuhr and Asr as well as Maghrib and Isha prayers jointly without being constrained to do so, or, when he was at home.” Again Ibn Abbas narrated:”We said eight rak'ats of Zuhr and Asr, and later seven rak'ats of Maghrib and Isha prayers jointly with the Holy Prophet.

“The same hadith’ has been related by Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his ‘Musnad’, Part 1, Page 221. Similarly, Imam Muslim quotes a number of ‘hadith’ concerning this issue. He quotes Abdullah Ibn Shaqiqas having said that one day Abdullah Ibn Abbas was reading an address after the Asr prayers until the sun set and the stars were visible.

People cried,“Prayers, Prayers,” but Ibn Abbas paid no heed to them. Then one of the Bani Tamimi shouted“Prayers, Prayers.” Ibn Abbas then said:“You remind me of the ‘Sunna’, but I myself have seen the Holy Prophet combine Zuhr and Asr as well as Maghrib and Isha prayers.”

Abdullah ibn Shaqiq said that he felt uncertainty about these words and went to Abu Huraira to ask him about it. He verified what Ibn Abbas had said. Through another chain of narrators, Abdullah ibn Shaqiq has narrated from Aqil that once Abdullah ibn Abbas spoke to the people from the pulpit.

He remained there so long that darkness fell. When someone shouted thrice,“Prayer, Prayer, Prayer,” Abdullah Ibn Abbas became annoyed and said:“Woe be to you. You dare remind me of prayer, even though during theHoly Prophet's days we used to combine Zuhr with Asr as well as Maghrib with Isha prayers.”

Zarqani in Sharhe Mawatta' of Imam Malik, Part I, in the Chapter of“Jama'a Baina's-Salatain,” p. 263, states,“Nisa'i related through Amru Ibn Haram from Abi Sha'atha that Ibn Abbas said his Zuhr and Asr prayers as well as Maghrib and Isha prayers jointly in Basra without any time lag, or, action between them. He said that the Holy Prophet offered his prayers in the same way.”

Also, Muslim in ‘Sahih’ and ‘Malikin Mawatta'’, Chapter“Jam'a Baina's-salatain” , and Imam Hanbal in Musnad quotes Ibn Abbas through Sa'id Ibn Jabir that the Holy Prophet offered his Zuhr and Asr prayers together in Medina without being constrained to do so by fear, or, bad weather.

Abu Zubair said he asked Abu Sa'id why the Prophet combined the two prayers. Sa'id said that he too asked Ibn Abbas the same question. Ibn Abbas replied that he combined the two prayers so that his followers might not be put to undue hardship and suffering.

Also, in many other ‘hadith’, Ibn Abbas is related to have said that the Holy Prophet of Islam combined Zuhr and Asr as well as Maghrib and Isha prayers without being constrained to do so. These hadith in your ‘Sahih’ and in many other authentic books prove the permissibility of the combination of the two prayers, both at home and during travel.

Hafiz: There is no such quotation of hadith in ‘Sahih Bukhari.

Well-Wisher: Because all the authors of ‘Sahih’, like Muslim, Nisa'i, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, and exponents of the Sahihain, of Muslim, Mubhari, and other great ‘Sunni’ scholars have quoted these things, this is sufficient for us to win our point.

But in fact, Bukhari, too, has recorded these ‘hadith’ in his ‘Sahih’, but he has deceitfully put them away from their proper place, the section concerning the combination of two prayers.

If you go through the Chapters“Bab al-Ta'akhiru'z-zuhr li'l-AsrMin Kitabe Mawaqitu's-salat” and“Bab al-Dhikru'l-Ishawa'l-Atma” and“Bab al-Waqtu'l-Maghrib,” you will find all these ‘hadith’ there. Recording these hadith under the heading,“Permission and Authorization to Combine Two Prayers” proves that it is the common belief of learned men of the two sects. The authenticity of these hadith has already been acknowledged in the books of ‘Sahih’.

Accordingly, Allama Nuri in ‘Sharhe Sahih’ Muslim, Asqalani, Qastalani, Zakariyya al-Razi, in the commentaries that they have written on ‘Sahih’ Bukhari, Zarqani in his commentary on the Mawatta' of Malik, and others related these ‘hadith’. After quoting the ‘hadith’ of Ibn Abbas, they acknowledged their authenticity and admitted that these ‘hadith’ are proofs of the acceptability of combining two prayers.

Nawab: How is it possible that these ‘hadith’ have been put into practice since the time of the Holy Prophet, but learned men have adopted a different path?

Well-Wisher: This situation is not confined to this topic alone. You will see many such examples later. In this matter, ‘Sunni’ scholars of jurisprudence, apparently without much serious thought, or, for other reasons which I do not understand, have given unintelligible explanations contradicting these ‘hadith’.

For instance, they say that perhaps these ‘hadith’ refer to situations involving fear, danger, rains, or, winds. Some of your older scholars, like Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i, and some other jurists of Medina gave the same explanation. This, despite the fact that the ‘hadith’ of Ibn Abbas clearly says that the two prayers were offered without the constraint of fear, or, the possibility of rainfall.

Others have suggested that perhaps the sky was overcast, and those offering prayers did not know the time. Perhaps, when they finished their Zuhr prayers, the clouds dispersed, and they saw that it was time for Asr prayers.

So, they had to offer Zuhr and Asr prayers together. I don't think a more unlikely explanation could be found. Perhaps these interpreters did not care to think that the person offering prayers was the Holy Prophet of Islam (S). Clouds did not mean to him what they might to others. He understood all causes and effects.

Apart from the fact that this explanation is unconvincing, the combining of Maghrib and Isha prayers rejects their explanation. At that time clouds have no relevance to this question.

As we said: the ‘hadith’ of Ibn Abbas clearly states that his address continued so long that the audience repeatedly cried,“prayers, prayers.” They reminded him that the stars had appeared and it was time for prayers. But, he purposely delayed the Maghrib prayer so that he might offer both Maghrib and Isha prayers together. Abu Huraira also verified this action, saying that the Prophet also acted in the same manner. Such spurious explanations, inlight of clear guidance, are regrettable.

Your own learned men reject them. Sheikhu'l-Islam Ansari, in his ‘Tuhfatu'l-Bari fiSharhe Sahihu'l-Bukhari’ in the Chapter“Salatu'z-zuhr ma'l-Asrwa'l-Maghrib ma'al Isha,” page 292, Part II, and similarly, Allama Qastalani, on page 293, Part II of ‘Irshadu's-Sari fi SharheSahihu'l-Bukhari’, as well as other exponents of Sahih Bukhari admit that this kind of explanation is against the obvious meaning of the ‘hadith’, and that to insist that every ritual prayer be offered separately is a groundless requirement.

Nawab: Then how did this controversy arise so that the two sects of Muslims are after the blood of each other, and condemn each other's actions?

Well-Wisher: You say that the two sects of Muslims are inimical to each other, but I disagree. We Shi’as do not look down upon any of the learned men, or, commonpeople of our brothers, the ‘Sunnis’. We regret that propaganda of the ‘Kharijis’, the ‘Nasibis’, and the ‘Umayyads’ have affected the hearts of some people. Unfortunately, some ‘Sunnis’ regard their Shi’as brothers (who are one with them as regards the Qibla (Ka'ba), the Holy Book (Qur'an), and the Prophet as Rafizis (dissenters), idolaters, and infidels.

As for your question regarding how this difference originated, perhaps we can discuss this in later meetings. Concerning the saying of prayers separately, or, together, ‘Sunni’ legal scholars have recorded ‘hadith’ which permit the offering of Zuhr with Asr, and Maghrib with Isha prayers as a matter of ease, comfort, or, safety. I do not know why some do not consider it permissible to offer the two prayers together in the absence of any obstruction.

Some authorities, like Abu Hanifa, and his adherents, forbid it under any circumstances, whether there is any obstruction or not; or whether the prayers are said during travel, or, at home. The ‘Shafi'ites’, ‘Malikites’, and ‘Hanbalites’, with all of their differences in essential and non-essential tenets, have permitted the combining of the prayers during a lawful journey. But, the ‘Shi’as’ ‘ulama’, in obedience to the Holy Imams and the progeny of the Holy Prophet, have unconditionally permitted the offering of prayers together.

Of course the offering of prayers at the time specified for each ritual prayer is preferable to praying in one interval, as has been clearly stated in expository books dealing with problems of religious performance written by ‘Shi’as’ ‘ulama’. Since people are often busy with their own affairs, and have their own cares and anxieties, they fear they might miss their prayers. Hence, for their own convenience, and to avoid hardship, and suffering, the Shi’as say their two prayers in one interval, whether early, or, late, during the appointed time.

Now, I think this much is sufficient to enlighten our ‘Sunni’ brothers who look at us with indignation. Perhaps we can return to our discussions about the fundamentals, after which the questions concerning practice will be solved.

How the Allama's ancestors migrated from the Hijaz to Iran

Hafiz Sahib asked ‘Allama Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim’ to tell him how his ancestors migrated from the Hijaz to Iran. He gave a history of his ancestors who were murdered in Shiraz on the order of the Abbasid King. Their mausoleums still attract pilgrims from distant places.

Notable among them are Sayyid Amir Muhammad Abid, Sayyid Amir Ahmad (Shah Charagh), and Sayyid Alau'd-din Husain, all sons of Imam Musa Kazim. The details concerning his family are omitted.

How the grave of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, was discovered

Mention was also made of the discovery of the sacred grave of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali.

Hafiz: But, in what state was the grave of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, discovered 150 years after his death?

Well-Wisher: Because Umayyad oppression was so intense during ‘Ali's later life, he stipulated in his will that his body should be laid in a grave secretly at night, and that no trace of the grave should be left. Only a few of his close companions and his sons attended the burial.

On the morning of the 2lst of Ramadhan when he was to be buried, two conveyances were prepared. One was instructed to go to Mecca, the other to Medina. That is why for years his grave remained unknown, except to a few companions and his own sons.

Hafiz: Why was the grave's location kept a secret?

Well-Wisher: Probably out of fear of the irreligious Umayyads. They were particularly inimical to the members of the progeny of the Prophet. They could have desecrated the grave.

Hafiz: But, is it possible that a Muslim, even though an enemy, might violate the grave of a brother Muslim?

Well-Wisher: Have you studied the history of the Umayyads? From the day this wretched dynasty came to power the door of oppression was opened among Muslims. Good Heavens! What atrocities they committed! What blood they shed, and what honors they spoiled! With deep shame, your eminent scholars recorded their many crimes. Allama Maqrizi Abu'l-Abbas Ahmad ibn ‘Ali Shafi'i recorded the heart-rending atrocities of the Umayyads in his book ‘Annaza' Wa't-takhasum fima baina Bani Hashim wa Bani Umayya’.

Desecration of graves by Bani Umayyad

As examples of what they were capable of, I will cite only two events: the martyrdom of Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn Husain, known as Zaid Shahid (i.e., the Martyr) and the martyrdom of his son, Yahya. Historians of both Shi’as and ‘Sunnis’ recorded that when Hisham ibn Abdu'l-Malik became the caliph, he committed many atrocities.

With regard to the Bani Hashim, he was particularly cruel. At last, Zaid ibn ‘Ali, the son of Imam Zainu'l-Abidin, and well known as a great scholar and a pious theologian, went to see the caliph to seek redress for the grievances of the Bani Hashim.

But, as soon as Zaid arrived, the caliph, instead of greeting him as a direct descendant of the Holy Prophet, abused him with such abominable language that I cannot repeat it. Because of this disgraceful treatment, Zaid left Syria for Kufa, where he raised an army against the Bani Umayyad. The governor of Kufa, Yusuf ibn ‘Umar Thaqafi, came out with a huge army to face him. Zaid recited the following war poem:

“Disgraceful life and honorable death: both are bitter morsels, but if one of them must be chosen, my choice is honorable death.”

Although he fought bravely, Zaid was killed in the battle. His son, Yahya, took his body from the field, and buried him away from the city near the river bank, causing the water to flow over it. However, the grave was discovered and, under Yusuf's orders, the body was exhumed, Zaid's head was cut off and sent to Hisham in Syria. In the month of Safar, 121 A.H., Hisham had the sacred body of this descendant of the Prophet placed on the gallows entirely naked. For four years the sacred body remained on the gallows.

Thereafter, when Walid Ibn Yazid ibn Abdu'l-Malik ibn Marwan became caliph in 126 A.H., he ordered that the skeleton be taken down from the gallows, burnt, and the ashes scattered to the wind.

This accursed man committed a similar atrocity to the body of Yahya ibn Zaid of Gurgan. This noble man also opposed the oppression of the Bani Umayya. He too was martyred on the battlefield.

His head was sent to Syria and, as in the case of his revered father, his body was hung on the gallows for six years. Friend and foe alike wept at the sight. Waliu'd-din Abu Muslim Khorasani, who had risen against the Bani Umayya on behalf of Bani Abbas, took his body down and buried it in Gurgan, where it is a place of pilgrimage.

Misdeeds of this dynasty

In view of the misdeeds of this accursed dynasty, the body of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali was buried during the night, and no trace of his grave was left. The grave remained virtually unknown until the days of Caliph Harun ar-Rashid. One day Harun came hunting in the locality of Najaf, where deer lived in large numbers.

When the hounds chased the deer, they took refuge on the mound of Najaf, a small hill which the hounds would not ascend. Several times, when the hounds retreated, the deer would come down, but when the hounds again leapt at them, the deer took refuge on the mound.

Understanding that there was a reason for the hounds' behavior, Harun sent his men to inquire in Najaf. They brought an old man to him and the caliph asked about the secret of why the hounds did not climb up on the mound.

Discovery of the sacred grave of ‘Ali

The old man replied that he knew the secret, but that he was afraid to disclose it. The caliph guaranteed him safety, and the man told him:“Once I came here with my father, who went on the mound and offered prayers there. When I asked him what was there, he said that they had come there with Imam Ja'far Sadiq for a visit (Ziyarat). The Imam had said that this was the sacred grave of his revered grandfather, the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, and that it would shortly become known.”

“At the caliph's behest that place was dug up, and the signs of a grave became apparent along with a tablet with an inscription in Syriac, meaning: “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. This grave has been prepared by the Prophet Noah for ‘Ali, the Vicegerent of Muhammad, 700 years before the Deluge.”

Caliph Harun paid respects to the place, and ordered the restoration of the earth. He then performed two rak'ats of prayer. He wept much and laid himself on the grave. Thereafter, on his orders, the whole matter was disclosed to Imam Musa Kazim at Medina. The Imam confirmed that the grave of his revered grandfather, Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, was at that place.

Harun then decreed that a stone building be erected over Commander of the Faithful's sacred grave, which came to be known as ‘Hajar Haruni’- the stone structure built by Harun. In due course, the news spread, and Muslims visited the Holy place. Ibrahim Mujab, the great, great grandfather of ‘Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim’ (Well-Wisher) also left Shiraz for this Holy visit, and after performing the Ziarat, died in Karbala. He was buried near the sacred grave of his great grandfather, Imam Husain. His grave is located in the Northwestern corner of his sacred mausoleum, and is visited regularly by his admirers.

Differences about the burial place of the commander of the faithful

Hafiz: Despite these conclusive remarks, I think that the grave of ‘Ali (may Allah bless him) is not located in Najaf. Scholars differ on this point. Some say it is in the State House in Kufa; some say it is in the Qibla of the Central Mosque of Kufa; some say that it is in the gate known as ‘Bab al-Kinda’ of the Mosque of Kufa; some hold that it is in Rahba in Kufa; still others say it is beside the grave of Fatima in Baqi.

In our Afghanistan, too, there is a place near Kabul known as the Mausoleum of ‘Ali. According to one account, the sacred body of ‘Ali was placed in a box, and laid on the back of a camel and sent toward Medina. A party of men snatched the box, believing it contained valuables. On opening it, they saw the sacred body, brought it to Kabul, and buried it at this place. That is why people revere this place.

Well-Wisher: These differences arose because of the details of his will, which stipulated that the arrangements for his burial obfuscate his burial place. It is related from Imam Ja'far Sadiq that at the time of his death, the Commander of the Faithful told his son, Imam Husain, that after burying him in Najaf, he should prepare four graves for him in four different places: in the Mosque of Kufa, in Rahba, in the house of Ju'da Hira, and in Ghira. The ‘Shi’as’ agree that his sacred grave is in Najaf.

Whatever they have learned from the ‘Ahlul Bayt is authentic. The“people of the house” know best about what relates to the house.

I really wonder at your scholars, who have neglected the sayings of the progeny of the Holy Prophet in every matter. They did not inquire about the location of the grave of the father from his own sons in order to learn the truth. It is certain that the children know more about the grave of their father than others do.

If any of these current theories had been correct, the Holy Imams would have informed their followers of it. But, they have confirmed the location in Najaf, visited the place themselves, and have exhorted their adherents to visit it. Sibt Ibn Jauzi has, in his ‘Tadhkira’, mentioned these differences.

He says:“The sixth view is that it is in Najaf at the well known place, which is commonly visited. To all appearances, this is the correct view.” Similarly, your other scholars, such as ‘Khatib-e Khawarizmi’ in ‘Manaqib’, Muhammad ibn Shafi'i in ‘Matalibu's-Su'ul’, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in ‘Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha’, Firuzabadi in his lexicon, ‘Qamus’, under the word Najaf, and others, have held that the Commander of the Faithful's grave is located in Najaf.