Shia, Beliefs. - Way of the Salaf

Shia's beliefs
The similarity between Shia rituals and Christian rituals
Who are Ahl-Albait ( The household of the prophet )?
The Qur’an and Imamah
Ya Allah or Ya Ali , Ya Hussain?!
The Myth of the Shi‘i Mahdi
Abdullah Ibn Sabaa & Shism
Khomeini under the Microscope
Shi’ah Concept of Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah)
Issues in the Islamic History
The event of Ghadeer Khum in the Quran, Sunnah, History
Who killed Imam Al-Hussain bin Ali ? Ask the History
Fadak Area between Abu-Baker & Fatima A Scientific Dialogue
The Marriage of umm kulthum daughter of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib to ‘Umar
ibn Alkhatab
Was Mu'awiyah ibn Ibi Sufyan involved in the poisoning of Imam AlHasan?
Khalid Ibn Al-Walid, the Slandered Sword of Allah
Are there Hypocrites among the Prophet's Companions?
Integrity of the Prophet's Companions between Sunni & Shia
Polemics against Ahl Al-Sunnah
A response to ( Peshawar Nights ) Introduction -- The first session
The Verse of Wilayah
The Verse of Tabligh
The purification verse & Hadeeth Al-kisa'a A Scientific Dialogue
The roots of Sunni-Shia differences in Fiqh
The Dismal Reality of Ahl-Sunnah in Iran
While it is not a prevalent practice among Christians, look at these
pictures of Christians in the Philippines practicing the same self
flagellation tactics practiced by modern day Shia.
Notice that this practice goes back to early Christianity and
outdates the practice of the shia --who most probably took it from
them. From the fourth century AD, flagellation was practised by
both clergy and non-clergy as the most effective means of penance.
(See the New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol 4, Micropaedia, p 813.)
*Who are Ahl Al-Bayt?
Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him urged in the past two hadeeths to adhere to his noble
household, to know their right, to respect them, and to honor them, may Allah be pleased with them all.
But the question is; who are the household of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him?
Hadeeth Al-Thiqlayn indicates to the concept of the Prophet’s household clarifying that Ahl Al-Bayt
are the relatives of Prophet Muhammad and his wives.
To the completion of the previous hadeeth, The companion of the prophet Zayd who narrated Hadeeth
Al-Thiqalyn says: “his wives are among his household, but his household are those who charity is
forbidden upon them.” One asked: “and who are they?” Zayd answered that they were the household of
Ali, household of Aqeel, household of Jaffar, and household of Abbas. The first person asked again:
“Upon all of them charity is forbidden?” and Zayd answered by a yes”
Abdulrahman bin Abi Layla, a dignified Companion, says: “Once we asked Prophet Muhammad peace
be upon him about how to pray on his household although Allah told us how to pray on him. Prophet
Muhammad answered: “Say: ‘O’ Allah send prayers upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad,
just as You sent prayers upon Ebraheem and the family of Ebraheem. Verily, You are full of praise and
majesty. O’ Allah, send blessings upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, just as You sent
blessings upon Ebraheem and upon the family of Ebraheem. Verily, You are full of praise and majesty.”
Then Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him taught them other forms of prayers upon him and his
family, and one of the forms is: “O’ Allah, send prayers upon Muhammad and upon the wives and
descendants of Muhammad, just as you sent prayers upon the family of Ebraheem, and send blessings
upon Muhammad and upon the wives and descendants of Muhammad, just as You sent blessings upon
the family of Ebraheem. Verily, You are full of praise and majesty.”
Although the wives of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him are named as Ahl Al-Bayt in the
Ebraheemite Prayer, we would find a better and a clearer declaration that the wives of the Prophet are
his household in this narration:
Anas bin Malik reported: “A banquet of bread and meat was held on the occasion of the marriage of the
Prophet to Zainab bint Jahsh. I was sent to invite the people (to the banquet), ………. The Prophet left
and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, "Peace and Allah's Mercy be on you, O the
people of the house!" She replied, "Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too. How did you find your
wife? May Allah bless you. Then he went to the dwelling places of all his other wives and said to them
the same as he said to Aisha and they said to him the same as Aisha had said to him.” (Saheeh AlBukhari, Tafseer Al-Quran, Surat Al-Ahzab), (Al-Nisa’ei, Work of the day and night, 271)
In the hadeeth of Al-Efk (the narration of the Lie), the Prophet peace be upon him, while he was on the
pulpit narrating charges of adultery from Ubaydillah bin Abi Salool against the Mother of Beleivers,
Aisha, says: “O people give me your opinion regarding those people who made a forged story against
my family. By Allah, I do not know anything bad about her. By Allah, they accused her of being with a
man about whom I have never known anything bad, and he never entered my house unless I was present
there, and whenever I went on a journey, he went with me” (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Tafseer AL-Quran,
Surat AL-Nour)
Now, let us see what language has to say about this issue. Arabic Language scholars are very clear in
identifying the wives of a man as his household. Ibn Manthoor says in the Tongue of the Arabs (Lisan
Al-Arab): “Ahl Al-Bayt: its dwellers, Ahl Al-Rajul (family of a man) is the closest people to him, and
the household of Prophet Muhammad may Allah have peace on him is his wives, his daughters, and his
son-in-law who is Ali bin Abi Talib”
Al-Fayrooz Al-A’abadi says in Qamoos Al-Muheet: “Ahl Al-Amr is its rulers, Ahl Al-Bayt is its
dwellers, Ahl Al-Mathhab (sect) is its who believe in it, Ahl Al-Rajul is his wife, and Ahl Al-Nabi is his
wives, his daughters, and his son-in-law i.e. Ali may Allah be pleased of him.”
Al-Zubaydi says in Taj Al-Aroos (The Bride’s Crown): “Ahl Al-Mathhab is its believers, Ahl Al-Rajul
is his wife and children, and this is how the verse: “and was travelling with his family” is explained as
his wives and family. Ahl Al-Nabi is his wives, daughters, and his son-in-law Ali. It was said that the
descendant of a man is Ahl Al-Rajul. In the Quran: “Enjoin prayer on thy family, and be constant
therein,” “And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye Members of the Family, and
to make you pure and spotless,” and “let mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you Ahl Al-Bayt,
He is the most benign and most exalted.”
In addition to the Prophetic narrations and to the Arabic Language scholars’ sayings, the Quran itself
testifies that wives are included in the phrase “Ahl A-Bayt.”
The Quran called Prophets’ wives as their household. Allah says: “so he said to his family, "Tarry ye; I
perceive a fire; perhaps I can bring you some burning brand therefrom, or find some guidance at the
fire”. And it is known that only Mousa’s wife was with him and no one else.
In the story of Zaleekha, the wife of Al-Azeez, when she wanted to temp Yousif, Allah says: “She said:
"What is the (fitting) punishment for one who formed an evil design against thy family, but prison or
agrievous chastisement?"
Also, Allah says: “Now when Moses had fulfilled the term, and was travelling with his family.” AlQumi says in his Tafseer: “When the time had come, Mousa took his wife, Shu’ayb provided Mousa,
and Mousa lead his goats. When Mousa wanted to leave, Shu’ayb told him: “Go, Allah made it
privately for you.” Therefore, Mousa lead his goats aiming Egypt. Mousa and his wife were in a place
when a cold breeze, wind and darkness stroked Mousa and his family. Then, Mousa saw a fire, where
Allah said the verse: “Now when Moses had fulfilled the term, and was travelling with his family.”
Included in the term “Ahl Al-Bayt” are Ali, Al-Hasan, Al-Hussain, and Fatima, may Allah be pleased
with them all as it is mentioned in Hadeeth Al-Kisa’a (the narration of the cloak) that is narrated by
Muslim. The mother of Believers, Aisha says: “One day, the messenger of Allah left the house at the
afternoon and he was wearing a cloak. Then Hasan bin Ali came and the Prophet took him under his
cloak. Next Hussain bin Ali came and the Prophet took him under his cloak. After that Fatima came and
the Prophet took her under his cloak. Finally, Ali came, and the Prophet took him under his cloak. Then
the Prophet said: “And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye Members of the
Family, and to make you pure and spotless”
In retrospect, it is cleared that the household of Prophet Muhammad are his wives, the family of Ali
(Hasan, Hussain, and Fatima), the family of Aqeel, the family of Abbas, and the family of Jaffar. Those
are the ones who Prophet Muhammad ordered us to dignify and respect. Hadeeth Al-Thiqlain did not
testify to the infallibility of anyone of them, but raised their status. Using the verse of Purification and
hadeeth Al-Kisa’a to prove Ali’s infallibility is non-sense. We prove that in another article under the
title “The purification verse & Hadeeth Al-kisa'a A Scientific Dialogue.” Please refer to it.
The Qur’an
and Imamah
by
Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi
This article investigates the usage of the word "Imam" in the Qur’an to see whether
the Qur’an provides any support to the Shi‘i concept of Imamah. In it a description is
first given of Imamah as conceived of by the Shi‘ah, and that is followed by a detailed
scrutiny of every place in the Qur’an where the word "Imam" or its plural "A’immah"
has been used by Allah Ta‘ala.
There is no gainsaying that of all differences that exist between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah, the
issue of Imamah is by far the most serious. It is in fact quite within the limits of reason and logic to say
that the question of Imamah is the root of all Sunni-Shi‘i differences; all other differences will upon
closer scrutiny be found to result from the difference that exists on that central point.
Therefore, no person or organisation who is serious about bringing Shi‘is and Sunnis closer to one
another can afford to ignore the doctrine of Imamah. All endeavours aimed at removing the barriers that
separate the Ahl as-Sunnah from the Shi‘ah must start from this point. Starting from anywhere else
would be similar to treating the symptoms, and not the cause, of a disease. For a while the symptoms
might disappear, only to be reactivated at a later stage by the dormant cause. Likewise, attempting to
solve Sunni-Shi‘i differences from any perspective other than that of its root, Imamah, might for the
immediate moment create the impression of removing obstacles to Muslim unity. In reality those very
same obstacles will return as soon as the euphoria at the creation of that unity subsides.
As Muslims we are obliged to refer the differences that exist amongst us to Allah and His Rasul. In this
series of articles we refer the doctrine of Imamah to the Qur’an, with the purpose of ascertaining
whether this doctrine as conceived of and believed in by the Ithna ‘Ashari (or Ja‘fari) Shi‘ah is justified
by Divine Revelation or not.
The Doctrine of Imamah
Before going any further it would be well-advised, for the benefit of those who may not be fully aware
of what the Imamah of the Shi‘ah means, to expand somewhat upon the detail of the issue. Once the
reader has a proper focus of what Imamah means to the Shi‘ah, and what its position in the belief
structure of the Shi‘ah is, we will continue with our discussion of that doctrine in the light of the Qur’an.
Essentially, Imamah is about leadership of the Ummah after the demise of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam. The Shi‘ah believe that just as Allah chose Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam as His
Messenger to mankind, he chose and appointed a line of twelve men to succeed him as the leaders of
the Ummah in all matters, spiritual as well as temporal. The first of these leaders, or Imams as they are
called, was ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu. He was succeeded by his eldest son Hasan, and he by
his brother Husayn. After Husayn the Imamah continued in his progeny until the year 260AH, when the
twelfth Imam, a child of five, disappeared upon the death of his father. He is believed to be the Awaited
Mahdi who will return from occultation to establish justice upon the earth. To these twelve men from
amongst the family of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam alone belongs the right to assume
leadership of the Ummah. There are two aspects to Imamah that need to be looked at with attention.
The first is the nature of the appointment of the Imams, and the second is the nature of their office.
The nature of the appointment
of the Twelve Imams
As far as the nature of their appointment is concerned, it is a matter of consensus amongst the Shi‘ah
that the right of their twelve Imams to lead the Ummah was bestowed by Allah Ta‘ala Himself. No
distinction is made between the appointment of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam as the
Messenger of Allah and the appointment of the twelve Imams as his successors. Underscoring this vital
aspect of Imamah, ‘Allamah Muhammad Husayn Kashif al-Ghita, who was the most prominent Shi‘i
‘alim of Najaf in Iraq during the seventies, writes in his book Asl ash-Shi‘ah wa-Usuluha:
Imamah is a divine station, just like Nubuwwah. Just as Allah chooses
whomsoever He wants to for Nubuwwah and Risalah ... similarly, for
Imamah too, He selects whomsoever He wishes.1
It is interesting to note that the book from which this statement is drawn was written for the express
purpose of correcting contemporary misconceptions about the Shi‘ah. Since Imamah is then for all
practical purposes on exactly the same plane as Nubuwwah and Risalah, consistency would dictate that
the rejection of Imamah be censured with the same severity as the rejection of Nubuwwah and Risalah.
If rejection of the Nubuwwah of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam cast the likes of Abu Jahl and
Abu Lahab outside the fold of Islam, then it is only logical to expect that rejection of the Imamah of
‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu should cast the likes of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and the rest of the
Sahabah radiyallahu ‘anhum out of the fold of Islam. For one who views the problem from this
perspective it thus comes as no surprise to find the Shi‘ah narrating from their Imams that "all the
people became murtadd after the death of Rasulullah, except three,"2 since it is consistent with the
principle that equates Imamah with Nubuwwah in the sense that each of them is a position appointed by
Allah.
What is surprising is the opinion the Shi‘ah of today express about the Ahl as-Sunnah in general. One
would expect them to say about the Ahl as-Sunnah as they have said about the Sahabah: that they are
unbelievers, out of the fold of Islam. After all, there are many non-Muslims who believe in the oneness
of Allah, but do not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, and for that
reason we all regard them as unbelievers. If Imamah is then a "divine station, like Nubuwwah," Sunnis
who do not believe in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams must also be unbelievers. There have been
many ‘ulama of the Shi‘ah in the past who have displayed consistency in this regard and declared all
those who deny the Imamah of the Twelve Imams—like the Ahl as-Sunnah—unbelievers. For example,
Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (died 381AH), the author of one of the four canonical hadith collections of the
Shi‘ah, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, states in the treatise in which he expounds the creed of the Shi‘ah:
It is our belief about one who rejects the Imamah of Amir al-Mu’minin
(Sayyiduna ‘Ali) and the Imams after him that he is the same as one who
rejects the Nubuwwah of the Ambiya’.
It is our belief concerning a person who accepts (the Imamah of) Amir alMu’minin but rejects any one of the Imams after him, that he is similar to
one who believes in all the Ambiya’ but rejects the Nubuwwah of
Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. The Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam said: "The Imams after me are twelve. The first is Amir alMu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and the last is the Qa’im (the Mahdi).
Obedience to them is obedience to me, and disobedience to them is
disobedience to me. Thus, whoever rejects one of them has rejected me."
Whoever wrongfully claims the Imamah is an accursed oppressor.
Whoever places the Imamah in anyone besides its rightful repositories is an
accursed oppressor. The Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam said: "Whoever
shall deny ‘Ali his Imamah after me has denied my Nubuwwah, and
whoever denies me my Nubuwwah has denied Allah His divinity." Imam
Ja‘far as-Sadiq said: "Whoever doubts the kufr of our enemies is himself a
kafir."3
His student Shaykh Mufid (died 413AH) writes:
There is consensus amongst the Imamiyyah (the Ithna ‘Ashari or Ja‘fari
Shi‘ah) that whoever denies the Imamah of anyone of the Imams, and
denies the duty of obedience to them that Allah has decreed, that such a
person is a kafir, misguided, and that he deserves everlasting torment in
Hell.4
The prolific Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi, called Shaykh at-Ta’ifah, (died 460AH), who is the author of two of the
four canonical hadith collections, has the following to say:
Rejection of Imamah is kufr, just as rejection of Nubuwwah is kufr.5
The mujaddid of Shi‘ism in the eighth century after the Hijrah, Ibn Mutahhar al-Hilli (died 726AH)
expresses similar sentiments in the following terms:
Imamah is a universal grace (lutf ‘amm) while Nubuwwah is a special grace
(lutf khass), because it is possible that a specific period in time can be void
of a living Nabi, while the same is not true for the Imam. To reject the
universal grace is worse than to reject the special grace.6
This is the opinion held by four of the most eminent classical scholars of the Shi‘ah, and if seen from
the angle of consistency, it is a commendable position indeed. Yet, if one has to ask the Shi‘ah of today
(especially recent converts to Shi‘ism) whether they believe Sunnis are Muslims are not, they will
respond with surprise, and might even appear grieved at such a question. As far as recent converts to
Shi‘ism are concerned, this is to be expected, since it is in the interest of any propaganda scheme that
certain facts be kept secret from neophytes. However those who are more knowledgeable about the
technicalities of Shi‘ism will know that in the eyes of the Shi‘ah a distinction is made between a Muslim
and a Mu’min. All those who profess Islam outwardly are Muslims: Sunnis, Zaydis, Mu‘tazilis, and all
other sects. A Mu’min, however, is only he who believes in the Twelve Imams. By this clever ruse the
fuqaha of the Shi‘ah kill several birds with one stone. By accepting all other sects as Muslims they
protect themselves against the ridiculousness of casting out of the fold of Islam over 90% of its
adherents, and the same men who carried the banner of Islam to all corners of the world. At the same
time they avoid the antagonism of Sunnis and others, which facilitates proselytisation for them. On the
other hand, by the subtle measure of distinguishing Muslim from Mu’min they effectively
excommunicate their opponents. Muslims are those to whom the laws of Islam apply in this world. It is
therefore permissible to intermarry with them, to pray behind them, to eat what they slaughter, etc.,
while Mu’mins are those to whom salvation in the hereafter belongs exclusively, and that depends upon
belief in the Twelve Imams. This distinction between Muslim and Mu’min can be found throughout
classical Shi‘i literature. The seventh century faqih, Yahya ibn Sa‘id al-Hilli (died 690AH), for example
writes in his manual on fiqh, al-Jami‘ lish-Shara’i‘:
It is correct for a Muslim to make an endowment (waqf)
upon Muslims. Muslims are those who utter the two
shahadahs, and their children. But if a person makes
something waqf upon the Mu’minin, it will be exclusively for
the Imamiyyah who believe in the Imamah of the Twelve
Imams.7
Eight centuries later, exactly the same view is propounded by Ayatullah Khomeini. In his own manual
of fiqh, Tahrir al-Wasilah, he states:
If a person makes a waqf upon the Muslims it will be for all those who
confess the two shahadahs ... If an Imami makes a waqf upon the
Mu’minin it will be restricted to the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah.8
Some amongst the contemporary spokesmen for Shi‘ism, like Kashif al-Ghita, have realised that even
this ruse is not sufficiently subtle. He thus devised another terminology. He speaks of being a Mu’min
in the special sense, and of being a Mu‘min in the general sense. Whoever believes in Imamah is
regarded as a Mu’min in the special sense, while those who do not believe in it are regarded as being
Mu’min in the general sense, as a result of which all the temporal laws of Islam are applicable to him.
The result of this difference, he says, will become apparent on the Day of Judgement, in the degrees of
Divine proximity and honour that will be bestowed upon the believers in Imamah.9
To us this reveals much more than what the author intended. It reveals to us that when the Shi‘ah say
they regard Sunnis as Muslims, it is in strict reference to worldly matters. In eschatological matters,
matters of the hereafter, Sunnis who do not believe in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams are just like
Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or any other rejectors of the Nubuwwah of Rasulullah sallallahu
‘alayhi wasallam. The only reason for saying that Sunnis are Muslims is expedience and convenience.
Without professing such an opinion the Shi‘ah would have had to retreat into seclusion and bear
ostracism from the rest of the Muslim world. This reason is given by Sayyid ‘Abdullah Shubbar (died
1232AH) in his commentary of az-Ziyarat al-Jami‘ah, the comprehensive du‘a read at the graves of the
Imams. At the point where the ziyarah reads:
Whoever denies you is a kafir,
he comments upon it, saying:
There are many narrations that indicate that the opponents
are kafir. To document all of them would require a separate
book. Reconciling such narrations with that which is known
about the Imams, viz. that they used to live, eat and socialise
with them, leads to the conclusion that they (the opponents)
are kafir, and that they will dwell in Hell forever, but that in
this world the laws of Islam are applied to them as a gesture
of mercy and beneficence to the True Denomination (the
Shi‘ah), since it is impossible to avoid them.10
The nature of the office of the Imams
On this point it would be sufficient to say that the Shi‘ah bestow upon their Imams all the perfections
and accomplishments of the Ambiya’, and even more. It would be impossible to document here all the
narrations that deal with the status of the Imams, but it might be just as informative to quote the
chapters under which they have been documented in a source that is described as a "veritable
encyclopaedia of the knowledge of the Imams": Bihar al-Anwar of ‘Allamah Muhammad Baqir alMajlisi (died 1111AH), widely reputed to be the greatest and most influential Shi‘i scholar of the
Safawid era. During his lifetime he occupied the office of Shaykh al-Islam in Isfahan, capital of the
Safawids, and even to this day his works are indispensable to the Shi‘i clergy as well as their lay public.
We quote here the name of the chapter, as well as the number of narrations he documents in each
chapter:
1. The Imams possess more knowledge than the Ambiya’ (13
narrations)11
2. The Imams are superior to the Ambiya’ and the entire
creation. The Covenant of the Imams was taken from them
(the Ambiya’), the Mala’ikah and the entire creation. The
(major prophets called) ulul-‘Azm (Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa and
‘Isa ) attained the status of ulul-‘Azm on account of loving
the Imams. (88 narrations)12
3. The du‘as of the Ambiya’ were answered because they
invoked the wasilah of the Imams. (16 narrations)13
4. The Imams can bring the dead back to life. They can cure
blindness and leprosy. They possess all the miracles of the
Ambiya’ (4 narrations)14
5. Nothing of the knowledge of Heaven, Earth, Jannah and
Jahannam is hidden from them. The Kingdom of the
Heavens and the Earth was shown to them. They know all
that happened and that will happen upto the Day of
Resurrection. (22 narrations)15
6. The Imams know the truth of a person's faith or hypocrisy.
They possess a book that contains the names of the inmates
of Jannah, the names of their supporters and their enemies.
(40 narrations)16
The titles of these chapters create quite a vivid impression of the narrated material upon which the
Shi‘ah base their faith. The office of Imamah can thus be seen to incorporate more than just the political
leadership of the Ummah. The Imams are more than just heads of state with a divine right to rule. They
are the repositories of every branch of knowledge and perfection possessed by the Ambiya’. The
existence of the world depends upon their presence. They are the intermediaries upon whose
intercession acceptance of the prayers of even the Ambiya’ depends. Their office is one that combines
political, religious, scientific, cosmological and metaphysical supremacy over the entire creation. From
this one can understand the reason for al-Khomeini's statement in the book al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah,
upon which rests the entire philosophy of his revolution:
It is of the undeniable tenets of our faith that our Imams
possess a status with Allah that neither Angel nor Messenger
can aspire to.17
After this introduction to the concept of Imamah, the nature of the appointment of the Imams, and the
nature of their office, we pose the question: Is belief in such a concept justified and upheld by the
Qur’an? Surely a belief of such momentousness, an article of faith with such far reaching consequences,
that supercedes even belief in the Ambiya’, must be rooted in the Qur’an, the book which was revealed
by Allah
as an explanation of all things, a guide, a mercy,
and glad tidings to the Muslims. (an-Nahl:89)
It is with the purpose of answering this question that this article is written.
Imamah and Prophethood in the
Qur’an
In this article we investigate the Qur’anic foundations of the Shi‘ite concept of Imamah. By analysis of
the usage of the word imam and its plural form a’immah in the Qur’an we will investigate whether the
Qur’an provides any basis for the doctrine of Imamah as formulated in Shi‘ite theology.
In limiting our investigation to the Qur’an, it is not our contention that the Sunnah is inconsequential in
issues of doctrine. Instead, it is out of the conviction that a doctrinal issue like Imamah, which Shi‘ite
theology places above Nubuwwah, must find textual support from the Qur’an. After all, the "secondary"
issue of Nubuwwah finds more than ample support in the pages of the Qur’an. No one, after reading the
clear and unambiguous Qur’anic texts wherein Allah makes mention of His Messengers and Prophets,
their status,
And each (of them) we favoured above all the worlds. (al-An‘am : 86)
their stories,
And has there come to you the story of Musa? (Taha : 9)
And recite to them the story of Ibrahim. (ash-Shu‘ara : 69)
We relate unto you you the most beatiful of stories. (Yusuf : 4)
the explicit mention of their names,
Such was the argument we gave Ibrahim against his people. We raise in degree
whomsoever We will, and your Lord is Wise, All-Knowing. We gave him Ishaq and
Ya‘qub; each of them We guided. And before that, We guided Nuh, and among his
(Ibrahim's) progeny (We guided) Dawud, and Sulayman, and Ayyub, and Yusuf, and
Musa, and Harun; thus do We reward those who good. And (We guided) Zakariyya, and
Yahya, and ‘Isa, and Ilyas; all of them of the Righteous. And Isma‘il, and Alyasa‘, and
Yunus, and Lut; each of them We favoured above all the worlds. (al-An‘am : 83-86)
and the importance of belief in them as an integral part of faith in Islam,
And whoever denies Allah, His Messengers, His Books and the Last Day has clearly gone
astray. (an-Nisa’ : 136)
can reasonably doubt that the Qur’an supports, or rather enjoins, belief in Nubuwwah. The question now
is: Does the same hold true for Imamah? If Imamah is superior to Nubuwwah, as the theology of the
Ithna ‘Ashari Shi‘ah teaches, it would be only reasonable to expect that the Qur’an would deal in
equally explicit terms with Imamah; and if not, that at least a clear, unambiguous picture what Imamah
is and who the Imams are, would be drawn by the Qur’an.
Usage of the word Imam in the
Qur‘an
In what follows we will investigate how the word Imam and its plural A’immah have been used in the
Qur’an. From the way Allah has used the word in the Qur’an it will then be seen whether the Shi‘i
concept of Imamah that has been explained above, finds any sort of Qur’anic support.
A book
The word imam recurs 7 times in the Qur’an, while its plural form, a’immah, appears 5 times. In 3 of
these cases it refers explicitly to a book:
And before it was the Book of Musa, a guide and a mercy. (Hud : 17)
And before it was the Book of Musa, a guide and a mercy. (al-Ahqaf : 12)
Verily, we will restore the dead to life, and we write that which they sent forth, and that which they left
behind; and of everything we have taken account in a Clear Book. (Yasin : 12)
The champions of kufr
In another 2 cases it refers to the champions of kufr:
Fight the leaders of kufr. (at-Tawbah : 12)
And We made them leaders who call towards the Fire. (al-Qasas : 41)
A road
One reference is to a clearly discernible road:
And verily, the two (cities) lie next to a clear road. (alHijr : 79)
Leadership of the Israelites
In the remaining six places where the word is used, it is used in terms of its literal meaning, i.e.
leadership. In Surah al-Ambiya’ it is stated:
We said: O fire, be cool and (a means of ) safety unto Ibrahim. And they
planned against him; but We made them the greater losers. And We
delivered him and Lut to the land which We blessed for the nations. And
We gave him Ishaq, and Ya‘qub as an additional gift; and all of them We
made righteous men. And We made them leaders who guide by Our
command; and We revealed to them the doing of good, the establishment of
prayer and the giving of alms. And they were men who served Us. (alAmbiya’ : 69-73)
In this extract, which had to be extended somewhat in order that the reader may see the full context in
which the word a’immah is used, one clearly sees its association with the function of the Ambiya’ as the
leaders of men, who guide them towards Allah. This unequivocal identification of a’immah as Ambiya’
leads us to conclude that the reference in Surah as-Sajdah too, is to the Ambiya’, and not to any other
category of men:
Indeed, We gave Musa the Book, so be not in doubt about meeting him;
and We made it a (source of) guidance for the Children of Isra’il. And We
made from amongst them leaders who guided by Our command, when they
persevered. And they had full certainty in Our signs. (as-Sajdah : 23-24)
Even if the scope of a’immah in this verse were to be extended to include people other than the
Ambiya’, there is nothing to justify its identification with the elaborate doctrine of Imamah as
conceived of by the Shi‘ah.
In a third verse Allah speaks of His plans for the oppressed Israelites in Egypt:
And We wished to be gracious to those who were oppressed
in the land, and to make them leaders, and to make them
heirs. (al-Qasas : 5)
In order to see who the word a’immah refers to in this verse one only has to look at the persons in
whom this divine wish came to fulfilment. It was primarily in Nabi Musa and the other prophet-kings of
Bani Isra’il like Nabi Dawud and Nabi Sulayman ‘alayhimus salam that the leadership referred to in
this verse, came to be vested. If at times they were ruled by men other than the Ambiya’, the status of
those leaders was never seen to be superior to the rank of the Ambiya’. Verses like the above three,
apart from dealing specifically with the Ambiya’ of Bani Isra’il, are not in the least indicative of the
existence of a rank like that of Imamah as conceived of by the Shi‘ah.
Leadership of the pious
There remain three places where the word imam is mentioned in the Qur’an. In one of these three places
Allah speaks of the prayer of His exemplary worshippers:
(They are) those who say: Our Lord, grant us the coolness of (our) eyes in
our wives and children, and make us leaders of the pious. (al-Furqan : 74)
This verse speaks of normal people who do not belong to a special class like the Ambiya’, asking Allah
to make them imams, in the sense of paragons of virtue, whose example others would strive to emulate.
It is very obvious that it cannot refer to a group of "divinely appointed Imams", for the reason that the
Imams’ elevation to the rank of Imamah is not on account of their prayers. Since their appointment, like
that of the Ambiya’, is supposedly divine in origin, it not attainable by any amount of exertion or
devotion.
It is interesting to note that this verse proved to be so unpalatable to certain of the early Shi‘ah that they
declared it to have been corrupted. The following narration appears in the tafsir of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim alQummi, the teacher of Abu Ja‘far al-Kulayni:
It was read to Abu ‘Abdillah (i.e. Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq):
And make us leaders of the pious.
He said: "It would be an enormous thing for them to ask Allah to make
them Imams of the pious." [The Shi‘i concept of an Imam is intended, of
course, since the Imams are appointed, and no one can become an Imam by
praying for it.]
Someone enquired: "How was it then revealed, O son of Rasulullah?"
He replied: 'It was revealed:
...and make for us leaders from amongst the pious.18
This narration, documented in a tafsir of great repute amongst the early tafsirs of the Shi‘ah, (a tafsir, in
fact, that is described by its twentieth century editor as being "in reality the commentary of the Imams
al-Baqir and as-Sadiq,"19 and each one of whose narrators is regarded as reliable and credible by Shi‘i
hadith experts,20 which vouches for its authenticity by Shi‘i standards) obviates the need for further
discussion around the meaning of the word Imam as it appears in this ayah.
On the Day of Judgement
There remains one place in the Qur’an where the word Imam is used. It is in Surah al-Isra’ where Allah
Ta‘ala says:
The day when we will call all people by their leaders. (al-Isra’ : 71)
The Imam spoken of in this ayah is recognised by the mufassirun of the Ahl as-Sunnah as either the
book of deeds or the prophet to whose Ummah the person belonged. The first meaning is preferred by
Ibn Kathir,21 who mentions in support of his preference the ayat where the word Imam was used in the
sense of a book (see above). This meaning is further supported by the rest of the ayah:
So those who are given their book in their right hand will read their books.
The second meaning also finds ample support in the Qur’an. In another ayah Allah says:
How will it be when We bring forth from every Ummah a witness, and bring you (O
Muhammad) as a witness over these? (an-Nisa’:41)
From the way in which the position of the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam is compared to the position
of the "witnesses" of the other Ummahs we can only conclude that the reference is to the Ambiya. It
therefore follows that those Ummahs will be called by the names of their Ambiya. Calling the Ummahs
of the past by the names of the Ambiya who were sent to them is further a common thing in both the
Qur’an and the Sunnah. The ‘Ad, for example, are commonly referred to as "the people of Hud", just
like Banu Isra’il are called "the people of Musa". Identifying the Imam mentioned in the ayah under
discussion with the Ambiya is therefore warranted by both the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
As for the claim of the Shi‘ah that it refers to the Twelve Imams,22 this claim not only lacks Qur’anic
support, it also curtails the general scope of the ayah. The lack of Qur’anic support is evident from the
above discussion on the usage of the word Imam in the Qur’an. The restriction of the general scope of
the ayah arises from the chronological disparity between the times when the Twelve Imams lived, and
the periods during which previous Ummahs flourished. If we say that all Ummahs will be called by the
names of the Twelve Imams, then what about the Ummahs that existed before them? By whose name
will they be called? After all, the ayah says that all people will be called by their leaders.
In addition, when for argument's sake we do assume that the reference is to the the Twelve Imams, we
are left with a somewhat incongruous situation. Sayyiduna ‘Ali, the first of the Twelve Imams, died in
the year 40. His son Sayyiduna Hasan died nine years later, in 49. If Sayyiduna ‘Ali is the Imam for the
people of his time, Sayyiduna Hasan is left with only those people who were born during his nine years.
All the other people of his time who were alive during his father's time will form part of his father's
group, and not his. The tenure of the 3rd Imam lasted for 22 years; the 4th for 34 years; the 5th for 19
years; the 6th for 34 years; the 7th for 35 years; the 8th for 20 years; the 9th for 17 years; the 10th for
34 years; and the 11th for only 6 years. Suddenly, with the 12th Imam, the Awaited Mahdi, we have a
tenure of Imamah that has been running for over 1200 years. The group that will supposedly be called
by the name of the 11th Imam, for example, will only include people that were born during his Imamah
that ran from 254 up to 260, while the numbers of those who will be called by the name of the 12th
Imam will be practically incalculable.
Compare this incongruous scenario with the much more orderly and Qur’anic system of having the
various Ummahs called by the names of their Ambiya on the Day of Qiyamah, and the absurdity of
using the 71st ayah of Surah al-Isra’ to substantiate the doctrine of Imamah as conceived of by the
Shi‘ah will be fully exposed. There can be no question that the word Imam in this ayah does not refer to
the Twelve Imams.
SUMMARY
We have discussed here each and every place in the Qur’an where the word Imam and its plural
A’immah were used in the Qur’an. It was demonstrated how Allah Ta‘ala used this word to refer
variously to
a book (thrice)
the Champions of Kufr (twice)
a road (once)
the leaders of the Israelites
the leaders of the Pious
the Prophets or the Book
Any attempt by the Shi‘ah to identify their idiosyncratic notion of Imamah with the Imamah of the
Qur’an is totally incongruous. The closest they could come to it would be to draw a similarity between
their own Imamah and the leadership of the Israelites. However, such a similarity is immediately
rejected when one considers that this leadership of the Israelites is clearly identified in the Qur’an with
the Ambiya of Bani Isra’il. The Qur’an provides no grounds whatsoever to identify this leadership of
the Israelites with anyone but the Ambiya. It is not uncommon to find the Shi‘ah quoting verses such as
the 5th verse of Surah al-Qasas to substantiate their belief of Imamah. If they only took the trouble of
reading the verse in its proper context, without adding to it the excrescences of their own theology, they
will see just how far fetched their identification of Qur’anic Imamah with Shi‘i Imamah really is. In alQasas:5 for example, the reference is clearly to Musa and his people. Just how, one wonders, is that
verse extended to Ali ibn Abi Talib and eleven persons from his progeny?
The attempt to draw a comparison between the Qur’anic Leadership of the Pious and the Imamah of the
Shi‘ah is similarly fraught with problems. It has been seen above how this form of leadership is a favour
sought from Allah by His ideal servants. The Imamah of the Shi‘ah of the Shi‘ah, on the other hand, is
like Nubuwwah, divinely granted, and cannot be aspired to by any person. The utter lack of harmony
between this form of leadership and Shi‘i Imamah is nowhere more clearly brought to light than in the
authentically narrated saying of Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq which points at the corruption of the text of the
Qur’an at the hands of the Sahabah radiyallahu ‘anhum as the reason for the disparity.
The only other Qur’anic meaning of the word Imam left to the Shi‘ah is the one which refers to the Day
of Qiyamah, when nations will be called by their "Imams". Is it possible that the word "Imam" here
could be referring to the Shi‘i concept of Imamah? Unfortunately for the Shi‘ah, once again that is not
possible. It is not possible for two reasons:
Firstly, because a holistic reading of the immediately following verses, as well as of other
verses of the Qur’an point unmistakably to the fact that the Imamah spoken of here refers
either to the Ambiya, by whose names nations are called not only in the Hereafter, but in
the Qur’an and Sunnah too, or to their books of deeds by which they will be called to
account.
Secondly, because identifying the verse with the Shi‘i concept of Imamah leads to a very
problematic distribution of nations for the various Imams.
In conclusion, in the usage of the word "Imam" in the Qur’an there is
nothing whatsoever to support the belief of Imamah as conceived of by
the Shi‘ah.
___________________________
REFERENCES
1. Asl ash-Shi‘ah wa-Usuluha p. 58 (Mu’ssasat al-A‘lami, Beirut)
2. al-Kafi vol. 8 (Rawdat al-Kafi) p. 167 (Dar al-Adwa’, Beirut, 1992)
3. Risalat al-I‘tiqad pp. 111-114, quoted by al-Majlisi: Bihar al-Anwar vol. 27 p. 62 (Dar al-Kutub alIslamiyyah, Tehran, 1387)
4. al-Masa’il, quoted in Bihar al-Anwar vol. 8 p. 366
5. Talkhis ash-Shafi vol. 4 p. 131 (Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah, Qum, 3rd ed. 1394)
6. al-Alfayn p. 3 (al-Maktabah al-Haydariyyah, Najaf, 3rd ed. 1388)
7. al-Jami‘ lish-Shara’i‘ p. 371 (Mu’assasat Sayyid ash-Shuhada’ al-‘Ilmiyyah, Qum, 1405)
8. Tahrir al-Wasilah vol. 2 p. 72 (Mu’assasat Isma‘iliyan, Qum 1408)
9. Asl ash-Shi‘ah wa-Usuluha pp. 58-59
10. al-Anwar al-Lami‘ah Sharh az-Ziyarat al-Jami‘ah p. 176 (Mu‘assasat al-Bi‘thah, Mashhad, 1st ed. 1457)
11. Bihar al-Anwar vol. 26 pp. 194-200
12. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 267-318
13. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 319-332
14. ibid. vol. 27 pp. 29-31
15. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 109-107
16. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 117-132
17. al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah p. 52 (Ministry of Guidance, Iran. )
18.Tafsir (‘Ali ibn Ibrahim) al-Qummi vol.1 p. 10 (ed. Sayyid Tayyib al-Musawi, 2nd edition,
Kitabfarosh ‘Allameh, Qum 1968)
19.ibid., editor's introduction.
20.Abu Talib at-Tajlil at-Tabrizi: Mu‘jam ath-Thiqat p. 224 (Mu’assasat an-Nashr al-Islami,
Qum 1404AH). In this book the author has compiled a list of all reliable hadith narrators of the
Shi‘ah. One of his sources is the tafsir of al-Qummi. In the third chapter of this book he gives a
list of the narrators upon whom al-Qummi has relied in narrating the material contained in his
tafsir, quoting al-Qummi's statement in the introduction to his book, that "we will mention and
inform about that which reached us, which our mentors and reliable narrators have narrated". He
then quotes the author of Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah who states that "‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi has
testified that his tafsir is narrated from the Imams by reliable narrators." (Wasa’il vol. 3 p. 524)
21.Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 3 p. 52 (Maktabah Dar at-Turath, Cairo n.d.)
22.In the first volume of al-Kafi this ayah is used thrice in relation to the Imams.
Ya Allah
or
Ya Ali, Ya Hussain?
by Muhammad Alkhider
The Sunnies do like members of the Prophet’s family. As such, they say it is incumbent
upon every Muslim man or woman to love them. However, the Sunnies do resent the act
of appealing for assistance from the members of the Prophet’s Household that is
commonly perpetrated by the Shiite Adherents. For they seek help especially from AlHussein and others.
How can a reasoning person seek assistance in meeting his requirements and obtaining his
needs from creatures other than their Creator, God Almighty? Yet such a person repeats
the following words of God in his prayer (sala’t) at least seventeen times a day: “Thee do
we worship, and Thine aid we seek.” Chapter I (Surat Al-Fa’tiha)
Amazingly, you see such people who seek help from other than God Almighty Asking for
help: O Hussein! O Ali! O Mahdi! And perhaps: O Abbas…! They appeal for help from
the aforementioned relatives of the Prophet (PBUH) to assist them obtain their needs, or
to help them remove lessen whatever overburdens them.
As far as the Sunni Muslims are concerned, when they are in distress, they only call : “O
Allah!” They do turn to Him only in their quest for help as they appeal for aid from Him
only to remove their agony. They do that with clear perception that supplication to the
Only One God is one of the aspects of worship as the Messenger of God (Peace be upon
him) prescribed for them. In this respect, supplication to other than Allah the Omniscient
is ipso facto worshipping other than Him. Indeed the Shiite adherents do love excessively
members of the Prophetic Household without observing the fact that they are mere
humans and not gods. It should be borne in mind that mankind, can neither inflict
anybody with harm nor confer benefit to him whatever their ranks and prestige may be in
the sight of God Almighty. For Only God Almighty can cause harm or bring benefit to us.
Some of the Shiite accounts have dedicated duties to each one of their Imams as regards
conferring of benefits and infliction of harm to people. They thus said: As far as Ali bin
Al-Hussein is concerned, his name shall be invoked to save people from tyrannical kings
as well as from the evil whispering of the Devil. Muhammad bin Ali and Jaafar bin
Muhammad, will be responsible for saving the Shiite adherents from the Hell-Fire on the
Day of Judgment, and to guide people to the true way of worshipping Allah the
Omnipotent and obeying His commandments. Musa bin Jaafar, was assigned the duty of
mediation to God Almighty for those who seek good health from Him. Whereas the duty
assigned to Ali bin Musa was to mediate to God Almighty for people who seek safety
when navigating or sailing in the Sea and those who travel on the mainland. As regards
Muhammad bin Ali, through him sustenance will be proceeding from God Almighty.
While through Ali bin Muhammad’s name, the optional acts of devotion, nice treatment
of brothers toward each other, and all the other acts of obedience and worship of Allah
Almighty will be accepted. Regarding Al-Hassan bin Ali, his duty and obligation is to
serve the Shiite adherents in the hereafter. Whereas the responsibility of the Custodian of
Time, is to rescue the people who are about to be stabbed to death, if they appeal for his
assistance.
There then came the author of the book entitled: “Biha’r Al-Anwa’r” [Seas of the
Lights]. He illustrated in his book the supplication to be said earnestly when appealing for
the aid of the Imams within the scope of their duties and obligations as elaborated above.
In this respect, Al-Majlisi, one of the prominent Shiite Scholars, concluded that the abovementioned cults are the greatest medicine and means of cure for whosoever intercedes
with them. As such, the Shiite Scholars prescribed supplications (Ad’iyah), with regard to
the aforementioned pattern of placing their hope in their Imams [religious leaders] and
seeking their assistance. Hence, they do turn to their Imams for aid when in distress and
invoke their names respectively. This is done in response to their awaited Imam’s
narrative, in the following text: “O pillars of the countries, gates of faith, and granters
of donations, it is decreed that by you the distressed and destitute will be saved.
Nothing can happen without you being a reason and an obvious way towards its
occurrence. There is neither deliverance nor resort from fear except by taking
shelter in you, and there is no way we can dispense with you… O eyes of God that
never relent” (Bihar Al-Anwa’r, 37/94)
I am well aware that the Shiite Adherents do not exalt their Imams to the rank of divinity
and claim they are gods. Besides, they regard it as a big enormity. However, we cannot
conceal the reality that, while they do not deify their Imams, they, in the long run bestow
lavishly upon them distinctive attributes of divinity in one way or the other. Thus
invoking God Almighty by mentioning their names, has become a means by which their
prayers and supplications are accepted to God Almighty according to their belief.
Whereas God Almighty says in the Holy Qura’an: “The most beautiful names belong to
Allah: so call on Him by them…” (7: 180)
However, belief in their religious leadership (Imamah) has become a precondition of
getting the acts of devotion of the Shiite Adherents accepted by God Almighty. Whereas
in Islam, the criterion by which our acts of devotion are accepted or rejected, is the Unity
of Allah Almighty (Tawheedullah) and sincerity to Him.
How often do you hear some of the Shiite Adherents repeat: “O Ali provide supplies! O
Hussein, rescue us! While others abide by the grave of Al-Imam Ridha, crying and
rubbing along his tomb, kissing it and either invoke his name or swear their fealty thereat.
Then after that he says unashamedly: “I do not worship him; i,e. any of the
aforementioned Imams. This fact is embodied in their dictum: “Call upon Ali, the
revealer of wonders.” When you ask such people: “Do you worship Ali? They
categorically deny it. Whereas they call upon his name appealing for aid from him in
obtaining their most demanding needs. What a double standard!
Suppose, we submit to the fake belief that their Imams are regarded as abode for those in
need, sanctuary for the sorrowful ones, peace for the grieved and an epicenter of the
praying masses. This belief being due to the fact that supplications cannot be accepted to
God Almighty except by mentioning their (Imams’) names. Therefore, what is the
difference between this false proposition and the claim of the polytheists (Mush’rikoona)
regarding their idols?
Yes, there is a difference. The polytheists in times of adversity used to invoke and
supplicate to Allah Almighty in a bid for rescue. God says in the Holy Qur’an: “Now if
they embark on a boat, they call on Allah, making their devotion sincerely (and
exclusively) to Him. But when He has delivered them safely to (dry) land, behold,
they give a share (of their worship to others)! (29: 65)
As regards the Shiite Adherents, they associate partners with God Almighty in both
happiness and adversity by invoking the names of their Imams in order to rescue them. In
addition to that, they supplicate to God, the Exalted in Might, through the names of their
Imams. Moreover, they claim blatantly that God Almighty cannot remove affliction from
any person save by praying to Him taking in consideration the names of their Imams. God
forbid!
In fact, the audacity and boldness of the originators of this baseless creed, have both
prompted them to mention in one of their reliable sources of Hadith (Prophetic traditions),
in one of its sections, the following baseless claim: “Supplications of all the prophets and
messengers of God Almighty were accepted to Him by solicitation and mediation of the
Imams (May peace and blessings of God be upon them all.) (Biha’r Al-An’wa’r 26/319 –
334)
Narratives in this chapter are numerous and elaborate and are referred to in many reliable
Shiite Sources. One of them says: “It was reported that Imam Ridha [on him be peace]
said: “When prophet Noah (Peace be upon him) was about to drown in the flooding
waters, he invoked God Almighty by our names. Hence God Almighty came to his
rescue. When Prophet Ibrahim (Peace be upon him) was thrown into the scorching fire, he
prayed to God through our names, and God Almighty ordered the fire to be cool and a
means of safety for him [Ibrahim]. When prophet Musa (Peace be upon him) struck the
Sea with his rod in quest of a path, he invoked God with respect to our names and God
made the sea dry out. Finally when the Jews plotted to kill Isa [Jesus] (Peace be upon
him), he supplicated to God by mentioning our names and was rescued from death. God
eventually raised him up.” (Wasa’il As-Sheea 4/1143)
This, in brief is the claim of the Shiite Believers. However, Allah Almighty says in the
Holy Qur’an: “The most beautiful names belong to Allah; so call on Him by them…”
(7: 180)
God Almighty did not say: “So call on Him by the names of the Imams, their shrines,
sights or ranks.” However, God Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an: And your Lord
says: “Call on Me, I will answer your (prayer.) (40: 60)
If the precondition of getting our prayers accepted to God Almighty were to supplicate to
Him through the names of the Imams, He would have said: “Call on Me by the names of
the Imams, I will answer your prayer.”
In fact, the false prerequisite that is stipulated in the unauthenticated Shiite Belief is
among the factors that lead to the rejection of our prayers by God Almighty. For, sincerity
in prayer and supplication, is one of the conditions that lead to the acceptance of our
entire acts of worship and devotion to Allah Almighty. God, the Most High says in the
Holy Qur’an: “Call ye, then, upon Allah with sincere devotion to Him, even though
the Unbelievers may detest it.” (40: 14)
God Almighty also says: “… and call upon Him, making your devotion sincere as in
His Sight.” (7: 29)
In fact, those Imams are humans like us; they cannot confer benefit or inflict harm on
themselves. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an: “Verily those whom ye call upon
besides Allah are servants like unto you. Call upon them, and let them listen to your
prayers, if ye are (indeed) truthful! (7: 194) Allah Almighty further says: “Yet have
they taken, besides Him, gods that can create nothing but are themselves created;
that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control Death nor
Life nor Resurrection.” (25: 03)
Allah Almighty did not distinguish in His worship, between His ordinary servants and
saintly men or angels closest to Him or prophets who were sent. All in His worship are
equal as His servants and creatures. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an: “Christ
disdaineth not to serve and worship Allah, nor do the angels, those nearest (to
Allah).” (4: 172)
It should be borne in mind that nurturing young children and inculcating in their minds
the falsely claimed obligation of supplicating to God Almighty confidentially and
intimately, through the names of the Imams, and by abiding by their graves, is without
doubt, a notorious way of rearing children. For, to inculcate in them the trend of resorting
to humans rather than seeking refuge with Allah Almighty, makes them grow up with the
same ideology which they will easily pass over to their children and grand children alike
in the long ran. Perhaps, the child may forget the remembrance of Allah Almighty for the
fact that remembrance of the Imams is always inevitably present in his heart and fresh on
his tongue, whenever he intends to pray or supplicate to God the Holy One. What a grave
sin!
Sadly, the nature of the Shiite Sites and Shrines testify to the yield of bitter fruits from
such legends and misguiding superstitions!
However, the claim that the supplications of the messengers were accepted by invoking
the names of the Shiite Imams is wrong, baseless and an indication of foolishness. For,
those Imams were non-existent during the prophets’ era. In addition, it is a claim that
leads to polytheism [Shirk] and ascribing of partners to God Almighty. Especially when
the names of the Imams are assumed as the key-factor for acceptance of our prayers and a
major prerequisite for getting our invocations answered by God Almighty. This is similar
to the unfounded claim of the polytheists who used to say that their idols drew them
nearer to God Almighty.
It is crystal-clear as stated in the Holy Qur’an that the mighty messengers of God used to
invoke and supplicate to Allah, the Exalted in Might, by mentioning His name and
attributes that confirm His Unity. Never did they pray to Him by mentioning the names of
the Shiite Imams. Allah Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an regarding prophet Yunus
[Jonah] (Peace be upon him): “… but he cried through the depths of darkness: “There
is no god but Thou: Glory to Thee: I was indeed wrong.” (21: 87)
Another proof to the aforementioned fact are the words of repentance that Allah Almighty
revealed to Adam (Peace be upon him): They said: “Our Lord! We have wronged our
own souls: if thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall
certainly be lost.” (07: 23)
The Myth of the
Shi‘i Mahdi
by
Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi
The 15th of Sha‘baan is a very significant date, both to the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah.
The Shi‘ah, however, have their own reason for ascribing significance to this night. To
them it is the night of the birth of their twelfth Imam, the Hidden Mahdi.
Who is this Mahdi whose return to this world is so eagerly awaited by the Shi‘ah, and
belief in whose existence in occultation forms such a integral aspect of the Shi‘i psyche?
Before an adequate answer to this question may be given, there is a need to understand
certain aspects concerning the Shi‘i doctrine of Imamah.
Background
The cornerstone of the Shi‘i faith is the belief that the spiritual and temporal leadership of
this Ummah after the demise of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam is vested in the
Imam, who is appointed, like the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam himself, by Allah, and
who enjoys all the distinctions and privileges of the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam.
However, they believe that Imamah, unlike Nubuwwah, can never come to an end. In this
regard there is a well-known Shi‘i hadith which says that “the world cannot exist without
an Imam”, and another which goes that “if the earth were to be without an Imam for a
single day it would sink.”
Thus, when it came to pass that the first of those whom they regard as their Imams—
Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu— left this world, a problem arose. Some of those who
regarded themselves as his followers claimed that he did not in fact die, but that he will
return to establish justice. Others said that he was succeeded as Imam by his son Hasan,
who was in turn succeeded by his brother Husayn.
When Husayn died there were some who claimed to follow their other brother
Muhammad (known as Ibn al-Hanafiyyah) as their Imam. When he died his followers
claimed that he was in reality alive, and that he will return in due time. Others amongst
the Shi‘ah took Sayyiduna Husayn’s son, Ali, surnamed Zayn al-‘Abidin, as their Imam,
and upon his death transferred their loyalties to his son, Muhammad al-Baqir.
When al-Baqir died there were once again elements from amongst the Shi‘ah who denied
his death and claimed that he would return one day, while others took his son Ja‘far asSadiq as their Imam.
When he died there was mass confusion amongst the Shi‘ah: each of his sons Isma‘il,
Abdullah, Muhammad, Zakariyya, Ishaq and Musa was claimed by various groups
amongst the Shi‘ah to be their Imam. In addition to them there was a group who believed
that Ja‘far did not really die, and that he would return one day.
More or less the same thing happened at the death of his son Musa. Some of the Shi‘ah
denied his death, believing that he will return, and others decided to take as their new
Imam one of his sons. Some of these chose his son Ahmad, while others chose his other
son Ali ar-Rida.
After him they took as their Imam his son Muhammad al-Jawwad (or at-Taqi), and after
him his son Ali al-Hadi (or an-Naqi). At the death of Ali al-Hadi they looked upon his son
Hasan al-Askari as their new— and 11th— Imam.
The death of Hasan al-Askari
The above is a very brief synopsis of a tumultuous and confusing history— a history from
which a dedicated researcher might extract some very revealing facts about the
development of Shi‘ism.
However, that is not our concern at this moment. We have now arrived at the year 254
AH, the time when a major section of the Shi‘ah accepted as their Imam the 22-year old
Hasan, son of Ali al-Hadi, and 10th lineal descendant of Sayyiduna Ali and Sayyidah
Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anhuma. Six years later, in 260 AH, Hasan al-Askari, at the very
young age of 28, is lying on his deathbed, but unlike any of his forefathers he leaves no
offspring, no one to whom the Shi‘ah might appropriate as their new Imam.
The Shi‘ah who had been regarding Hasan al-Askari as their Imam were thrown into mass
disarray. Does this mean the end of the Imamah? The end of the Imamah would mean the
end of Shi‘ism. Were they prepared for that?
The confusion that reigned amongst the Shi‘ah after the death of Hasan al-Askari is
reflected by the Shi‘i writer Hasan ibn Musa an-Nawbakhti, who counts the emergence of
altogether 14 sects amongst the followers of Hasan al-Askari, each one with a different
view on the future of the Imamah and the identity of the next Imam. It must be noted that
an-Nawbakhti was alive at the time all of this was taking place. Another Shi‘i writer, Sa‘d
ibn Abdullah al-Qummi, who also lived during the same time, counts 15 sects, and a
century later the historian al-Mas‘udi enumerates altogether 20 separate sects.
Trends
There were four major trends amongst these various sects:
(1) There were those who accepted the death of Hasan al-Askari as a fact, and
accepted also the fact that he left no offspring. To them Imamah had thus
come to an end, just like Nubuwwah came to an end with the death of
Rasulullah r . However, there were some amongst them who kept hoping for
the advent of a new Imam.
(2) The second trend was one to which the student of the history of
“succession to the Imamah” would be much more used to. This was the
tendency to deny the death of Hasan al-Askari, and to claim that he would
return in the future to establish justice upon earth. We have seen this
tendency emerge amongst the Shi‘ah at more than one critical juncture in the
history of the Imamah of the Shi‘ah; it is therefore only logical to expect it to
resurface at a moment as critical as the death of Hasan al-Askari.
(3) The third trend was to extend the chain of Imamah to Hasan’s brother
Ja‘far.
(4) The fourth trend was the claim that Hasan al-Askari did in fact have a
son. It is the fourth trend which ultimately became the view of the dominant
group in Shi‘ism.
The missing son
This trend was spearheaded by persons who had set themselves up as the representatives
of the Imam, and who were in control of a network covering various parts of the Islamic
empire— a network for the purpose of collecting money in the name of the Imams of the
Ahl al-Bayt.
All followers of the Imams were obliged to pay one fifth of their income to the
representatives of the Imams. (This is a practice which continues up to today.) At the head
of this network was a man called Uthman ibn Sa‘id al-‘Amri. His manner of resolving the
predicament was unique: Hasan al-Askari was dead, he admitted, but he was not
childless. He had a 4-year old son, Muhammad, with whom no one but he— Uthman ibn
Sa‘id— could have contact. And from that point onwards he would act as the
representative (wakeel) of the Hidden Imam and collect money in his name.
To the fact that Hasan al-Askari’s own family were completely ignorant of the existence
of any child of his, and that his estate had been divided between his brother Ja‘far and his
mother, Uthman ibn Sa‘id and his ilk responded by denouncing Ja‘far as al-Kadhdhab
(the Liar).
In due time a fantastic story was brought into circulation about the union between Hasan
al-Askari and a Roman slave-girl, who is variously named as Narjis, Sawsan or
Mulaykah. She is mentioned as having been the daughter of Yusha‘ (Joshua), the Roman
emperor, who is a direct descendant of the apostle Simon Peter. But history shows that
there never was a Roman emperor of that name. The Roman emperor of the time was
Basil I, and neither he nor any other emperor is known to have descended from Peter. The
story goes on to tell of her capture by the Muslim army, how she eventually came to be
sold to Hasan al-Askari, and of her supernatural pregnancy and the secret birth of the son
of whom no one— aside from Uthman ibn Sa‘id and his clique— knew anything.
Everything about the child is enveloped in a thick and impenetrable cloud of mystery.
The four representatives
Uthman ibn Sa‘id remained the “representative of the Hidden Imam” for a number of
years. In all that time he was the only link the Shi‘ah had with their Imam. During that
time he supplied the Shi‘i community with tawqi‘at, or written communications, which he
claimed was written to them by the Hidden Imam. Many of these communications, which
are stilpreserved in books like at-Tusi’s Kitab al-Ghaybah, had to do with denouncing
other claimants to the position of representatives, who had come to realise exactly how
lucrative a position Uthman ibn Sa‘id had created for himself. The Shi‘i literature dealing
with Uthman ibn Sa‘id’s tenure as representative is replete with references to money
collected from the Shi‘i public.
When Uthman ibn Sa‘id died, his son Abu Ja‘far Muhammad produced a written
communication from the Hidden Imam in which he himself is appointed the second
representative, a position which he held for about 50 years. He too, like his father, had to
deal with several rival claimants to his position, but the tawqi‘at which he regularly
produced to denounce them and reinforce his own position ensured the removal of such
obstacles and the continuation of support from a credulous Shi‘i public.
He was followed in this position by Abul Qasim ibn Rawh an-Nawbakhti, a scion of the
powerful and influential Nawbakhti family of Baghdad. Before succeeding Muhammad
ibn Uthman, Abul Qasim an-Nawbakhti was his chief aide in the collection of the onefifth taxes from the Shi‘ah. Like his two predecessors, he too had to deal with rival
claimants, one of whom, Muhammad ibn Ali ash-Shalmaghani used to be an accomplice
of his. He is reported in Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi’s book Kitab al-Ghaybah as having stated:
“We knew exactly what we were into with Abul Qasim ibn Rawh. We used to fight like
dogs over this matter (of being representative).”
When Abul Qasim an-Nawbakhti died in 326 AH he bequethed the position of
representative to Abul Hasan as-Samarri. Where the first three representatives were
shrewd manipulators, Abul Hasan as-Samarri proved to be a more conscientous person.
During his three years as representative there was a sudden drop in tawqi‘at. Upon his
deathbed he was asked who his successor would be, and answered that Allah would
Himself fulfil the matter. Could this perhaps be seen as a refusal on his part to perpetuate
a hoax that has gone on for too long? He also produced a tawqi‘ in which the Imam
declares that from that day till the day of his reappearance he will never again be seen,
and that anyone who claims to see him in that time is a liar.
Thus, after more or less 70 years, the last “door of contact” with the Hidden Imam closed.
The Shi‘ah term this period, in which there was contact with their Hidden Imam through
his representatives-cum-tax-collectors, the Lesser Occultation (al-Ghaybah as-Sughra),
and the period from the death of the last representative onwards the Greater Occultation
(al-Ghaybah al-Kubar). The Greater Occultation has already continued for over a
thousand years.
Activities of the representatives
When one reads the classical literature of the Shi‘ah in which the activities of the four
representatives are outlined, one is struck by the constantly recurring theme of money.
They are almost always mentioned in connection with receiving and collecting “the
Imam’s money” his loyal Shi‘i followers. There is a shocking lack of any activities of an
academic or spiritual nature. Not a single one of the four is credited with having compiled
any book, despite the fact that they were in exclusive communion with the last of the
Imams, the sole repository of the legacy of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam.
When we look at the major sources upon which the Shi‘i faith is based, we find that most
of them were written after the onset of the Greater Occultation. Those works, like al-Kafi,
which was written during the latter decades of the Lesser Occultation, contain scarcely a
reference to any of the four representatives as narrators from the Hidden Imam. Instead it
is filled with thousands of reports which go back, via other channels, to the fifth and the
sixth Imams. That is indeed strange, considering the fact that a man like Uthman ibn Sa‘id
al-‘Amri is claimed to have been closely associated with the 10th, the 11th as well as the
hidden 12th Imam, and also the fact that his son remained the Shi‘i community’s solitary
link to that Imam for half a century. Would it not have been better and more authoritative
for an author like al-Kulayni to report the hadith of his Imams from the Hidden Imam via
his representatives who lived in Baghdad at the same time as he rather than to trace it all
back to the fifth and sixth Imams through a myriad of doubtful channels?
But of course, he could not have done that, because the activities of those representatives
did not have as much to do with authentically preserving the legacy of the Ahl al-Bayt as
with the collection of wealth in their names.
In light of the fact that the Shi‘ah explain the necessity of Imamah in terms of the need for
an infallible guide who serves as the repository of the legacy of Ahl al-Bayt, it appears
extremely incongruous that this particular guide has left no sort of legacy of his own
whereby the legacy of the Ahl al-Bayt can be known. Despite the fact that an infallible
guide supposedly exists, it is upon fallible persons such as Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub alKulayni that the Shi‘ah must depend for that legacy.
The only bit of information that has come down to us regarding the Hidden Imam’s
authentication of the hadith legacy of the Shi‘ah is what is recorded by Aqa Muhammad
Baqir Khwansari in his book Rawdat al-Jannat. He writes that al-Kulayni’s book was
presented to the Hidden Imam who looked at it and declared, “Hadha Kaafin liShi‘atina” (This is enough for our Shi‘ah). This is incidentally how the book received its
name.
A report such as this creates a huge problem. It appears to be a ratification of the contents
of the book al-Kafi by the infallible Imam. Yet, 9 centuries later the Shi‘i muhaddith,
Mulla Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, would declare in his commentary on al-Kafi, named
Mir’at al-‘Uqul, that 9,485 out of the 16,121 narrations in al-Kafi are unreliable. What
did Majlisi know that the infallible Imam was so unaware of that he would authenticate a
book, 60% of whose contents would later be discovered to be unreliable?
Evaluation
The Iraqi Shi‘i scholar, Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr, finds proof for the existence of the
Hidden Mahdi in what he calls “the experience of a community”. The existence of the
Hidden Imam, he postulates, was experienced by the Shi‘i community as a whole in the
written communications that the representatives used supplied them with.
The crux of this argument lies in the fact that an individual experience might be doubted,
but never that of experience of an entire community. However, the glaring flaw in this
line of reasoning is that it very conveniently overlooks the part of the representatives as
the individual go-betweens.
The community never had the privilege of seeing or meeting the person they believed to
be the author of the tawqi‘at. Their experience was limited to receiving what the
representatives produced. Even the argument of a consistent handwriting in all the various
tawqi‘at is at best melancholy. There is no way one can get away from the fact that the
existence of the Hidden Imam rests upon nothing other than acceptance of the words of
the representatives.
The activities of those representatives furthermore go a long way to show that they were
much, much more inspired by the desire to possess than by pious sentiments of any kind.
So when the Shi‘ah commemorate the birth of their twelfth Imam on the 15th night of
Sha‘ban, or when they seek to apply ahadith in Sunni sources which speak of twelve
khalifas to their twelve Imams, then let us ask them on what basis do they accept the
existence of the twelfth one?
History bears witness to the existence of eleven persons in that specific line of descent,
but when we come to the twelfth one, all we have is claims made by persons whose
activities in the name of their Hidden Imam give us all the reason in the world to suspect
their honesty and integrity.
In Islam, issues of faith can never be based upon evidence of this kind.
Embassy Of The
Islamic Republic Of Iran
In the name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
In the last issue of “Al-Rasheed” an article entitled Abdullah lbn Saba: Founder of Shi’ism
was published in which unfortunately some accusations were made against Shi’ism.
The article, the author of which is not known, tries to, through some false accusations made
against Shi‘a Ulamahs, establish that the Jew Abdullah ibn Saba is the founder of Shia’ism,
and that Shi’ism is based on Judaism.
While the truth is that the quoted phrase is tampered with in a way which reflects an
understanding completely opposite to what the source reads.
Shi’ism, with millions of followers throughout the world, and having a historical background of
over 1400 years is based on Quran and Holy Hadiths by our beloved Prophet (peace be upon
him). For example to prove the Caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Shi’ites have had recourse to
some Quranic verses and hadiths of the Holy Prophet. Of course these hadiths, most of which
are also accepted by Sunnism, have not been understood by the two denominations in the
same way.
It is regrettable that in an era when the Muslims need to more than ever unite against their
fierce enemies; especially so amongst the two main schools of thought namely Sunnis and
Shia’s; such disturbing accusations are spread out; not giving enough time and means to
Shia’s and their beliefs.
Below I have enlisted a number of books as sources for seekers of truth and followers of
scientific and historic debates for their reference:
1. ABDULLAH IBN SABA AND OTHER MYTHS
by Allamah Askari
2. THE ORIGINS AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF SHI’A ISLAM
by S.H.M Jafri)
3. SHl’A
by Allamah Tabatabai
4. Computeric software including BIHAR AL-ANWAR and RIJAL ALKASHI.
A copy of these books is available in the Embassy’s library. I do not know however of the
existence of other copies elsewhere in the country.
Those interested are hereby invited to make use of our library to find out for themselves the
scientific and logical way in which the said unscientific accusations have been responded.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at the following number to arrange for such facilities.
OFFICE TEL: (012) 342 8880/1
FAX NO: (012) 342 4790
M.H. BORJIAN YAZDI
CULTURAL ATTACHE
I 6 AUG 1999
RESPONSE
Mr. M.H. Borjian Yazdi
Cultural Attaché
Iranian Embassy
Pretoria
Sir
Receipt has been taken of your letter dated 15 August 1999, in which you voiced dissatisfaction with
the article Abdullah ibn Saba: The Founder of Shi‘ism.
Your concern as the diplomatic representatives of Iran over an article of this nature is understood.
Understood too, are the sentiments you express where you say that “it is regrettable that in an era when
the Muslims need to more than ever united against their fierce enemies; especially so amongst the two
main schools of thought namely Sunnis and Shia’s; such disturbing accusations are spread out not
giving enough time and means to Shia’s and their beliefs.”
Sunnism & Shi‘ism
However, as much as one would want to gloss over the differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the
Shi‘ah, the fact of the matter is that the differences do exist, and that by their very nature they make
each group’s claim to the Truth an exclusive one.
It is precisely for this reason that the propagation of Shi‘ism has continued unabatedly in Sunni
societies, more often than not with funding from, and the sanction of, Iran. To the best of our
knowledge your government has never expressed the least reservation over the huge amount of Shi‘i
propagationist literature flowing to Sunni communities out of Iran, nor about the activities of
missionaries actively engaged in the propagation of Shi‘ism amongst Sunnis, with financial backing
from Iranian foundations.
This has given rise to a situation where the Ahl as-Sunnah have become so alarmed by the rate of
proselytising in their communities that calls of people like yourself for “Muslim unity in the face of the
fierce enemies of Islam” have come to be seen as a smokescreening device intended to create the
diversion under cover of which Shi‘i missionaries will penetrate into Sunni societies. If this assertion
could once upon a time be dismissed as an unfounded assumption, it has now found a basis for itself in
two decades of bitter experience, in South Africa and elsewhere.
It is not intended here to deny you the right to propagate your beliefs, since the constitution of our
country upholds freedom of belief. Our intention is to bring it to your notice that when the Shi‘ah have
opted to exercise their right to propagate their faith, they should not be surprised or express regret at the
inevitable consequences.
When Iran declared Ithna ‘Ashari Shi‘ism the state religion, it set itself up as the champion of Shi‘ism.
(Incidentally this is also the reason why you, as the cultural attaché of your country, took exception to
the article Abdullah ibn Saba: The Founder of Shi‘ism.) Therefore it is fully comprehensible to us why
Iran will not permit Sunni missionary groups to operate on Iranian soil. But we become completely
mystified when we see the double standards of Iran itself sending missionaries, or acquiescing to the
funding and sending of missionaries to communities such as ours who are not in a position to defend its
faith through political or legal power.
Crux of the issue
This issue does not revolve simply around Ibn Saba. It goes much further than that. It has to do in the
first instance with each group’s claim to being the true form of Islam, and by logical extension, with the
way in which each group accounts for the existence of the other.
The Shi‘ah and the Ahl as-Sunnah both claim that their form of Islam is the true one. This assertion is
probably beyond contention from either side. The real problem lies in the implication of these
respective claims. If “A” lays claim to the truth, it is simultaneously claiming that the claim of “B” is
false, and vice versa. We know that this perspective of the relationship between the Ahl as-Sunnah and
the Shi‘ah is an extremely sensitive one, but it is a question that must be addressed if we are to have an
appreciation of all the various dimensions to this issue.
Shi‘ism makes no secret of the fact that it regards the faith and practice of the Ahl as-Sunnah as the
corruption of Islam by the Companions of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam) primarily,
and the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties secondarily. References to support this contention abound in
the books of the Shi‘ah, some of which are now quoted here:
God knows what misfortunes Islam has suffered from its inception down to the present at
the hands of these evil ‘ulama! Abu Hurayra was one of the fuqaha, but God knows what
judgements he falsified for Mu‘awiyah and others like him, and what damage he inflicted
upon Islam. (Ayatullah Khomeini, Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of
Imam Khomeini, p. 114, translated and annotated by Hamid Algar)
We conclude here that the Shi‘ah are the true followers of the Prophetic Sunnah...
Whereas the Ahl as-Sunnah have expressly contradicted the Prophetic Sunnah.
(Muhammad Tijani Samawi, The Shi‘ah: The Real Followers of the Sunnah p. 314,
Ansariyan Publications, Qum 1995)
It is self evident that the Khulafa ar-Rashidun (except Imam ‘Ali) have practised ijtihad
with their opinions against the Prophetic Sunnah. (ibid. p. 315)
The religion was exploited for the political needs. Both the Omayyids and the Abbasids
deepened and strengthened sectarian and religious prejudices among the Muslims in order
to use them for their own purposes. They exaggerated and amplified the idea of seniority
of persons other than Ali in the matter of the Caliphate. In these efforts of theirs, they
were helped by those Ulema (scholars) who cared much for the worldly positions. The
rulers spent money on such scholars who in turn reported fabricated Traditions suitable to
the rulers, especially during the Omayyid period, as we have already said. People follow
the religion of their kings. They also said what their rulers did. Then came those who
were not aware of the real situation. saw these fabricated traditions and made-to-order
injunctions and took them for true ones. They further passed them on in their books.
Those who came later found these Traditions in the books attributed to great personalities
which made them accept them as true. Thus these traditions got disseminated between the
people. Everyone read them, talked about them in their gatherings and discussed them in
their classes and schools. In this time passed on and such ideas got currency amongst the
common masses so much so that those who knew the truth were swept away by the
pressure of public opinion and these false ideas, which it is proper to discuss, took the
form of a regular creed. (Hasan ul-Amine, Shorter Shi’ite Encyclopaedia, pp. 78-79,
Ansariyan Publications, Qum, 1997)
(For further reference, see the books an-Nass wal-Ijtihad by ‘Abd al-Husayn Sharaf ad-
Deen, and Ma‘alim al-Madrasatayn by Murtada al-‘Askari.)
We hope that notice will have been taken here of the fact that the quoted sources were published in Iran
within the last five years. If the Shi‘ah thus have a freedom of using the printed word for disseminating
their own opinion about the origin of Sunni faith and practice, we are baffled as to why umbrage should
be taken when the Ahl as-Sunnah express their honest opinion about the origins of Shi‘ism. If Iranian
sensors find nothing objectionable in literature such as the quoted sources, why should Sunnis be
expected to practice reservation? And, if such inflammatory statements do not give you, the Shi‘ah,
reason to regret that “in an era when the Muslims need to more than ever unite against their fierce
enemies; especially so amongst the two main schools of thought namely Sunnis and Shia’s; such
disturbing accusations are spread out”, why are we, the Ahl as-Sunnah, being told that making
accusations like this spells disaster for Muslim unity? Surely the authors of the quoted sources were
also not “giving enough time and means to Sunnis and their beliefs”.
For as long as the Shi‘ah will persist to view Muslim unity as a one-way street in which they alone have
the exclusive right to fling the stones and hurl the sticks, it will remain the mirage it presently is.
If, on the other hand, it is argued that these are things that are historically verifiable, we would submit
that if the act of verifying the truth is supposed to have a preconceived result, it is a meaningless
exercise. On the other hand, if it is going to be a completely objective process, it will inevitably threaten
the Muslim unity whose destruction you fear. But let us, for the sake of demonstration, engage in just
one such exercise.
Abdullah ibn Saba
Let us discuss, first of all, the historical existence, and thereafter, the role of Ibn Saba, in order to
ascertain whether the Sunni position that he was the founder of conventional Shi‘ism is based on
scientific research, or unfounded accusations.
The existence of Ibn Saba
Murtada al-‘Askari’s entire argument for denying Ibn Saba’s historicity rests upon the fact that Ibn Jarir
at-Tabari’s Tarikh, as the major reference for historical material on Ibn Saba, uses Sayf ibn ‘Umar atTamimi as his sole source for describing the character and exploits of Ibn Saba. He states on page 20:
All historians agree that the story [of Ibn Saba] was told first of all by Saif.
He then gives a list of 22 historians, all of whom have relied, directly or indirectly, upon the
information supplied by Sayf, and remarks:
The above list gives evidence to the fact that the story of ‘Abdullah Bin Saba’ has been
started by Saif and cited primarily from Tabari. (Murtada al-‘Askari, ‘Abdullah ibn Saba
and Other Myths, Part One, p. 21, second edition, published by A Group of Muslim
Brothers, Tehran 1981)
This is exactly the Achilles’ heel of al-‘Askari’s research. He has—intentionally or unintentionally—
displayed myopic scholarship by asserting that Sayf ibn ‘Umar is the only source for the existence of
Ibn Saba. A mere look at the biography of Sayf in Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani’s Lisan al-Mizan (vol. 4 p. 22
of the edition published by Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, and edited by Muhammad ‘Abd ar-Rahman alMar‘ashli) would have revealed to him just how erroneous his assertion is. The sources from which Ibn
Hajar has drawn, such as the 70 volume Tarikh Madinat Dimashq by Ibn ‘Asakir, and the Musnad by
Abu Ya‘la al-Mawsili have been published, and by means of their chains of narration that pass through
authorities other than Sayf ibn ‘Umar, eloquently testify to the intellectual deception practiced by
al-‘Askari. (See Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Madinat Dimashq vol. 29 pp. 3-10, where he has filled seven pages
with information on Ibn Saba.)
Al-‘Askari did in fact make mention of the history of Ibn ‘Asakir in his survey of the historical sources
that mention Ibn Saba. However, in his eagerness to create the (false) perception that all the historical
threads link up to Sayf ibn ‘Umar, he committed the deception of singling out one of the twelve
independent accounts as being derived by Ibn ‘Asakir through Sayf, and making as if the remaining 11
reports do not exist. (See ‘Abdullah ibn Saba and Other Myths, p. 47) The fact is that 10 of the
remaining 11 reports pass through authorities other than Sayf, but that is a fact that al-‘Askari
conveniently chose to overlook.
The term “intellectual deception” might seem a bit too harsh a description for a researcher who was
probably not informed about that wealth of information. But it appears very justified when it is
considered that the existence of Ibn Saba is attested to in the legacy of the Shi‘ah themselves, and by
the Imams of the Shi‘ah themselves. If it could be pleaded that al-‘Askari was ignorant of the historical
information documented by Ibn ‘Asakir and others, there is no way that same plea could ever be
accepted in terms of the legacy of the Shi‘ah. After all, a learned researcher who spent so much time
and effort fine-combing the voluminous works of history is definitely expected to encompass the
contents of his own legacy first.
In his survey of historical works, which he purports to be exhaustive, not a single mention has been
made of the literature of the Shi‘ah. Not a single classical Shi‘i source features on the chart he gives on
page 50. The fact is that the existence of Ibn Saba is attested to in almost every Shi‘i biographical work.
Dr. Sa‘di al-Hashimi in his book Ibn Saba: Haqiqah La Khayal (pp. 25-28, Maktabat ad-Dar, Madina
1406) has listed over 20 Shi‘i sources that testify to the existence of Ibn Saba. We might mention by
way of example just one of those works. Incidentally the book happens to be one of the books contained
in the list you mentioned in your letter. The only difference is that your copy is computerised, while
ours is a printed book. The book we refer to is Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal, which is Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi’s
recension of Abu ‘Amr al-Kashshi’s 4th century biographical dictionary of Shi‘i hadith narrators. In this
book the entry for Ibn Saba spans a full two pages (323-324), and consists of five separate reports, their
numbers running from 170 to 174. Below we give you a list of the Imams with whom these five reports
originate:
170: Imam Muhammad al-Baqir
171: Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq
172: Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq
173: Imam Zayn al-‘Abidin
174: Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq
(See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal, pp. 323-324, ed. as-Sayyid Mahdi ar-Rijali, published by
Mu’assasat Al al-Bayt, Qum, 1404)
The reporters of these narrations are all of the Shi‘ah. Therefore, if we were to apply al-‘Askari’s
hypothesis to these reports documented by al-Kashshi, we would have to conclude that Sayf ibn ‘Umar
even succeeded in pulling wool over the eyes of these venerable Imams by making them believe that
‘Abdullah ibn Saba, who is supposed to be a figment of his own imagination, actually existed. I think
you will agree that such a conclusion is highly absurd. It wouldn’t take a genius to figure that the source
of that absurdity is al-‘Askari’s hypothesis, “that the story of ‘Abdullah Bin Saba’ has been started by
Saif and cited primarily from Tabari”.
Another book you have listed iThe Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam by S.H.M. Jafri.
Please be informed that Jafri does not make any definitive conclusions about Ibn Saba. His words are:
Whether ‘Abd Allah bin Saba, to whom the history of the ghulat is traced, was a real
personality or not, the name as-Saba’iyya is often used to describe the ghulat in Kufa
who believed in the supernatural character of ‘Ali. (Jafri, The Origins and Early
Development of Shi‘a Islam, p. 300, Ansariyan Publications, Qum)
We have thus far had one Shi‘i writer—al-‘Askari—who completely denies the historicity of Ibn Saba,
and another—Jafri—who is undecided. We will add a citation from the work of a third contemporary
Shi‘i writer who categorically affirms the existence of Ibn Saba. Shaykh Muhammad Husayn az-Zayn
al-‘Amili writes in his book ash-Shi‘ah fit-Tarikh:
However it may be, Ibn Saba definitely existed and manifested ghuluww (extremism),
even though some people doubt his existence and made him out to be an imaginary
character created by personal interests. As for us, on grounds of the latest research we
have no doubt concerning his existence and his extremism... Yes, Ibn Saba exhibited
extremism in his religion. This innovation of his seeped into the thinking of a group that
was by no means small, and that group was named after him. (Muhammad Husayn azZayn, ash-Shi‘ah fit-Tarikh, p. 213, Dar al-Athar, Beirut, 1979)
Here we have three different positions on the existence of Ibn Saba. All three belong to Shi‘i writers.
Two of them are listed by you as “sources for seekers of truth and followers of scientific and historic
debates”. Do we have the freedom of choosing the one which seems most likely to be the truth, or is the
selection of the true opinion the prerogative of the Shi‘ah?
The role of Ibn Saba
Now, having dealt with the problem of Ibn Saba’s existence, we may move on to discuss his role in the
historical development of Shi‘ism.
Ibn Saba is held responsible for the introduction of many phenomena which later developed into
hallmark aspects of Shi‘ism. The Shi‘ah (or at least those of them who accept his existence, like Shaykh
Muhammad Husayn az-Zayn al-‘Amili) admit that he exhibited extremist tendencies. In the Tarikh of
Ibn ‘Asakir he is on record as having
1. vilified Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (Ibn ‘Asakir vol. 29 pp. 8,9)
2. believed the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam) to have imparted to ‘Ali special
knowledge which was not known to anyone but him. (Ibn ‘Asakir vol. 29 p. 9)
3. believed ‘Ali to have been the Dabbat al-Ard, the creator and the giver of sustenance (Ibn
‘Asakir vol. 29 p. 9)
The first two of these beliefs are common features of Ithna ‘Ashari Shi‘ism, while the third one
with its extremist overtones is more reminiscent of the Ghulat. We have already seen what Jafri
has written about Ibn Saba’s role in the origin of the Ghulat. That particular aspect of Ibn Saba’s
role finds further corroboration in the Shi‘i biographical literature. Al-Kashshi, for example,
reports the following
Hisham ibn Salim reports that Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) told his companions the
story of Ibn Saba, and his claims of divinity for Amir al-Mu’minin. He said: When he made
those claims Amir al-Muminin asked him to repent. He refused to repent, so Amir al-Mu’minin
burnt him fire. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 323)
Extremist tendencies like these were originally introduced by Ibn Saba. Before him no one, not
even the little group of Sahabah like Abu Dharr and Salman al-Farisi, whom the Shi‘ah look
upon as the early Shi‘ah, ever made such claims, neither did any one of them ever speak ill of
Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. This too, was invented by Ibn Saba.
Extremism did not die with the death of Ibn Saba. It persisted, and the centre of its activities, as
Jafri tells us in The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘ah Islam (p. 300), was the city of
Kufa. Here we stand before an interesting observation that was brought to light by Jafri. He
writes:
There is another important point that must be discussed here briefly. A considerable number of
traditions are to be found, especially in the earliest Shi‘i collection of hadith, Al-Kafi, which
describe the Imams as supernatural human beings. What was the origin of these traditions, and to
what extent are the Imams themselves responsible for them? These traditions are reported, as
indeed are all Shi‘i traditions, on the authority of one of the Imams, in this case from Al-Baqir
and Ja‘far. But were these Imams really the authors of such traditions, which describe their
supernatural character? The first thing which must be noted in this connection is that while AlBaqir and Ja‘far themselves lived in Medina, most of their followers lived in Kufa. This fact
brings us to a crucial problem. Kufa had long been a centre of ghulat speculations and activities.
Whether ‘Abd Allah bin Saba, to whom the history of the ghulat is traced, was a real personality
or not, the name as-Saba’iyya is often used to describe the ghulat in Kufa who believed in the
supernatural character of ‘Ali. According to the heresiographers, Ibn Saba was the first to preach
the doctrine of waqf (refusal to recognise the death of ‘Ali) and the first to condemn the first two
caliphs in addition to ‘Uthman. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam, p.
300, Ansariyan Publications, Qum)
This same Kufa, which was the hotbed of Shi‘i activities and ghulat tendencies, was also the
home of the most prolific narrators of the hadith which the Shi‘ah ascribe to the Imams, and
which are documented in their hadith compendiums such as al-Kafi, Man La Yahduruhu alFaqih, Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar. Since it is upon this corpus of narrated material that
the entire edifice of Shi‘ism rests, it would be of interest to see what kind of people were these
men on whose authority it is narrated from the Imams.
Some of the most prolific narrators of the Shi‘ah are
4. Zurarah ibn A`yan
5. Muhammad ibn Muslim at-Ta’ifi
6. Abu Basir Layth ibn al-Bakhtari al-Muradi
7. al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar al-Ju‘fi
All four of these men were from Kufah. Let us take a closer look at these men:
Zurarah ibn A‘yan
Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum states that the family of A‘yan, of which Zurarah was a scion, was the largest
Shi‘i family of Kufa. (Rijal as-Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum, a.k.a al-Fawa’id ar-Rijaliyyah, vol. 1 p. 222)
Zurarah has always posed a problem in Shi‘ism, because while is on the one hand regarded as the most
prolific narrator from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, the Imams are also recorded as having cursed
and excommunicated him. The Shi‘ah attempt to reconcile these two contradictory attitudes through the
dubious and completely unconvincing explanation of taqiyyah by the Imams.
Regarding the wealth of narrations which Zurarah reports, we are informed by al-Kashshi that had it not
been for Zurarah, the ahadith of al-Baqir would have been lost. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 345)
Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i has counted 2094 of his narrations in the four books, all of them from the
Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, (al-Khu’i, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith vol. 7 p. 249)
On the other hand, al-Kashshi records that Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq cursed Zurarah. The following
quotation is but one of several places where his cursing of Zurarah is on record:
By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he
has ascribed lies to me! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah
curse Zurarah! (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 361)
Despite Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s cursing of Zurarah, he is still accepted by the Shi‘ah as the most prolific
and reliable authority for the ahadith of the Imams. He hails from Kufa, the centre of the successors of
Ibn Saba; he is cursed by the Imam as Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali; and yet he is respected
as a trustworthy and reliable narrator of the ahadith which form the basis of Shi‘ism!
Muhammad ibn Muslim
Muhammad ibn Muslim is another Kufan narrator whose credentials as a narrator are extremely
suspect, but who is accepted by the Shi‘ah as a reliable narrator all the same. This Muhammad ibn Mus,
who claims to have heard 30 000 ahadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, and a further 16 000 from
his son Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 391) is also recorded by alKashshi to have been cursed by Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq (vol. 1 p. 394) just as Ibn Saba was cursed by his
great-grandfather!
Abu Basir al-Muradi
In Abu Basir we have another very prolific Kufan narrator whose character fails to convince anyone of
his trustworthiness. He, together with Zurarah, is regarded of those who preserved the legacy of the
Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq. He is one of a very select group of narrators about whom it is said that
“there is consensus amongst the Shi‘ah to accept what is authentically narrated from them.” (See alMamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 171)
However, Mir Damad in his annotations to Rijal al-Kashshi notes that the Shi‘i hadith critic Abul
Husayn ibn al-Ghada’iri said of him:
Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) used to get annoyed and upset with his presence,
and his companions are in disagreement amongst themselves about him. I (Ibn alGhada’iri) believe that he was cursed on account of (matters pertaining to) his religion,
not his narrations. To me he is a trustworthy narrator. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1
p. 397. See also al-Ardabili, Jami‘ ar-Ruwat vol. 3 p. 43)
Again we have here a most prolific Kufan narrator who was cursed by Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq just like
Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali!
al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar
Here we have another Kufan narrator who is regarded by eminent Shi‘i hadith critics as a reliable
transmitter of the Imams’ hadith. Al-Ardabili in Jami‘ ar-Ruwat (vol. 2 p. 258) records that Shaykh
Mufid mentioned al-Mufaddal as belonging to the “inner circle, reliable and pious Fuqaha” of Imam
Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s followers. Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi too, is quoted as having mentioned al-Mufaddal amongst
the mamduhin (praiseworthy).
But Imam Ja‘far is recorded by al-Kashshi to have addressed by calling him, “You Kafir! You
Mushrik!” (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 612) Another lengthier narration of al-Kashshi runs
as follows:
‘Abdullah ibn Miskan says: Hujr ibn Za’idah and ‘Amir ibn Judha‘ah al-Azdi came to
Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far] and told him: “May we be ransomed for you! Mufaddal
says that you [the Imams] determine the sustenance of the people.” He [Imam Ja‘far
said]: “By Allah, no one besides Allah determines our sustenance. One day I needed food
for my family. I was under difficult circumstances and thought hard about it, until I
managed to secure food for them. Only then did I feel content. May Allah curse him and
disown him.” They asked: “Do you curse and disown him?” He replied: “Yes, so you too,
curse him and disown him. May Allah and His messenger disown him.” (Ikhtiyar
Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614)
The above narration clearly identifies al-Mufaddal with the heresy originally introduced by Ibn Saba. In
the biography of Ibn Saba given in al-Kashshi’s Rijal, Imam al-Baqir is reported to have stated that Ibn
Saba claimed himself to be a prophet, and ‘Ali to be Allah (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 323).
If we return to al-Mufaddal’s biography in the same book we find the following:
Al-Kashshi says: The extremist Tayyarah mention in some of their books on the authority
of al-Mufaddal that he said: “Seventy prophets were killed with Abu Isma‘il, meaning
Abul Khattab, each one of whom had seen and announced his prophethood.”
[They also say] that he said: Twelve of us were admitted to the presence of Abu
‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq]. Abu ‘Abdillah started greeting each one of us, calling
each of us by the name of a prophet. To some he said, “Peace be upon you, O Nuh.” To
some he said, “Peace be upon you, O Ibrahim,” To last one he greeted he said, “Peace be
upon you, O Yunus.” Then he said, “Do not distinguish between the Prophets.” (Ikhtiyar
Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614)
This Mufaddal, whom al-Kashshi says was of the extremist Khattabiyyah sect, the followers of Abul
Khattab, whose beliefs derived directly from Ibn Saba himself—this Mufaddal is exonerated by
contemporary Shi‘i scholars such as Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Mamaqani, and Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i
as a most reliable and trustworthy transmitter of the knowledge of the Imams. Al-Mamaqani gives a
lengthy explanation about what exactly constitutes ghuluww (See Tanqih al-Maqal vol. 3 p. 240 and
Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 397) and concludes that the kind of things on account of which alMufaddal was labelled as a ghali has since become of the undeniable tenets (daririyyat) of Shi‘ism.
Conclusion
We have used the above three narrators merely as a specimen of the men upon whose narrations the
edifice of Shi‘ism rests. We consistently find disturbing points of resemblance between them and Ibn
Saba. They are cursed by the Imams just as Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali. Some of them held
beliefs that are identical to Ibn Saba’s innovations. They hail from Kufa, which Jafri tells us was the
stronghold of the Saba’iyyah.
Thus, after we have proven the historical existence of Ibn Saba, this investigation into the men
responsible for the narration, or creation, of the hadith legacy of the Shi‘ah leads us to the unequivocal
conclusion that what exists today as Shi‘ism, and specifically Twelver Shi‘ism, contains a substantial
chunk of the original heresy of Ibn Saba. We therefore feel that we have quite convincing reasons to
look upon ‘Abdullah ibn Saba as the Founder of Shi‘ism.
If this conclusion fails to find favour in Shi‘i circles, that cannot be helped. Just as the concern of the
Shi‘ah for Muslim unity in the face of the vicious enemies of Islam has never constituted an
impediment for them to state exactly how and what they perceive the faith and practice of the Ahl asSunnah to be, similarly, we feel that it is only fair if the Ahl as-Sunnah too, can exercise the right to
publish their viewpoint on the origin of Shi‘ism, without anyone, and least of all the Shi‘ah, demanding
from them to consider the danger that poses to Muslim unity.
If the state of Iran and its diplomatic representatives in South Africa are sincere in their concern for
Muslim unity, we suggest that they take a very serious look at the extent to which Shi‘ism is being
propagated in South Africa, as well as the provenance of the funding that supports those missions. Only
when you have proven your sincerity for the cause of Islam by removing that essential stumbling block
would we feel that your protest against the publication of an article like Abdullah ibn Saba: the Founder
of Shi‘ism deserves something more than a decisive dismissal.
Yours in the service of Islam
____________________
NB: We have copies of all the books you listed except Bihar al-Anwar. It would be
greatly appreciated if the embassy could arrange for us to have a copy of Bihar since it is
such an invaluable source of reference.
Next page
The event of
Ghadeer Khum
in
Quran, Sunnah & History
L:
By
Seif
As you know that the Shi`a say that Ali (rah) is the one who should have been the first
khalifa and not Abu Bakr (rah) (or Umar (rah) or Uthman (rah)). They bring some
evidences from the Sunni books (Bukhari, Muslim,..) and one of them is the hadeeth of
Ghadeer Khumm.
Before we start, we should Say that Ali (rah) is the husband of the daughter of the prophet
(peace be upon him), Fatima (rah, the best woman of the people of the Jannah), he is the
cousin of the prophet (peace be upon him), and he is the fourth of the rightly-guided
khalifahs and his qualities are all well known to us.
However, we are not talking about the qualities of Ali (rah), because we all know it. We
are discussing whether or not the hadeeth of Ghadeer Khumm is evidence that Ali should
have been the first khalifa.
We start by reading the hadeeth from Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5920:
Yazid b. Hayyan reported, I went along with Husain b. Sabra and 'Umar b. Muslim to Zaid
b. Arqam and, as we sat by his side, Husain said to him: Zaid. you have been able to
acquire a great virtue that you saw Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) listened to
his talk, fought by his side in (different) battles, offered prayer behind me. Zaid, you have
in fact earned a great virtue. Zaid, narrate to us what you heard from Allah's Messenger
(may peace be upon him). He said: I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I
have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him), so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do
not narrate do not compel me to do that. He then said: One day Allah's Messenger (may
peace be upon him) stood up to deliver sermon at a watering place known as Khumm
situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him and delivered the
sermon and. exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I
am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to
Allah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things:
the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to
the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and
then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to
the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his
household? Aren't his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are
the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom
acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and
the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and the
offspring of 'Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is
forbidden. Zaid said: Yes.
This hadeeth is also narrated in other books: Tirmithi, Ahmed, an-nasai, al-hakem and
others. Almost all the links are for pages in Arabic. I will translate the important points
inshaAllah as I go along.
Mosnad of Ahmed:
Ibn Namir told us that Abd Al-Malik (Ibn Abi-Sulayman) told us according to Attia Al-`ufi
who said: I asked Zayd Ibn Arqam and I told him that some people told me a hadeeth
according to you about Ali (rah) in the day of Ghadeer Khumm and I want to hear it from
you. So Zayd said: You people of Iraq, you have what you have. I told him: Do not worry
about me. He said: Yes we were in Al-Juhfa and the prophet(peace be upon him) came to
us holding the hands of Ali (rah) and said: O people don't you know that I am <awla> with
the believers from their selves. They said: Yes. He said: <man kuntu mawlaah fa Ali
mawlaah>. [Attia] said: Did he say: <Allahumma waali man waalah wa `ad man `adaah>
(O Allah: Befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to
him). [Zayd] said: I told you as I heard it.
The saying "man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah" is correct and strong.
The addition <allahummu wali man walaah wa `adi man `adaah>, "O Allah: Befriend
whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him" is also correct,
albeit weaker.
However, the scholars of hadeeth classify any extra additions as <mawdoo`> and hence we
will not talk about. We will only talk about the authentic versions shown above.
This hadeeth is used to prove that Ali is the khalifa. The Shia says that "mawla" means
"wali" (leader) and hence this incident means that the prophet is telling the Muslims that
Ali is the next khalifa.
This is their point regarding this hadeeth. The difference, then, is the meaning of "man
kuntu mawlah, fa Ali mawlah". The shi`ah says that it means "man kuntu waleeh, fa Ali
waleeh". The Sunnah says that it means love and close relation. Muwalat is the opposite of
Mu`adat. The proof comes from the first addition: "oh Allah waali man walaah wa `adi man
`adaah". (O Allah befriend whosover befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is
hostile to him). So we are talking about muwalah and mu`adat (love and enmity). It is about
the love of the people to Ali (rah).
Before we talk about that, let us talk about why the prophet said so. The Shi`ah claim that
the prophet ( peace be upon him ) stopped people in this place in the hot weather and they
say that their number was more than 100 thousand and that this was the place where all the
people of Hajj were gathered and the main reason is that the prophet ( peace be upon him )
wanted to tell the people "man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah" in addition to their additions.
The reason for this hadeeth is as follows:
Read this hadeeth from Bukhari volume 5, Book 59 Number 637:
Narrated Buraida: The Prophet sent 'Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I
hated Ali, and 'Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I
said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet I mentioned
that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate
him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus."
In other narrations (al-tirmithi and ahmed), in addition to the above, the prophet said: "O
buraida man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah"
So Ali took one of the slaves named Waseefa as his slave and then after having sexual act
with her, he was taking a bath. Buraida (rah) became angry. He thought why would Ali
take one of the slaves for himself. So he mentioned this to the prophet(peace be upon him).
Al-bayhaqi narrates from Abu sa'eed that Ali prevented them from riding the camels of the
sadaqa that they acquired. He then made a person to be their leader and went to the prophet
(peace be upon him). When Ali came back, he found that their leader gave them permission
to ride the camels. When Ali saw that, he became angry and he blamed the leader. (In
another narration, it mentions that they were new clothes that Ali prevented them from
wearing but they wear them despite his orders). Abu sa'eed said that when we went back to
madina, we mentioned to the prophet the harshness that we have seen from Ali. The
prophet said: Stop O saad ibn Malik: O By Allah I have known that he is done good for the
sake of Allah. (Ibn Katheer says that this hadeeth is <jayed> on the conditions of AlNasaie)
Ibn Katheer said that the people in the army started to talk about Ali (rah) because he
prevented them from riding the camels and took back the new clothes that they acquired.
Because of that, after the prophet ( peace be upon him ) was done with the Hajj and while
returning back to Madina, he stopped to explain to the people how some of the qualities of
Ali and stress the closeness of Ali to him and the importance of loving Ali. He did so to
remove what was in many of the hearts of some of the people against Ali.
That's why the prophet ( peace be upon him ) delayed talking about this topic until they
were close to Madina and he didn't talk about it in Makkah during the Hajj. On the day of
Arafa, the prophet ( peace be upon him ) spoke to the people and and he never mentioned
this topic at all. After he finished his sermon, he said "Did I convey the message" and the
people said "Yes" then he said "O Allah be my witness".
Why did he delay the topic till after Hajj? Because this topic is only of concern to the
people of Madina because those who talked about Ali were from Madina as they were the
ones who went with Ali to the battle. He talked about it in a place called ghadeer khumm in
a place called Ju’fa, which is about 250 km from Makkah.
(See map:
A simple look at the map is enough to refute the shi`ah claim that this is the gathering place
of the the Hajeej. People gather for Hajj at Makkah and leave the Hajj at Makkah. The
Hajeej don't leave from a place 250 km from Makkah. After Hajj, the people of Makkah
stay at Makkah. The people of Al-Taif go to Al-Taif. The people of Yemen go to Yemen.
The people of al-kufa go to al-kufa and so on. All the tribes go back to their homes. The
people that went with the prophet(peace be upon him) were the people of Madinah and
those who are using the road of Madina to go to their dwellings. These are the ones that the
prophet( peace be upon him ) talked to when he said: "man ..".
Also the speech was not only about Ali despite the fact that Ali deserves the speech and
more (may Allah be pleased with him). But in the speech, the prophet ( peace be upon him )
reminded the people with the Quran and its importance. He also reminded the people of the
love of his household (may Allah be pleased with them) and then he mentioned Ali (rah).
So there were more than one topic that the prophet ( peace be upon him ) talked about.
The meaning of ( Mawla )
Ibn Al-Atheer says that the word (mawal) in the Arabic language could only mean:
rabb = Lord
malik = owner
mun`im = benefactor
mu'tiq = liberator
naser = helper
muheb = lover
haleef = ally
aabd = slave (for example: Zaid ibn haretha was the mawla of the prophet ( peace be upon
him ))
sihr = brother-in-law
ibn al `am = cousin
The arabs would use the word mawlah to mean all of the above. But what did the prophet
( peace be upon him ) mean by his word?
First the hadeeth has no evidences for the imamah (leadership) because if the prophet
( peace be upon him ) wanted to mean khilafah or imamah, he wouldn't have used a word
that can have all these meanings. He would have said something like: Ali is your khalifa (or
imam) after me, or when I die, listen and obey to Ali ibn Abi Talib. But the prophet didn't
use any of these clear words. He said: "man kuntu ...".
Imam Shafi'i says that this is the walaa of Al-islam because Allah(swt) says in the Quran
(Surat Muhammad,verse 11:
That is because Allah is the Protector (mawala) of those who believe, and because the
unbelievers shall have no protector for them (47:11)
In the Quran (Surat Al-hadid (The Iron), verse 15), Allah (swt) says:
So today ransom shall not be accepted from you nor from those who disbelieved; your
abode is the fire; it is your friend (mawlakum) and evil is the resort.
He called the hell fire "mawla" for the extreme closeness to it by the kuffar.
Note also that the word mawlah is different than the word waly.
The waly comes from walayah which is the leadership. Whereas mawlah comes from
wilayah which is love and nusrah (help and aid).
Allah (swt) says in the Quran (Surat At-tahrim ,verse 4):
Then surely Allah it is Who is his Guardian (mawlah), and Jibreel and -the believers that do
good, and the angels after that are the aiders.
It means love, nusrah and help.
The prophet ( peace be upon him ) used the word mawla not only to describe Ali but to
others as well. The following hadeeth is narrated in Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number
715 & and others.
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "The tribes of Quraish, Al-Ansar, Juhaina,
Muzaina, Aslam, Ghifar and Ashja' are my helpers (mawaalii),, and they have no protector
(i.e. Master) except Allah and His Apostle."
There are other examples as well but I think that the above is sufficient to make the point.
It is also important to point out that the prophet ( peace be upon him ) did not say "after
me" (in any authentic narration). He only said "man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah" without
giving any time frame. This means that this fact is timeless. If the prophet ( peace be upon
him ) had meant "whoever among you is under my leadership, he is also under the
leadership of Ali", which is the meaning that the Shi`a understands, if the prophet had
meant it as such, then there would be a big problem. Two leadership for the Muslim ummah
at the time of the prophet ( peace be upon him ) does not make a lot of sense.
Of course, the prophet did not mean it that way and also the companions at that time did not
understand it that way, otherwise there would be a great fitnah. However, it is possible to
have more than one mawla at the same time - to love, help and aid the prophet and to love
help and aid Ali (rah).
I hope that the above is simple and clear. If, however, you have any particular doubts or
confusions, please let me know and inshaAllah I can delve more into it. The Sunni view is
that the hadeeth of ghadir khum has nothing to do with who the leader is after the prophet
(peace be upon him).
It means, however, that Ali is loved by the prophet (peace be upon him) and that we should
love him and give nusrah to him. May Allah (swt) join us with Ali and the rest of the
companions (may Allah be pleased with them all) on the pool to drink from the honorable
hands of the prophet ( peace be upon him ).
Unmasking the other villains of Karbalâ
Retelling the tragedy of Karbalâ has traditionally been an important feature of Shî‘î spirituality. The
passion plays of Iran and the Indian subcontinent, the literature, both prose and poetry, composed upon
the subject of the martyrdom of Sayyidunâ Husayn radiyallâhu ‘anhu and the general atmosphere of
mourning that reigns amongst the Shî‘ah during the month of Muharram, all bear eloquent testimony to
importance of that event in the Shî‘î calendar. To the Shî‘ah, ‘Âshurâ is probably the most important day
of the year.
However, it is regrettable that despite the huge amount of attention the subject of Karbalâ enjoys, the
event is persistently portrayed as two-sided. It is always depicted as Husayn against Yazîd, Right rising
up against Wrong, the Quest for Justice against the Forces of Oppression. Many an opportunist has even
gone to the extent of superimposing upon the event the theme of Shî‘ah against Ahl as-Sunnah.
In this partial retelling that concentrates upon what actually happened at Karbalâ, and conveniently
draws attention away from the other guilty party in the ‘Âshûrâ tragedy, lies another tragedy in itself.
For while Husayn's martyrdom has been oft commemorated, and his physical opponents and killers
identified, cursed and eliminated, no one has spared a moment's anger for those who deserted him at the
crucial hour. It is these men in the shadows, who squarely deserve to be called the real villains of
Karbalâ, upon whom this article seeks to cast light.
It was in Ramadân 60AH that the letters from Kûfah started to arrive at the house of ‘Abbâs ibn ‘Abd alMuttalib in Makkah where Husayn ibn ‘Alî was staying after his flight from Madînah, letters urging
him to lead the Kû fans into revolt against Yazîd ibn Mu‘âwiyah, and assuring him of their loyalty and
allegiance. Mu‘âwiyah died two months earlier, and there was much resentment for his son Yazîd for
whom the bay‘ah was taken as his successor. The people of Kûfah especially were looking at Husayn
for leadership, and soon there was stream of letters coming in from Kûfah. On certain days there would
be as many as 600 letters, with messengers who enthusiastically described the support he would receive
from the Kûfans.
Kûfah was a unique place, and the Kûfans a peculiar people. In 37AH Sayyidunâ ‘Alî radiyallâhu
‘anhu shifted his capital from Madînah to Kûfah, and ever since that city became the home of those
who claimed partisanship of the Ahl al-Bayt. After the reconciliation between Hasan and Mu‘âwiyah in
41AH many of those who had been in Sayyidunâ Hasan's army settled in Kûfah. At the time of
Mu‘âwiyah's death in 60AH pro-‘Alid sentiments were still to be found in abundance in Kûfah. At the
time of Mu‘âwiyah' s death in 60 AH Kûfah was still very strongly pro-‘ Alid. Thus when the
opportunity arose the Kûfans, who still regarded themselves as the Shî‘ah (supporters) of the Ahl alBayt, turned to Husayn to lead them against Yazîd.
Sayyidunâ Husayn decided to send his cousin Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl to investigate the situation in Kûfah. If
he found it feasible he would write to inform Husayn, who would depart with his family from Makkah
to join him in Kûfah. Muslim arrived in in Dhul Qa‘dah. The Kûfans, when they learnt of his arrival
presented themselves at the residence of Muslim ibn ‘Awsajah al-Asadî where he was staying. Soon
there were 12 000 Kûfans who had given their solemn pledge to support and protect Husayn with their
lives and all they possessed. When this number rose to 18 000 Muslim felt confident enough to dispatch
a messenger to Husayn informing him of the bay‘ah of the Kûfans, and urging him to proceed from
Makkah.
Rumours of what was happening in Kûfah soon reached Yazîd in Damascus. He immediately replaced
Nu‘mâ n ibn Bashîr, the governor of Kûfah, with the ruthless ‘Ubaydullâh ibn Ziyâd with orders to find
Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl and kill him. Ibn Ziyâd entered Kûfah early in Dhul Hijjah, accompanied by
seventeen men on horseback. With the end of his turban drawn over his face he was unrecognisable,
and the people of Kûfah, who were expecting Sayyidunâ Husayn, mistook him for Husayn. " Peace
upon you, o son of Rasûlullâh," they hailed him. Thus it was that Ibn Ziyâd learnt the truth of the
rumours. It was only when one of his mounted men shouted at them, " Stand back! This is the governor
‘Ubaydullâh ibn Ziyâd!" that the Kûfans realised the seriousness of their blunder.
Soon after reaching the governor's residence ‘ Ubaydullâh sent a servant of his own with a bag
containing 3000 dirhams to pose as a newcomer from the Syrian town of Hims eager to join the
imminent revolution, and thereby discover the whereabouts of Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl. He located Muslim in
the house of Hânî ibn ‘Urwah, and took the pledge of allegiance at his hands. The money he handed
over to Abû Thumâmah al-‘Âmirî who was acting as Muslim' s treasurer. After staying with them for a
few days, during which he learnt most of what there was to know about their intrigue, he returned to Ibn
Ziyâd and informed him. Hânî ibn ‘Urwah was arrested. At first he denied all knowledge of Muslim' s
whereabouts, but when the " newcomer from Hims" was brought before him he confessed. But he still
refused to reveal where Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl was.
In the meantime Muslim came to hear about the arrest of Hânî ibn ‘Urwah. Realising that the hour for a
decisive encounter had arrived, he raised his battle cry " Yâ Mansûr" , at which 4000 of the men who
had given him their oath of allegiance and loyalty to Husayn gathered around him and proceeded
towards the governor' s fort. When he saw Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl with the Kûfans at his gate, ‘Ubaydullâh
sent some of the tribal leaders of Kûfah to speak with their people and draw them away from Muslim
and warn them of the wrath that would descend upon them when the armies from Damascus arrived.
Soon Muslim' s army was upon by mothers telling their sons, " Come home , there are enough other
people here," and fathers ominously warning their sons, " What will happen tomorrow when the Syrian
armies start arriving from Damascus? What will you do?" The resolve of the men who had taken a
sacred oath to support and defend the cause of Husayn and the Ahl al-Bayt against Yazîd and his Syrian
armies, the men upon the strength of whose oaths of allegiance and loyalty Sayyidunâ Husayn was on
that very moment making his way to Kûfah with his nearest and dearest, the resolve of those men of
Kûfah could not hold in the face of such threats and discouragement. One by one they deserted Muslim
ibn ‘Aqîl under the gates of the governor' s fort. At sunset he was left with only 30 men. He led them in
Maghrib, and then moved away to the doorway of the Kindah quarter of Kûfah. He went through that
door with no more than 10 men, and before he knew it, he was all on his own in the streets of Kûfah. Of
all those who had so anxiously and enthusiatically written to Husayn to come and lead them in revolt
against Yazîd, and out of the 18 000 men who but days before placed their right hands in his, solemnly
pledging allegiance to the cause for which they had invited the grandson of Rasûlullâh sallallâhu
‘alayhi wasallam, not a single one was there to offer Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl the solace of their company or
refuge from the night.
Eventually, parched with thirst, he knocked at a door. The occupant, an old lady, took him in when she
learnt that he was Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl. She hid him away in her house, but her son, from whom she
extracted a promise not to tell anyone of his presence there, waited only till the morning to take the
news to the governor' s residence. The next thing Muslim realised was that the house was surrounded.
Thrice he managed with his sword to drive the attackers out of the house, but when they started putting
fire to the house he was forced to face them outside. It was only when ‘Abd ar-Rahmân ibn Muhammad
ibn al-Ash‘ath, one of those sent to arrest him, promised him the safety of his life, that he lowered his
sword. It was a mistake, for they took away his sword and mounted him upon an ass to be taken to Ibn
Ziyâd. Muslim knew his death was at hand. Tears flowed from his eyes, not at hisown fate, but at the
thought of Husayn and his family travelling through the harsh, merciless desert towards a fate much
more harsher and merciless, to an enemy firmly resolved to bring an end to his venture, and to the most
treacherous of partisans whose desertion at the hour of need had brought his life to this tragic end. He
begged Ibn al-Ash‘ath to send someone to Husayn with the following message: “Ibn ‘Aqîl has sent me
to you. He says to you: ‘Go back with your family. Do not be deceived by people of Kûfah. They are
those same supporters of your father from whom he so dearly wished to part, by death or by being
killed. The Kûfans have lied to me and have lied to you, and a liar has no sense.’ ”
Later that day —the Day of ‘ Arafah, the 9th of Dhul Hijjah— Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl was taken up to the
highest ramparts of the fort. As he was being led up, he recited the tahlîl, tasbîh, takbîr and istighfâr.
His last words reflect his intense disappointment with the people of Kûfah, " O Allâh, You be the Judge
between us and our people. They deceived us and deserted us." From high upon the ramparts his head
fell down in the dust, in full view of those whose invitations and oaths of allegiance had given him so
much to hope for, but whose cowardice and treachery had left him with nothing but despair. And
Husayn was on his way…
‘Ubaydullâh ibn Ziyâd had entered Kûfah with only seventeen men. For each man that came with him
there was over a thousand who had taken the oath of allegiance at the hands of Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl. Yet
not a single sword was raised in his defence. Not a single voice had the courage to protest his execution.
And these were the same men who had been telling Husayn, “Come, we are with you.”
Upon receipt of Muslim’s letter, Sayyidunâ Husayn started making arrangements to travel to Kûfah. He
immmediately despatched a messenger, Qays ibn Mus-hir, to inform the Kûfans of his imminet arrival.
This messenger was captured by ‘Ubaydullâh ibn Ziyâd, who ordered him to mount the walls of the fort
and publicly curse Husayn and his father. Instead he praised Sayyidunâ ‘Alî and Sayyidunâ Husayn,
telling them that Husayn was on his way, and exhorting them to assist him as they had promised. He
ended his brief address by imprecating curses upon Ibn Ziyâd. Upon the order of Ibn Ziyâd he was
flung from the ramparts and killed. Despite this impassioned plea, the men of Kûfah were unmoved.
In Makkah, a number of the eminent Sahâbah and children of Sahâbah tried to dissuade Husayn from
going to Kûfah, and reminded him of the fickleness of the Kûfans with both his father and his brother.
‘Abdullâh ibn ‘Abbâs, ‘Abdullâh ibn ‘Umar, Jâbir ibn ‘Abdillâh, Abû Sa‘îd al-Khudrî, his own brother,
Muhammad, and his brother-in-law and cousin , ‘Abdullâh ibn Ja‘far all remonstated with him and tried
to persuade him not to go to Iraq. His mind, however, was made up. He set out from Makkah on the 8th
of Dhul Hijjah, not knowing of the sad end of Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl.
After an arduous jorney of almost a month, his party reached Iraq. It was there that he first heard of the
treachery of the Kûfans and the death of Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl. Later he also learnt of the death of Qays ibn
Mus-hir. A large number of desert Arabs had by that time attched themselves to his party, thinking that
Kûfah was already practically his. Husayn addressed them, saying, " Our Shî‘ah have deserted us.
Therefore, whoever wants to leave is free to do so." Soon he was left with only those who left Makkah
with him. With them he continued towards Kûfah.
Meanwhle Kûfah was placed under heave surveillance by Ibn Ziyâd. When news of Husayn’s appraoch
reached him, he despatched a 4000 strong contingent, which was on its way to fight the Daylamites, to
stop Husayn. This contingent was put under the command of ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d. There can be little doubt
that the Kûfans witnessed the departure of this force from Kûfah with their own eyes. This would be
their last chance to honour the oaths of allegiance to Husayn which they had taken upon the hands of
Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl. This was the final opportunity to rush to the side of the grandson of Rasûlullâh
sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa-âlihî wasallam. It was after all their invitations and assurances of support that
encouraged him to abandon the safety of Makkah for the precarious battlefields of Iraq. But once again
faithfulness, courage and commitment was found lacking in the people of Kûfah. Only a handful
emerged to join Husayn at Karbalâ.
And when the sun set on the 10th of Muharram, it was too late for the faithless Shî‘ah of Kûfah to make
amends, for the sands of Karbalâ was stained red with the blood of Sayyidunâ Husayn and his seventyone followers.
L:
Four years later the Shî‘ah of Kûfah attempted to make amends for their desertion of the family of
Rasûlullâh sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa-âlihî wasallam. There emerged a group of Kûfans calling themselves
the Tawwâbûn (Penitents) who made it their duty to wreak vengeance upon the killers of Husayn. On
their way to Syria in pursuit of Ibn Ziyâd they passed by Karbalâ, the site of Sayyidunâ Husayn' s
grave, where they raised a great hue and cry, and spent the night lamenting the tragedy which they
allowed to happen four years earlier. Had they only displayed that same spirit of compassion for
Husayn when he was so much in need of it the history of Islâm might have taken a different course.
There have been attempts by certain writers to absolve the Shî‘ah from the crime of deserting Husayn.
Some find an excuse for them in Ibn Ziyâd’s blockade of Kûfah. S. H. M. Jafri writes in his book The
Origins and Early Developments of Shi’ah Islam:
…it should be noted again that the blockade of all the roads coming into Kûfa and its vicinity made it
almost impossible for the majority of those Shî‘îs of Kûfa who were in hiding, and also for those
residing in other cities like Basra.2
This explanation of their desertion does not seem plausible when one considers the large number (18
000) of those who had taken the bay‘ah at the hands of Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl. Ibn Ziyâd, as we have seen,
entered Kûfah with only 17 men. Even the force that he dispatched to engage the party of Sayyidunâ
Husayn at Karbalâ consisted of only 4000 men.3 Furthermore, that force was not recruited specifically
for Karbalâ; it was only passing through Kûfah on its way to fight the Daylamites. It is not at all
credible to assume that Ibn Ziyâd was able to cow the Kûfans into submission with forces such as these,
whom they outnumbered by far. It was rather their own treacherousness and fickleness that led them to
abandon Sayyidunâ Husayn. This can be clearly seen in the manner they deserted Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl.
There is also the tendency of claiming that those who deserted Sayyidunâ Husayn were not of the
Shî‘ah. Jafri writes:
… of those who invited Husayn to Kûfa, and then those 18,000 who paid homage to his envoy Muslim
b. ‘Aqîl, not all were Shî‘îs in the religious sense of the term, but were rather supporters of the house of
‘Alî for political reasons - a distinction which must be kept clearly in mind in order to understand the
early history of Shî‘î Islam.4
Jafri' s motive in excluding the deserters of Sayyidunâ Husayn from the ranks of the “religious” (as
opposed to the “political”) supporters of the house of Sayyidunâ ‘Alî is quite transparent. He is clearly
embarrassed by the fact that it was the Shî‘ah themselves who abandoned their Imâm and his family
after inviting him to lead them in revolt. What leads us to reject this distinction between “religious” and
“political” supporters is the fact that Sayyidunâ Husayn himself, on more than one occasion, referred to
the Kûfans as his Shî‘ah. There are also the numerous references to the people of Kûfah as the followers
(albeit capricious followers) of his father and brother. And were we to assume that many, or even most
of them were not Shî‘ah in the “religious” sense, the question which next presents itself is: Where were
the real Shî‘ah when their Imâm required their help? Were they only that handful who emerged from
Kûfah? It is strange that while there is so much reluctance on the part of the Shî‘ah to accept the deseof
Kûfah as their own, they are quite proud and eager to identify themselves with the movement of the
Tawwâbûn. The speeches made at the inception of the movement of the Tawwâbûn very clearly prove
that they were the same people who invited Sayyidunâ Husayn and then deserted him.5 Their very name
is indicative of their guilt in this regard. The attempt by the Shî‘ah to absolve themselves from the crime
of deserting Sayyidunâ Husayn is therefore at best nothing more than pathetic.
Karbalâ was not to be the last act of treason by the Shî‘ah against the Family of Rasûlullâh sallallâhu
‘alayhi wa-âlihî wasallam. Sixty years later the grandson of Sayyidunâ Husayn, namely Zayd ibn ‘ Alî
ibn Husayn, led an uprising against the Umayyad ruler Hishâm ibn ‘Abd al-Malik. He received the
oaths of allegiance of over 40 000 men, 15 000 of whom were from the very same Kûfah that deserted
his grandfather. Just before the battle could start they decided upon a whim to ask his opinion about
Abû Bakr and ‘Umar. Zayd answered: “I have never heard any of my family dissociate himself from
them, and I have nothing but good to say about them.” Upset with this answer, they deserted him en
masse, deciding that the true imâm could only be his nephew Ja‘far as-Sâdiq. Out of 40 000, Zayd was
left with only a few hundred men. On the departure of the defectors he remarked: “I am afraid they have
done unto me as they did to Husayn.” Zayd and his little army fought bravely and attained martyrdom.
Thus, on Wednesday the 1st of Safar 122 AH another member of the Ahl al-Bayt fell victim to the
treachery of the Shî‘ah of Kûfah.6 This time there could be no question as to whether those who
deserted him were of the Shî‘ah or not.
The fact that the thousands of Shî‘ah who deserted Zayd ibn ‘Alî looked upon Ja‘far as-Sâdiq as their
true Imâm shows that by and large they were the same as the Ithnâ ‘Asharî, or alternatively Imâmî or
Ja‘farî Shî‘ah of today. Why then, if he had so many devoted followers, did Imâm Ja‘far not rise up in
revolt against the Umayyads or the ‘Abbâsids? The answer to this question is provided in a narration
documented by Abû Ja‘far al-Kulaynî in his monumental work al-Kâfî, which enjoys unparallelled
status amongst the hadîth collections of the Shî‘ah:
Sudayr as-Sayrafî says: I entered the presence of Abû ‘Abdillâh ‘alayhis salâm and said to him: “By
Allâh, you may not refrain from taking up arms.” He asked: “Why not?” I answered: “Because you have
so many partisans, supporters (Shî‘ah) and helpers. By Allâh, if Amîr al-Mu’minîn (Sayyidunâ ‘Alî) had
as many Shî‘ah, helpers, and partisans as you have, Taym (the tribe of Abû Bakr) and ‘Adî (the tribe of
‘Umar) would never have had designs upon him.” He asked: “And how many would they be, Sudayr?” I
said: “A hundred thousand.” He asked: “A hundred thousand?” I replied: “Yes, and two hundred
thousand.” He asked again: “Two hundred thousand?” I replied: “Yes, and half the world.” He remained
silent.
Then he said: “Would you accompany us to Yanbu‘?” I replied in the affirmative. He ordered a mule and
a donkey to be saddled. I quickly mounted the donkey, but he said: “Sudayr, will you rather let me ride
the donkey?” I said: “The mule is more decorous and more noble as well.” But he said: “The donkey is
more comfortable for me.” I dismounted. He mounted the donkey, I got on the mule, and we started
riding. The time of salâh arrived and he said: “Dismount, Sudayr. Let us perform salâh.” Then he
remarked: “The ground here is overgrown with moss. It is not permissible to make salâh here.” So we
carried on riding until we came to a place where the earth was red. He looked at a young boy herding
sheep, and remarked: “Sudayr, by Allâh, if I had as many Shî‘ah as there are sheep here, it would not
have been acceptable for me to refrain from taking up arms.” We then dismounted and performed salâh.
When we were finished I turned back to count the sheep. There were seventeen of them.7
It seems from this narration that the tragedy of Karbalâ taught Imâm Ja‘far as-Sâdiq something about
those who claimed to be his followers which the Shî‘ah of today are still refusing to come to terms with:
that in the trials and misfortunes of the Family of Rasûlullâh sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa-âlihî wasallam the
role of the Shî‘ah was as great, if not greater, than that of their physical enemies. It therefore does not
come as a surprise that none of the supposed Imâms after Husayn ever attempted an armed insurrection
against the rulers of their times. Karbalâ had taught them the fickleness and treacherousness of those
who claimed to be their Shî‘ah. It is about them that Imâm Ja‘far is reported to have said:
No one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love us.8
Imâm Ja‘far is also reported as having said:
No verse did Allâh reveal in connection with the Munâfiqîn, except that it is to be found in those who
profess Shî‘ism.9
Before Sayyidunâ Husayn, his elder brother Sayyidunâ Hasan was the victim of the treacherousness of
the Kûfans. In his book al-Ihtijâj the prominent Shî‘î author Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî has preserved the
following remark of Sayyidunâ Hasan:
By Allâh, I think Mu‘âwiyah would be better for me than these people who claim that they are my
Shî‘ah.10
When Sayyidunâ Hasan eventually became exasperated at the fickleness of his so-called Shî‘ah, he
decided to make peace with Mu‘âwiyah. When someone protested to him that he was bringing
humiliation upon the Shî‘ah by concluding peace with Mu‘âwiyah, he responded by saying:
By Allâh, I handed over power to him for no reason other than the fact that I could not find any
supporters. Had I found supporters I would have fought him day and night until Allâh decides between
us. But I know the people of Kûfah. I have experience of them. The bad ones of them are no good to me.
They have no loyalty, nor any integrity in word or deed. They are in disagreement. They claim that their
hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us.10
Imâm Mûsâ al-Kâzim, the son of Imâm Ja‘far, and the seventh of the supposed Imâms of the Shî‘ah,
describes them in the following words:
If I had to truly distinguish my Shî‘ah I would find them nothing other than pretenders. If I had to put
them to the test I would only find them to be apostates. If I were to scrutinise them I would be left with
only one in a thousand. Were I to sift them thoroughly I would be left with only the handful that is truly
mine. They have been sitting on cushions all along, saying: " We are the Shî‘ah of ‘Alî." 11
L:
If today ‘Âshûrâ will be commemorated as a day of struggle and sacrifice, let it also be remembered as
a day of treachery and desertion. When the names of Yazîd ibn Mu‘âwiyah, ‘Ubaydullâh ibn Ziyâd,
‘Umar ibn Sa‘d and Shamir ibn Dhil Jawshan are mentioned and curses invoked upon their memories,
then let us not forget the treachery of the Shî‘ah of Kûfah. The time has long been due for the Shî‘ah to
reintroduce into their ‘Âshûrâ ceremonies an aspect that was in fact part of the very first
commemoration ceremony of the Tawwâbûn. That lost aspect is the admission of their own guilt, along
with that of Ibn Ziyâd, Yazîd and others, in the shedding of the holy blood of Sayyidunâ Husayn ibn
‘Alî radiyallâhu ‘anhumâ.
___________________________________________________________________
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. The historical material for this study has been taken largely from al-Bidâyah wan-Nihâyah of Ibn Kathîr.
The Shî‘î source Maqtal al-Husayn by ‘Abd ar-Razzâq al-Mûsawî al-Muqarram (5th edition published
by Maktabah Basîratî, Qum in 1382) was also consulted.
2. See S. H. M. Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi’ah Islam p. 198 (Ansariyan Publications,
Qum, n.d.)
3. The figure of 80 000, given in certain Shî‘î sources, and quoted recently on local radio, is clearly
fictitious. Apart from contradicting reliable historical sources, its origin in the emotionally charged
hyperbolism of the Shî‘ah is self-evident.
4. Jafri, p. 195
5. ibid. p. 223
6. Muhammad Abû Zahrah, Târîkh al-Madhâhib al-Islâmiyyah, p. 613 (Dâr al-Fikr al-‘Arabî, Cairo, n.d.)
7. al-Kulaynî, al-Kâfî (Usûl) vol. 2 p. 250-251 (Dâr al-Adwâ, Beiru1992)
8. ‘Abdullâh al-Mâmaqânî, Miqbâs al-Hidâyah vol. 2 p. 414 (Mu’assasat Âl al-Bayt li-Ihyâ’ at-Turâth,
Beirut 1991) quoting from Rijâl al-Kashshî.
9. ibid. vol. 2 p. 407
10. Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî, al-Ihtijâj vol. 2 p. 290-291 (Mu’assasat al-A‘lamî, Beirut 1989
11. al-Kulaynî, Rawdat al-Kâfî vol. 8 p. 288
Fadak Area
between
Abu Bakr & Fatimah
by
Muhammad Al-Khider
ooo——
——
FADAK is a hamlet in Hijaz that used to be inhabited by a group of Jews. After
Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam had accomplished the conquest of
Khaybar, Allah cast fear into the hearts of those Jews.They therefore conclude a treaty
with Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam in terms of which Fadak was ceded
to him. Thus, not having been conquered by force of arms, it became the personal
property of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam.
The difference between the Khalifah Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah was an acceptable
difference in which either side had an opinion founded on proof. However, sensitivity
towards the person of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr has led some people to view the issue out of
its proper perspective, with the result that an anthill was transformed into a mountain.
To illustrate this with an example: if we had to substitute the two sides in this dispute—
Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah—with two Shi‘i jurisprudents, or two of the
Maraji‘ of the Shi‘ah, each side would be seen to retain the dignity of his position, and no
vehement criticism would be directed at either side. The position of both disputants would
then be viewed with equal respect and appreciation, in consideration of the fact that both
persons base their claims upon textual evidence and proof, albeit that one of the two
opinions would ultimately take precedence over the other.
However, when it comes to Abu Bakr and Fatimah there is a complete change of attitude.
To the Shi‘ah Abu Bakr is the enemy, and for as long as he be the enemy he will be
considered evil incarnate, and error is inseparable from any of his judgements. Thus it is
that sentiments have become the standard by which matters such as this are judged.
Sentiments do not qualify as a standard to judge by even in trivial disputes. What remains
then to be said for the use of sentiments as a criterion in the study of history and the
formulation of religious precepts from it?
To the unbiased observer—who does not submit to sentiment, but yields only to the
Truth, wherever it is might be—this is an issue that must be approached tentatively.
The status of Fadak
The land of Fadak can be only one of two things:
●
●
It was either INHERITED by Fatimah from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi
wasallam,
or it was a GIFT given to her by Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam on the day
of Khaybar.
FADAK
AS INHERITANCE
Its status as inheritance is contained in the report documented by al-Bukhari, Muslim and
others, wherein it is stated that
after the demise of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, Fatimah came to
Abu Bakr requesting her inheritance from the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, from
Fadak, his share in Khaybar, and other places. Abu Bakr said: “I heard Rasulullah
sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam saying, ‘We do not leave inheritance. What we
leave behind is charity.’ ” (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no. 49)
The same reported in Musnad Ahmad reads:
We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs. (Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462)
Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha became displeased with Abu Bakr, since she viewed the issue
in the general scope of the verse, “Allah directs you in (the matter of the inheritance of)
your children: to the male a portion twice the portion of the female.” (Surah an-Nisa:11)
At this point, let us be neutral, and let us forget that the person requesting her inheritance
is a personality whom we love and respect because she is the daughter of our Prophet, and
that she has that revered position both within our hearts and with Allah. Let us say: The
words of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam takes precedence over the
words of anyone else. Therefore, if a hadith like this is authentic, what reason have we to
lay blame at the door of Abu Bakr for following the dictates of the hadith and for
applying it in practice?
The fact of the matter is that the hadith “We, the Prophets do not leave heirs” is authentic
by both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah. Why is it then that Abu Bakr is condemned for
appropriating an authentic statement of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam,
and that he be accused of fabricating the hadith in order to dispossess Fatimah of Fadak?
With the Ahl as-Sunnah the authenticity of the hadith by the Ahl as-Sunnah is in no need
of clarification. The following section clarifies the authenticity of the hadith in the
sources of the Shi‘ah and by their standards.
Authenticity of the hadith
Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi:
Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) says that Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi
wasallam said: “... And the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not
leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever
takes knowledge has taken a great portion.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)
Regarding the authenticity of this hadith, ‘Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi states in his
commentary on al-Kafi, entitled Mir’at al-‘Uqul:
[This] hadith has two chains of narration. The first is majhul [contains an unknown
narrator], and the second is hasan or muwaththaq. [Together] they do not fall short of
being sahih. (Mir’at al-‘Uqul, vol. 1 p. 111)
It is then a fact that this hadith is reliable. Why do the ‘ulama of the Shi‘ah refrain from
using it, despite the fact that it so well-known in their ranks?
The strange thing here is that the hadith is authentic enough for Khomeini to utilise it as
evidence of the validity of his monumental political theory of Wilayat al-Faqih (the Rule
of the Jurisprudent). He writes under the heading “Sahihat al-Qaddah” (the authentic
narration of al-Qaddah):
‘Ali ibn Ibrahim narrates from his father, from Hammad ibn ‘Isa, on the authority of
[‘Abdullah ibn Maymun] al-Qaddah that Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq] ‘alayhis
salam said: Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam said: “Whoever walks a path
seeking therein knowledge, Allah will lead him on a road to Jannah... And the ‘Ulama are
the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance;
but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great
portion.” (al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-‘Ilm, Bab Sifat al-‘Ilm wa-Fadlihi, hadith no. 2)
To this narration Khomeini appends the following remark:
The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of ‘Ali ibn
Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable; he is one of the most reliable
and trustworthy narrators. (al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz
Baqiyyat Allah al-A‘zam, Beirut)
Thereafter Khomeini points to another narration to the same effect that is recorded in alKafi with a weak chain of narration, and comments as follows:
This narration has been narrated with a slight difference to the same effect through
another chain of narration that is weak, meaning that the chain is authentic up to Abul
Bakhtari, but Abul Bakhtari himself is weak. That narration is as follows:
[It is narrated] from Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa, from
Muhammad ibn Khalid, from Abul Bakhtari, that Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq]
‘alayhis salam said: “Verily the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya. That is because the
Ambiya do not leave dirhams or dinars as inheritance, but they leave their words.” . (alHukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133)
It might be concluded from the above that the hadith which states that “the Ambiya do not
leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge” is authentic in one of
its two chains of narration, as attested to by Khomeini, and before him by Majlisi. Why
should an authentically narrated statement of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi
wasallam be spurned when it is a matter of consensus that there can be no Ijtihad when a
Nass (text) exists? Again, why does this hadith qualify to be used in support of Wilayat alFaqih, but not for the issue of Fadak? Is this issue being judged subjectively?
The prayer of Zakariyya
The argument in favour of the Ambiya leaving inheritancthat appropriates as proof the
words of Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam in Surah Maryam “Grant me from Your side an heir
who will inherit me and inherit the posterity of Ya‘qub” is a pathetic argument that lacks
logic in every respect. That is for the following reasons:
●
●
●
●
It is not fit or proper for a pious man to ask Allah for an heir to inherit his
possessions. How can it then be found acceptable that a noble prophet like
Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam asked Allah for a son to inherit his wealth? What
Zakariyyah ‘alayhis salam really asked for was a son who would bear aloft the
standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of
Ya‘qub would continue.
It is well know that Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam was a poor man who earned his living
as a carpenter. What wealth could he have had that would prompt him to request an
heir from Allah? In fact, it was a general rule with the Ambiya that they did not
hoard anything beyond their need, and that they spent any surplus in charity.
The word al-irth (inheritance) does not refer to material possessions exclusively. It
is also used to denote knowledge, prophethood or sovereignty. Examples of such
usage are found in Surah Fatir:32, where Allah says: “Thereafter We gave the Book
as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen”; and in
Surah al-Mu’minun:10-11, where Allah says: “Those are the Inheritors (alwarithun) who will inherit Paradise.”
The aforementioned hadith which states that “the Ambiya do not leave dinars and
dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge” explicitly negates the possibility
of the Ambiya leaving a material legacy as inheritance. This alone is sufficient
proof.
Sulayman as the heir of Dawud
The same is applicable to the argument in which the verse “And Sulayman inherited
Dawud” (an-Naml:16) is used as proof that the Ambiya do leave a material inheritance.
The inheritance in this case was not of material possessions. Rather, it was of
prophethood, wisdom and knowledge. This is proven by the following two facts:
●
●
It is well known that Dawud ‘alayhis salam had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He
had numerous children from these wives and concubines. If this verse is assumed to
speak of the inheritance of material possessions, why is Sulayman mentioned as the
sole heir?
If this verse is assumed to speak of material inheritance there does not remain much
sense for it being mentioned in the Qur’an, since it is then reduced to an ordinary
and trivial matter. “Material inheritance is not something laudable, neither to
Dawud nor to Sulayman ‘alayhimas salam. Even a Jew or Christian inherits the
material possessions of his father. The purpose of this verse is to extol the
excellence of Sulayman and to make mention of that which was granted specifically
to him. Inheriting material possessions is an ordinary and trivial matter that is
common to everyone, like eating, drinking and burying the dead. This is not the
kind of thing that would be mentioned about the Ambiya, since it is simply
inconsequential. Only such things would be related about the Ambiya which carry
lessons or benefit. Things like ‘He died, and his son inherited his property,’ or
‘They buried him,’ or ‘They ate and drank slept’ is not the kind of information that
would be conveyed in the stories of the Qur’an.” (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah,
vol. 1 p. 240, with minor adjustments)
A Woman’s Inheritance
A more astounding revelation—of which many people happen to be uninformed—is the
fact that in the Fiqh of the Imami Shi‘ah a woman does noty inherit land or fixed
property. How is it that the Shi‘ah accept it for Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha to
inherit Fadak, when their own jurisprudence does not allow the succession of a woman to
land or fixed property?
●
In al-Kafi al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled “Women do not inherit land”. In this
chapter he narrates a hadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, “Women do not inherit anything
of land or fixed property.” (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1)
●
●
●
Al-Tusi in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar have narrated from Maysarah
that he asked Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied: “They will
get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the fixed
property, they will get no inheritance from that.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar alAnwar, vol. 104 p. 351)
Al-Tusi records in Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar from Muhammad ibn Muslim that Imam
Muhammad al-Baqir said: “A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed
property.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152)
He also records from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn A‘yan that either Imam Muhammad al-Baqir or Imam
Ja‘far as-Sadiq said: “Women will have nothing of houses or land.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p.
299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)
In addition, if Fadak had to be inheritance, the wives of Rasulullah sallallahi ‘alayhi waalihi wasallam like ‘A’ishah, and his daughters like Zaynab and Umm Kulthum would
have had a share in it. However, Abu Bakr, for the sake of the hadith, did not give
anything of it to the wives or daughters of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi
wasallam, not even to his own daughter ‘A’ishah. Why are the wives and the other
daughters of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam not mentioned as parties in
the dispute over Fadak, and why is all attention focused only on Sayyidah Fatimah?
FADAK
AS A GIFT
All of the above concerns the status of Fadak as inheritance from Rasulullah sallallahu
‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam. On the other hand, if it is maintained that Fadak was a gift
from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam—as claimed by al-Kashani in his
tafsir, as-Safi (vol. 3 p. 186)—the matter needs to be looked into.
This claim is first and foremost contradicted by authentic reports of both the Ahl asSunnah and the Shi‘ah which state that Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha requested
Fadak as her inheritance from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam. However,
even if this claim is assumed to be an authentic, we still cannot accept it. We cannot
accept it since it is diametrically opposed to the precept of parental fairness to children
espoused by Islam.
The Sahabi Bashir ibn Sa‘d came to Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam,
telling him that he had given one of his sons a garden as a gift, and requesting Rasulullah
sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam to be witness thereto. Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi
wa-alihi wasallam asked whether he had given a similar gift to all of his children. When
he replied in that he had not in fact done so, Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alih
wasallam told him, “Go away, for I will not be a witness to injustice.” (Sahih Muslim,
Kitab al-Hibat, no. 14)
Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam denounced the act of giving one child
more than the other as injustice. Is it then at all plausible that one such as he, as an
infallible Nabi who refuses to be witness to injustice, would himself perpetrate that
injustice? Is it imaginable that he, who is entrusted with the Trust of the Heavens, could
breach a mundane trust of this world by giving Fadak as a gift to Fatimah alone amongst
all his daughters? We all know that Khaybar was taken in the 7th year after the Hijrah,
and that Zaynab died in the 8th year, and Umm Kulthum in the 9th year after the Hijrah.
How can it then be thought that Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam would
give something to Fatimah but not to his other daughters?
In any event, what is reliably contained in the documented reports is that when Sayyidah
Fatimah requested Fadak, she requested it as her inheritance, and not as a gift that was
given to her by Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore concluded that Fadak was neither inheritance nor a gift. This was exactly
the position of Imam ‘Ali. When he became the Khalifah he did not treat Fadak as the
estate of his deceased wife Sayyidah Fatimah, by taking a quarter for himself and
distributing the remaining three quarters between , Husayn and Umm Kulthum according
to the rule “to the male twice the share of the female”. This is an established fact of
history. Why is Abu Bakr execrated for something which was also done by ‘Ali? In fact,
Sayyid Murtada (known as ‘Alam al-Huda) narrates in his book on Imamah entitled ashShafi, that when ‘Ali became the khalifah he was approached about returning Fadak. His
reply was: “I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu
Bakr and continued by ‘Umar.” (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231; and Ibn Abil
Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4)
I was on the verge of closing the file on the Fadak issue and a discussion of the various
arguments issue when my eye fell on a narration which throws light upon the condition of
those who are bent upon finding fault with Abu Bakr, by whichsoever means they can,
legitimate or illegitimate.
Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi:
Abul Hasan [Imam ‘Ali ar-Rida] came to [the ‘Abbasid khalifah] al-Mahdi and saw him
redressing grievances and returning property to its owners that was unrightfully
appropriated. He [Imam Rida] asked, “What about our grievance? Why is it not
returned?” Al-Mahdi asked. “And what might that be, Abul Hasan?” He replied, “When
Allah granted his Prophet the conquest of Fadak...” Al-Mahdi asked, “Abul Hasan,
describe to me the extent of this property.” He [Imam Rida] replied, “One side of it is
Mount Uhud. Another side is al-‘Arish in Egypt. Another side is the coastline. Another
side is Dawmat al-Jandal.” (al-Kafi, Bab al-Fay’ wal-Anfal, vol. 1 p. 543; also Bihar alAnwar, vol. 48 p. 156)
How can a piece of land in Khaybar possibly fit this description? Is this the extent to
which people will allow themselves to be duped and deceived?
[EXPLANATORY NOTE: Mount Uhud, of course, is in Madinah. This is given as the south-eastern
point. The north-eastern point is stated to be Dawmat al-Jandal, a location close to the Saudi-Jordanian
border. Al-‘Arish lies in Egypt, on the edge of the Sinai desert. It is given as the north-western point.
The western boundary is stated as the western coastline of the Arabian peninsula. The area described
here corresponds roughly to the area lying between latitudes 25 and 30, and longitudes 35 and 40. It is
the entire north western quarter of the Arabian peninsula, and is twice as large as modern Jordan.]
The Marriage of
umm kulthum
daughter of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib
to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab t
²²²
by Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi
MISREPRESENTATION OF HISTORY
A major part of the edifice upon which Shi‘ism has constructed itself is its idiosyncratic portrayal of the
early history of Islam. It is especially in its representation of the relationships that existed between ‘Ali
ibn Abi Talib t and the eminent Sahabah like Abu Bakr t and Umar t that Shi‘ism has acquired a
character of its own.
Shi‘i historians seemed little troubled by the fact that their own reconstruction of history would
inevitably involve the invention of events, or versions of actual events, that would be at variance with
standard sources. They seem to have been considerably confident that the emotional appeal of their
version of history would override, and indeed obviate the need for a critical comparison of their
narratives with those of other historians of repute. Their confidence appears to have been well founded,
for a milennium has passed and still there is evidence in abundance of an emphatically emotional and
sentimental approach to issues whose historicity needed to have been critically scrutinised in a spirit of
emotional detachment. In this belated century that prides itself on the advancement of research
methodology and techniques, the anomaly of a methodology that has emotive appeal as its central
component stands out like a very sore thumb.
It is this spirit—of emotional prejudice overriding objective scholarship—that Shi‘i propagandists up to
this very day insist on "revealing" to their Sunni audiences the "truth" about the "persecution" suffered
by the Ahl al-Bayt y at the hands of the Sahabah y . They can often be found launching into their
particular misrepresentations of history, with no respect for standards of historic authenticity, and even
less in awe of the way in which they are in actual fact bringing disgrace upon the Family of Rasulullah
r . Their audiences too, are just as often completely captivated by these "revelations". The last thing on
the mind of both propagandist and audience is the grievous contradictions the writer or speaker makes
himself guilty of in his emotionally laden corruption of history.
"PERSECUTION" OF THE AHL AL-BAYT
One such case of the invention of history is the "persecution" mentioned by Shi‘i reporters of history to
have been meted out to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and his wife Sayyidah Fatimah immediately after the demise
of Rasulullah r . The incidents as mentioned by these unscrupulous narrators—
of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab threatening to burn down the house of Fatimah with her and her
family inside
of ‘Umar ordering the door of the house to be broken, with Fatimah being wounded and
losing her unborn child in the process, and six months later dying from that same injury
and of her husband, the valiant ‘Ali being dragged out of his house like a common
criminal to give his oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr
all of these have to the Shi‘i mind become undisputable and incontestible facts of history, no matter
how spurious their origin, or how blatantly they clash with authentic historical facts. Abu Bakr and
‘Umar will ever be thought of by the Shi‘ah in terms of the "deeds" of that day, and no true Shi‘i who
believes in these stories as factual truth could ever be expected to harbour the merest ounce of goodwill
towards Abu Bakr and ‘Umar—let alone the rest of the Sahabah who stood with them and paid
allegiance to them.
However, let us take this version of history that weaves itself around the core element of persecution,
and its concomitant of mutual hatred between ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and the rest of the Sahabah, and let us
compare it with some other facts, the historic authenticity of which is accepted by both Ahl as-Sunnah
and Shi‘ah. For example, the fact that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib himself names three of his sons Abu Bakr,
‘Umar and ‘Uthman. (See al-Shaykh al-Mufid, Kitab al-Irshad, pp. 268-269, where these three sons of
‘Ali are listed as numbers 12, 6 and 10 respectively.) No one, not even the most magnanimous of
people, names his son after his enemies who were responsible for the death of his wife. That is why one
simply cannot find a Shi‘i today named Abu Bakr, ‘Umar or ‘Uthman. In fact, reports from Iran have it
that Shi‘i officials will not allow Iranian Sunnis to give their children these names. (See the article "The
Dismal Reality of the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran" at http://www.islam.org.au/articles/24/iran.htm)
Another fact of history which clashes with the alleged persecution of ‘Ali and Fatimah by the Sahabah
is the marriage of Umm Kulthum, the daughter of ‘Ali and Fatimah, to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab. This
marriage, in which ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib gave this daughter borne to him by Fatimah, in marriage to ‘Umar
ibn al-Khattab—the very same man whom the Shi‘ah allege caused the death of Fatimah—assails the
foundations of Shi‘ism in a way that few issues can. It threw the house of Shi‘ism into violent disorder,
and the ‘ulama of the Shi‘ah, reeling under its impact, found themselves lunging at just about any twig
in sight. This paper looks at the various Shi‘i responses to the marriage of Umm Kulthum to ‘Umar ibn
al-Khattab, and demonstrates the embarrasment in the Shi‘i camp to which this contradictory
cacophony of responses eloquently testifies.
THE MARRIAGE OF UMM KULTHUM
Umm Kulthum was the second daughter of ‘Ali and Fatimah, and the youngets of their four children.
She was born in about the year 6 AH. She became of marriagable age during the khilafah of ‘Umar ibn
al-Khattab, and the khalifah asked for her hand in marriage. This is recorded by Ibn Sa‘d in his work atTabaqat al-Kubra (vol. 8 p. 338, ed. Muhammad ‘Ab al-Qadir ‘Ata, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut
1990) as follows:
I was informed by Anas ibn ‘Iyad al-Laythi, who reports on the authority
of Ja‘far ibn Muhammad [as-Sadiq], and he from his father [Muhammad alBaqir]—
that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab asked ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib for the hand of Umm
Kulthum in marriage. ‘Ali said, "I had kept my daughters for the sons of
Ja‘far." ‘Umar said, "Marry her to me, O Abul Hasan, for by Allah,there is
no man on the face of the earth who seeks to achieve through her good
companionship that which I seek to achieve." ‘Ali said, "I have done so."
Then ‘Umar came to the Muhajirun between the grave [of Rasulullah r ]
and the pulpit. They—‘Ali, ‘Uthman, Zubayr, Talhah and ‘Abd arRahman—used to sit there, and whenever a matter used to arrive from the
frontiers, ‘Umar used to come to them there and consult with them. He
came to them and said, "Congratulate me." They congratulated him, and
asked, "With whom are we congratulating you, O Amir al-Mu’minin?" He
replied, "With the daughter of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib."
Then he related to them that the Nabi r said, "Every tie of kinship, and
every association will be cut off on the Day of Qiyamah, except my kinship
and my association." [‘Umar said,] "I have had the companionship of
Rasulullah r ; I would like also to have this [kinship]."
Two children were born from this marriage, namely Zayd and Ruqayyah. After the martyrdom of
‘Umar she was married to her cousin ‘Awn ibn Ja‘far, and after his death to his brother Muhammad ibn
Ja‘far. Ultimately she died while married to a third of the sons of Ja‘far, namely ‘Abdullah during the
first half of the fourth decade after the Hijrah. Her son Zayd died on the same day as his mother, and the
funeral prayer for mother and son was performed together.
The marriage of Umm Kulthum has been unanimously accepted as a fact of history by all major
biographers and historians. Its authenticity has never been contested by anyone—not even the
staunchest Shi‘ah—during the first four centuries after the Hijrah. It was only during the fifth century
that ash-Shaykh al-Mufid (died 413 AH) appears to have woken up to the threat that the acceptance of
this marriage holds for the doctrine of the Shi‘ah and their particular view of history.
At this moment it needs to be noted that the above narration was recorded by Ibn Sa‘d from a man
called Anas ibn ‘Iyad al-Laythi, who report directly on the authority of Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq, and he
from his father Muhammad al-Baqir. In other words, we have here a purely Shi‘i chain of narration.
Anas ibn ‘Iyad al-Laythi is regarded by reputable Shi‘i rijal, critics such as an-Najashi and Ibn
Mutahhar al-Hilli, as a companion of Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq who was "thiqah, sahih al-hadith" (reliable,
a transmitter of authentic hadith). (See al-Ardabili, Jami‘ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 109, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut
1983) Since he narrates directly from the "infallible" Imam, there can be no question about the veracity
of his report. Thereupon, his report is corroborated by a wealth of other narrations all of which affirm
the historicity of this marriage. Above it all is the fact that for over three centuries this marriage
remained uncontested.
In later centuries the marriage of Umm Kulthum would become a major bone of contention for Shi‘i
polemicists. This marriage as a topic in Shi‘i theology owes its importance to its open contradiction to
Shi‘i views of religion and history. This is expressed by the Shi‘i authors Muhammad al-Hassun and
Umm ‘Ali Mashkur in their book A‘lam an-Nisa al-Mu’minat (p. 182) in the following terms:
The marriage of Umm Kulthum to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab is counted
amongst the important issues presented to us by Islamic history, and as one
of those matters around which debate and research has continued at
length—and still continues. Those who regard this marriage as an authentic
fact use it to prove the righteousness of her husband [‘Umar] and ‘Ali’s u
acceptance of him. Otherwise, why would he give him his daughter in
marriage? As for those who reject the historic occurrence of the marriage,
or are of the opinion that it took place under pressure which ‘Umar brought
to bear upon ‘Ali u use this issue to justify the unrighteousness and
viciousness of ‘Umar, and that ‘Ali u did not approve of him.
Shi‘i writings on the marriage of Umm Kulthum
The same authors then proceed to enumerate a list of five independent books on the marriage of Umm
Kulthum written by the ‘ulama of the Shi‘ah from as early as the 4th century, down to as late as the
present age. This list is not exhaustive, and excludes discussions of the same issue in other larger works.
The works listed are:
al-Mas’alah al-Muwaddihah ‘an Asbab Nikah Amir al-Mu’minin
—by ash-Shaykh al-Mufid (died 413 AH). It is alternatively entitled Inkah
Amir al-Mu’minin Ibnatahu min ‘Umar. This book is metioned by Aqa
Buzurg Tehrani in adh-Dhari‘ah (vol. 2 p. 396 no. 3641) and a manuscript
of it is kept at the library of Ayatullah Mar‘ashi Najafi in Qum.
Jawab as-Su’al ‘an Wajh Tazwij Amir al-Mu’minin Ibnatahu min ‘Umar
—by Sayyid Murtada (died 436 AH). It is also mentioned by Aqa Buzurg
Tehrani (vol. 5 p. 183 no. 811) and a copy is preserved at the library of
Ayatullah Mar‘ashi Najafi in Qum.
Tazwij ‘Umar li-Umm Kulthum
—by Shaykh Sulayman ibn Abdullah al-Mahuzi (died 1121 AH). It is
mentioned by Tehrani in adh-Dhari‘ah.
Tazwij Umm Kulthum bint Amir al-Mu’minin wa-Inkar Wuqu‘ihi
—by Shaykh Muhammad Jawad al-Balaghi (died 1352AH/1932). It is
mentioned by Tehrani at two places in adh-Dhari‘ah (vol. 4 p. 172 and vol.
11 p. 146).
an independent treatise by Sayyid Nasir Husayn of Lucknow, India (died
1361AH/1941).
The above clearly demonstrates the attention the marriage of Umm Kulthum has enjoyed with Shi‘i
authors, and indicates the strategic importance of this marriage in Sunni-Shi‘i polemics and dialogue.
Chronologically speaking, attitudes amongst the Shi‘ah towards the marriage of Umm Kulthum can be
divided into three stages: (1) before the 5th century AH, (2) after the 5th century AH, and (3) after the
establishment of the Safavid Empire in the 10th century. Each of these stages will now be dealt with
separately.
PRIOR TO THE FIFTH CENTURY
Shi‘i activity during the first century after the Hijrah had been confined to a large extent to
revolutionary insurrections, starting from the campaign of the Tawwabun who sought to avenge the
murder of Husayn, and continuing in the exploits of people like Mukhtar ath-Thaqafi and Abu Muslim
al-Khurasani. It was only during the latter half of the second century that evidence begins to surface of
some sort of intellectual activity amongst the Shi‘ah. However, here too, the scope of that activity was
limited to the documentation of the sayings which the Shi‘ah ascribe to their Imams.
The fourth century after the Hijrah witnessed the compilation of Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub al-Kulayni’s
monmumental work al-Kafi. This work enjoys the following distinctions:
in it the author sought to document the minor compilations of Shi‘i hadith by previous
authors into one major compendium
it was compiled in Baghdad during the Minor Occultation of the Hidden Imam (as stated
by Aqa Buzurg Tehrani in adh-Dhari‘ah, vol. 17 p. 245) at a time when the
representative of the Imam resided in that city, which afforded the opportunity for its
contents to be scrutinised an ratified by the Imam himself (as stated by Ibn Tawus in his
book Kashf al-Mahajjah, p. 159) This is in itself proof of the authenticity of the
narrations contained in the book (says al-Hurr al-‘Amili in Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah, vol. 20 p.
71).
it actually bears the seal of approval of the Hidden Imam himself, and he was the one
who named it "al-Kafi" (meaning "sufficient") by saying, as reported by al-Khwansari in
Rawdat al-Jannat (vol. 6 p.116): "hadha kafin li-shi‘atina" (This is sufficient for our
Shi‘ah).
In this work the author has documented at least FOUR traditions to the Imams which affirm the
marriage of Umm Kulthum to ‘Umar. In fact, he has devoted the 23rd chapter in the Book on Marriage
(Kitab an-Nikah) in Furu‘ al-Kafi to the marriage of Umm Kulthum (bab tazwij Umm Kulthum). Two
of the four traditions are contained in this chapter, while the other two are found in a related chapter on
where a widow whose husband has died should spend her waiting period, or ‘iddah (bab al-mutawaffa
‘anha zawjuha al-madkhul biha ayna ta‘taddu wa ma yajibu ‘alayha).
However some of these traditions impart a unique flavour to the entire episode, in that now for the first
time it becomes presented as a marriage concluded by sheer force and terror, in which ‘Ali ibn Abi
Talib, for all his nobility and courage, could not protect his young daughter, and was compelled, on
threat of physical violence to his person, to give her to the khalifah. The traditions documented in alKafi are as follows:
‘Ali ibn Ibrahim—from his father—from Ibn Abi ‘Umayr—from Hisham
ibn Salim and Hammad—from Zurarah, who narrates that
—Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq said regarding the marriage of Umm Kulthum:
"That was a ‘woman’ who was taken from us by force." (Furu‘ al-Kafi,
vol. 5 p. 347, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1992)
[The word ‘woman’ here is an attempt from the writer of this article to
preserve the honour of the Ahl al-Bayt, since a literal translation of the
original Arabic would prove too vulgar.]
Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Umayr—Hisham ibn Salim, who narrates that
—Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq said: "When [‘Umar] proposed to Amir alMu’minin, he said, ‘She is a child.’
Then he [‘Umar] met ‘Abbas and asked him, ‘What is wrong with me?
Is there a problem with me?’ ‘Abbas asked, ‘Why?’ ‘Umar replied, ‘I
asked your nephew for his daughter’s hand in marriage, and he
rejected me. Oh, I swear by Allah, I will fill the well of Zamzam with
earth, I will destroy every honour that you have, and I will set up two
witnesses to testify that he stole, that I may cut off his right hand.’
‘Abbas thereupon came to ‘Ali and informed him of what had
transpired. He asked ‘Ali to put the matter in his hands, and ‘Ali
complied." (Furu‘ al-Kafi, vol. 5 p. 347-348, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1992)
Humayd ibn Ziyad—Ibn Sama‘ah—Muhammad ibn Ziyad—‘Abdullah ibn
Sinan—Mu‘awiyah ibn ‘Ammar—Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq:
—[Mu‘awiyah ibn ‘Ammar says:] I asked him about a woman whose
husband died: Should she spend her ‘iddah in her house, or where she
wants to? He replied, "Where she wants to. When ‘Umar died, ‘Ali u
came and took Umm Kulthum to his house." (Furu‘ al-Kafi, vol. 6 p.
117, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1992)
Muhammad ibn Yahya and others—Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa—alHusayn ibn Sa‘id—an-Nadr ibn Suwayd—Hisham ibn Salim—Sulayman
ibn Khalid, who says:
—I asked Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq about the woman whose husband has died:
Where should she spend her ‘iddah? In her husband’s house, or where she
wants to? He said: "Where she wants to. When ‘Umar died, ‘Ali u
came, took Umm Kulthum by the hand, and took her to his
house." (Furu‘ al-Kafi, vol. 6 p. 117, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1992)
Authenticity
We have here four chains of narration up to Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq. An investigation into the authenticity
of these chains of narration by Shi‘i—and not Sunni—standards reveals that each and every one of
them is a highly reliable and accurate chain.
NARRATION 1
al-Kulayni received the reports from Ibn Abi ‘Umayr through his teacher
‘Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi, who is his source for about one
third of the material in al-Kafi. ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim is the author of an early
Tafsir of the Shi‘ah, and is highly regarded by Shi‘i rijal critics such as anNajashi and Ibn Mutahhar, who declare him to be "thiqatun fil hadith,
thabt, mu’tamad, sahih al-madhhab" (reliable in hadith transmission,
reliable dependable, correct in belief.) (Jami‘ ar-Ruwat vol. 1 p. 545)
‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi reports from his father Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-
Qummi. He is reputed to have been the first to spread the hadith of the
Shi‘ah from Kufah to Qum. Reports via him abound in al-Kafi, through his
son. He has been generally accepted by the Shi‘ah as a reliable narrator. He
is even mentioned by Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi as having met the 9th Imam.
(Jami‘ ar-Ruwat vol. 1 p. 38) His reliability as a narrator is attested to in a
contemporary work on the authority of his son, Ali ibn Ibrahim, Ibn Tawus
and al-‘Allamah al-Hilli. (Abu Talib at-Tajlil at-Tabrizi, Mu‘jam athThiqat, p. 5)
Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi reports on the authority of Muhammad ibn
Abi ‘Umayr. This Ibn Abi ‘Umayr is one of the most reliable Shi‘i
narrators ever. Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi says of him: "kana min awthaq annas" (he was of the most reliable of people). (al-Fihrist p. 169) More
importantly, he was of the elect group of Shi‘i narrators called the Ashab alIjma‘ (Men of the Consensus). What this means is that when the chain of
narration is proven authentic up to one of these men, the rest of the chain
up to the Imam may automatically be assumed to be authentic too. (See the
details of this consensus in al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah fi ‘Ilm adDirayah, vol. 2 pp. 171-208) The authenticity of this narration is therefore
proven on grounds of this consensus.
NARRATION 2
This report also came down to al-Kulayni through ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim, from
his father, from Ibn Abi ‘Umayr. The discussion on the first chain of
narration is therefore fully applicable to this chain too.
NARRATION 3
al-Kulayni reports this narration from his teacher Humayd ibn Ziyad. This
Humayd is graded by the Shi‘i rijal critics as "‘alim jalil al-qadr, wasi‘
al-‘ilm, kathir at-tasnif, thiqah" (a learned scholar, of great status, wide
knowledge, a prolific author, reliable) (Jami‘ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 284)
Ibn Sama‘ah is properly known as al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Sama‘ah.
He was one of the foremost Shi‘i fuqaha of Kufah, and is described as
"kathir al-hadith, faqihun thiqah" (a prolific narrator of hadith, a jurist,
reliable). (Jami‘ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 225)
Muhammad ibn Ziyad is properly known as Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn
Ziyad al-‘Attar. He is described as "thiqah" (reliable). (Jami‘ ar-Ruwat,
vol. 2 p. 91)
‘Abdullah ibn Sinan was an eminent Imami Shi‘i of Kufah about whom it
is stated: "thiqatun min ashabina, la yut‘anu ‘alayhi fi shay’" (one of our
reliable associates against whom no criticism whatsoever can be levelled).
(Jami‘ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 487)
Mu‘awiyah ibn ‘Ammar was an eminent and leading Shi‘i narrator of
Kufah who narrates from Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq. His Shi‘i biographers have
documented about him that he was "wajhan min ashabina muqaddaman,
kabir ash-shan, azim al-mahall, thiqah" (a leading figure amongst our
associates, pre-eminent, great in status, exalted in position, reliable). (Jami‘
ar-Ruwat, vol. 2 p. 239)
The opinions of the Shi‘i critics of hadith regarding the narrators of this report as reproduced here
unequivocally indicate that what we have here is a authetic report.
NARRATION 4
al-Kulayni recorded this report on the authority of his several of his
teachers, one of whom is Muhammad ibn Yahya al‘Attar al-Qummi. He
was regarded as "shaykhu ashabina fi zamanihi, thiqah, ‘ayn, kathir alhadith" (the shaykh of our associates in his time, reliable, an outstanding
personality, a prolific narrator of hadith). (Jami‘ ar-Ruwat, vol. 2 p. 213)
Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa al-Qummi was "shaykh al-Qummiyyin,
wa-wajhuhum, wa-faqihuhum, ghayra mudafa‘" (the shaykh of the people
of Qum, and their undisputed leader and jurist). (Jami‘ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p.
69) Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi and al-‘Allamah al-Hilli have unequivocally
declared him "thiqah" (reliable). (ar-Rijal p. 366; and al-Khulasah p. 13)
al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id is described as "‘ayn, jalil al-qadr" (an outstanding
personality of great stature) and"thiqah" (reliable). (Jami‘ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1
p. 241)
an-Nadr ibn Suwayd is rated as "Kufi,thiqah, sahih al-hadith" (a reliable
Kufan who transmits authentic hadith). (Jami‘ ar-Ruwat, vol. 2 p. 292)
Hisham ibn Salim is credited with having been a student of Imam Ja‘far
as-Sadiq. His reliability as a transmitter of hadith is attested to by the
emphatic statement of al-‘Allamah and an-Najashi: "thiqatun
thiqah" (reliable, and once again reliable). (Jami‘ ar-Ruwat, vol. 2 p. 315)
Sulayman ibn Khalid is mentioned as having been a student of Imam alBaqir. His death is recorded to have caused Imam Ja‘far extreme grief. He
is universally acclaimed as "thiqah" (reliable). (Jami‘ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p.
378)
This investigation concludes that each of the narrators of the four narrations affirming the marriage of
Umm Kulthum documented in al-Kafi was a reliable Imami Shi‘i transmitter with whose abilities and
trustworthiness in hadith transmission the Shi‘i authorities have expressed their satisfaction. The
significance of this fact will come to light when we discuss the turnabout that occurred after the
development of Shi‘i kalam (scholastic theology) at the hands of ash-Shaykh al-Mufid in the fifth
century.
Besides al-Kulayni, there were during this time other Shi‘i authors too who affirmed the marriage of
Umm Kulthum in a way much similar to that of al-Kulayni. One of these was Abul Qasim al-Kufi (died
352 AH). He devoted a number of pages in his book al-Istighathah fi Bida‘ ath-Thalathah to the
marriage of Umm Kulthum, and after presenting several arguments and counter arguments, he
concludes the following:
Rasulullah r entrusted upon ‘Ali u all that he needed at the time of his
death. He informed him of everything that will be done to him by his
Ummah, mentioning the usurpers one by one. ‘Ali u said, "What do you
command me to do?" and Rasulullah r answered, "Have patience and
forbearance until the people return to you of their own volition. At that
time you must fight the breakers of oaths, the unjust and those who out of
the fold. Do not oppose any of the Three, for thereby you will bring about
your own destruction, and the people will go from hypocrisy to disunity."
‘Ali u was thus keeping this covenant, protecting thereby the oppressed
Muslims, and preserving the Religion, so that people would not return to
open Jahiliyyah, with tribes seeking to stir up sedition by settling old scores.
Thus, when ‘Umar asked for the hand of Umm Kulthum, ‘Ali u thought
to himself: "If I say no, he will want to kill me, and if he tries to kill me I
will protect myself, and that would mean breaking the covenant with
Rasulullah r and going against his command. Should that happen, that
thing would come to pass which Rasulullah r tried to prevent, and for
which reason he asked me to exercise patience, which is that people will
fall into apostasy." It was better to hand over Umm Kulthum to him than to
kill him. He thus handed her over to him, knowing fully well that what the
man had usurped of the wealth of the Muslims and of their government,
and what he had perpetrated by denying his (‘Ali’s) right and sitting on the
place of the Prophet r , and his changes to and corruption of the laws and
ordinances of Allah were far more terrible and dreadful than his forcible
possession of his daughter. He handed her over, and resigned himself to
patience, just like the Prophet r had ordered him to do.
In doing so he placed his daughter in a position similar to that of Asiyah
bint Muzahim, the wife of Fir‘awn, since Allah mentions her in the words:
"She said: O my Lord, build for me a house by you in Paradise, and save
me from Fir‘awn and his doings, and save me from the unjust people."
Indeed, what Fir‘awn had wreaked upon Bani Isra’il—killing their infants
and raping their women—in his search for Musa was much more ghastlier
than his forcible possession of his wife Asiyah, and his marriage to her.
She is a believing woman and of the people of Paradise, as attested to by
Allah Himself.
The case of this man with Umm Kulthum is the same as the case of
Fir‘awn with Asiyah. His unjust usurpation of leadership, wherein he
opposed Allah and His Messenger r , by denying the Imam his right, and
his confiscation of the goverment of the Muslims, whilst governing their
wealth, their persons and their lives with laws other than the laws of Allah
and His Messenger r —all of that was more dreadful in the sight of Allah
than his forcible possession of the bodies of a thousand believing women,
not even to mention the body of a single woman. (al-Istighathah fi Bida‘
ath-Thalathah p. 90)
Abul Qasim al-Kufi seems not to spare a moment’s thought for the fact that this was not just any
woman. This was the daughter of ‘Ali and Fatimah. This was the granddaughter of Rasulullah r . This
was the sister of Hasan and Husayn. What the Shi‘ah here seek to subject their Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib
to is unspeakable. Which father would sit by idly while his daughter is being forcibly taken by an
abominable enemy? This is the extent to which their twisting and corruption of history has led
them—that they are prepared to place upon their Imams the kind of shame that even the simplest ones
amongst themselves would never bear. And the evil plot only entraps its own people. (al-Fatir:43)
In addition, this attempt by Abul Qasim al-Kufi to explain the marriage of Umm Kulthum is full of
discrepancies, some of which we will make mention of hereunder:
The comaprison between Umm Kulthum and Asiyah is unjustified. Asiyah
was not the daughter of a Nabi who was forced to hand her over in
marriage to a tyrant. She was married to him even before Musa was born.
Her marriage to Fir‘awn was not concluded under threat and compulsion,
neither could it have been caused her father (whoever he was) any sort of
embarrasment.
Abul Qasim’s report speaks of Rasulullah r informing ‘Ali of exactly what
would be done to him by each of the three khulafa. He must therefore have
known that ‘Umar will demand his daughter. Yet when the time comes to
pass he refuses the marriage on grounds that she is too young (see the
second narration from al-Kafi), and even Abul Qasim’s own report
mentions him weighing his options. Someone who knows what is coming
has no need to weigh his options.
The reason for preserving the peace with the three khulafa is given as the
fear that people will revert into apostasy. Yet in a narration from Imam alBaqir documented in al-Kafi, apostasy is mentioned to have set in
immediately after the death of Rasulullah r : "Kana n-nasu ahla riddatin
ba‘da Rasulillahi r illa thalathah" (After the death of Rasulullah r the
people were apostates, except three.) (Rawdat al-Kafi, vol. 8 p. 167, no.
341) If they were thus already apostate, what reason did he have to
sacrifice his own daughter’s honour and chastity in order to preserve the
non-existent?
However, despite all Abul Qasim al-Kufi’s effort in working out a logical explanation of why ‘Ali ibn
Abi Talib gave his daughter in marriage to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, later Shi‘i scholars like al-Mufid
could find no place for his arguments within their recension of Shi‘i doctrines.
AFTER THE FIFTH CENTURY
With the ascendancy of the Shi‘i Buyids at Baghdad during the latter half of the fourth century, Shi‘i
scholarship gained the patronage it required, and there developed under ash-Shaykh al-Mufid a school
of Shi‘i theology that was to leave its lasting upon Shi‘ism. This school took full advantage of the
methods and techniques of the existing schools of theology, especially the rationalist approach of the
Mu‘tazilah. It adopted and appropriated Mu‘tazili methods to its own advantage, and rationalised much
of what had earlier been left to the domain of textual authority.
The marriage of Umm Kulthum did not escape this process of rationalisation. When this issue was
discovered to run against the grain of Shi‘i theology—a theology that has its roots in a particular
perspective of history—there was but one of two options open to the rationalisers. They could choose
the way of Abul Qasim al-Kufi, al-Kulayni and other traditionists, and accept the marriage as a union
achieved by force and threats of violence. But this option, instead of solving the problem, created
another problem. The other option left open to them was to do a complete trunabout and deny that this
marriage ever took place.
Ash-Shaykh al-Mufid
The lead was taken by ash-Shaykh al-Mufid himself. He wrote an independent treatise about the
marriage of Umm Kulthum, and discussed it in his other works as well, most notably al-Masa’il asSarawiyyah. The tenth question in this books deal with the marriage of Umm Kulthum. It reads as
follows:
TENTH QUESTION: What is his (al-Mufid’s) view regarding Amir alMu’minin marrying his daughter Umm Kulthum to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab,
and regarding the Nabi r marrying his daughters Zaynab (sic) and
Ruqayyah to ‘Uthman?
ANSWER: The report speaking of Amir al-Mu’minin marrying his
daughter to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab so unfounded. It is narrated via Zubayr
ibn Bakkar, and its chain of narration is well known. He was untrustworthy
in transmission. There is suspicion on him in what he mentions. He used to
hate Amir al-Mu’minin. What ‘Ali ibn Hashim claims to narrate from him
is untrustworthy. This hadith was included by Abu Muhammad al-Hasan
ibn Yahya in his book on genealogy, and account of that people thought it
to be true, thinking that it is narrated by an ‘Alawi (descendant of ‘Ali).
However, the fact is that he narrates it from Zubayr ibn Bakkar.
The hadith in itself is a forgery. It is sometimes narrated that Amir alMu’minin himself performed the ceremony, and sometimes it is narrated
that it was ‘Abbas who performed it. Sometimes it is narrated that the
marriage took place only after menacing by ‘Umar and threats against
Banu Hashim; and sometimes it is mentioned that the marriage took place
freely and voluntarily. The some narrators claim that a child named Zayd
was born from this marriage, while others claim he was killed before
consummating the marriage. Some say Zayd ibn ‘Umar left offspring,
while others say he was killed without leaving children. Some say he and
his mother were killed, and some say his mother lived after him. Some say
‘Umar gave Umm Kulthum a dowry of 40 000 dirhams, others claim it was
4000 dirhams, and yet others claim her dowry was 5000 dirhams. The
origin of this claim, as well as the amount of contradiction in it renders the
hadith null, so it is of no consequence.
At this point the benefit of investigating the authenticity of the four reports in al-Kafi will become
apparent. It can be seen here that al-Mufid places the responsibility for inventing the marriage of Umm
Kulthum on the shoulders of the historian Zubayr ibn Bakkar. However, even a cursory comparison
with the narrations in al-Kafi and the one quoted earlier from Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘d (all of which are but a
drop in the ocean) demonstrates clearly that Zubayr ibn Bakkar features nowhere in any of those chains
of narration. Each of the narrators of those reports was a Shi‘i about whose trustworthiness the ‘ulama
of the Shi‘ah were fully satisfied. Not a single on of those reports originated with Zubayr ibn Bakkar.
On the contrary, each one of them is traced back to Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq. Al-Mufid’s protestations are
thus completely bereft of substance. If anything, it shows the man’s desperation for finding some
grounds, no matter how flimsy or spurious, on which to dismiss the marriage of Umm Kulthum.
Aside from trying to make Zubayr ibn Bakkar responsible for the invention of the marriage of Umm
Kulthum, al-Mufid tries to dismiss the incident by drawing attention to the discrepancies regarding
certain lesser details. A simple response to this is that when a multitude of reports all share one common
element, the common element cannot be dismissed because of differences negligible details. An
objective scholar who is not prejudiced by his idiosyncratic notion of what history should actually be
like will never stoop to the level al-Mufid has. Objectivity here would require thoroughly sifting
through the available historical material and accepting the version that fulfils the criteria of authenticity,
such as have been demostrated in the case of al-Kulayni’s narrations in al-Kafi. If an historical incident
could be denied for a reason as flimsy as discrepancies in minor details, one could well reject the battle
of Badr on grounds of the fact that there are differences regarding the exact date on which it took place,
or differences in the amount of combatants, or even the amount of persons killed and taken captive.
Here we are once again treated to the spectacle of a scholar’s desperation to superimpose the
idiosyncracies of his theology over the facts of history, even if it means he has to discard the most basic
standards of objectivity.
At the end al-Mufid’s nonchalance failed to convince anyone—including himself. Therefore, two
paragraphs after denying the occurrence of Umm Kulthum’s marriage he comes back to fall into the
queue of traditional Shi‘i scholarship behind people like al-Kulayni and Abul Qasim al-Kufi, and writes:
Amir al-Mu’minin was coerced to marry his daughter to the man, because
he was threatening and menacing him. There can thus be no argument
against Amir al-Mu’minin because he was forced into it for his own safety
and that of his Shi‘ah. He therefore complied under duress, just as we say
that duress allows for even the pronunciation of Kufr. Allah says: "Except
him who is forced, but his heart is content in faith."
There is no end to one’s amazement at seeing how this man would place the safety of the Shi‘ah ("for
his own safety and that of his Shi‘ah") over the chastity and honour of his Imam’s daughter, and the
granddaughter of Rasulullah r .
After al-Mufid
The first explanation produced by al-Mufid—that of denying the historicity of the marriage—was so
ludicrous that he failed to convince even himself. His own student, the eminent Sayyid Murtada (died
436 AH), brother of the compiler of Nahj al-Balaghah, Sayyid Radi, was even less impressed by his
teacher’s artifices. He solemnly stuck to the line of traditional Shi‘i scholarship, insisting that the
marriage was one of coercion and force. He dealt with the marriage of Umm Kulthum in two of his
books. In the book ash-Shafi he discussed it at considerable length, the gist of which he later
incorporated into his other book Tanzih al-Ambiya wal-A’immah, where he writes:
As for giving his daughter in marriage, we have mentioned the answer to
this in the book ash-Shafi in detail, and that he only consented to give his
daughter after he had been threatened and menaced and after there had
been altercations at length.
After Sayyid Murtada, Abu ‘Ali al-Fadl ibn Hasan at-Tabarsi, the Shi‘i mufassir of the 6th century
(died 502 AH) stuck to the same line. He writes in his book I‘lam al-Wara bi-A‘lam al-Huda (p. 204):
As for Umm Kulthum, she is the one whom ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab married.
Our associates say that he (‘Ali) only married her to him after putting up a
lot of resistance, severe refusals and finding excuses. Ultimately he was
forced by circumstances to turn her matter over to ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd alMuttalib who married her off.
A later Shi‘i scholar, Shaykh ‘Abd an-Nabi al-Kazimi, writes in his book Takmilat ar-Rijal:
The well known view of our associates, and the well known narrations are
that ‘Umar married her by force, as Sayyid Murtada emphatically insists in
his treatise on the issue. In light of the narrations this is the more correct
view. These narrations remove whatever doubt there might have been
regarding how Amir al-Mu’minin could marry his daughter to him, when
according to what the Shi‘ah believe it is not supposed to be permissible to
have marital ties with him, since forcible possession and duress render
everything permissible. The same applies to the objection regarding how he
could have borne this forcible taking of his daughter when the very
Hashimite spirit and Arab sense of honour would not tolerate such utter
humiliation and insult. These texts settle the matter completely.
Having found this niche of the "forced taking" of Umm Kulthum, these ‘ulama of the Shi‘ah took
refuge in it from the torrent of questions and the utter indignation of anyone who witnesses the way in
which they have shed their own shame and dishonour upon the memory of Sayyiduna ‘Ali, Sayyidah
Fatima, and their daughter Umm Kulthum, the granddaughter of Rasulullah r . Year in and year out
they wail and lament the death of Sayyiduna Husayn, but for the honour of his sister Umm Kulthum
they have not the slightest sympathy, blithely asserting that she was "forcibly taken" by ‘Umar ibn alKhattab. Wouldn’t it be simpler, easier and indeed more honourable and truthful just to accept the
course of history as it was? But no, to them that would mean the destruction of this edifice of theirs
called Shi‘ism. So it is better for them to sacrifice the honour of the granddaughter of Rasulullah r than
to forgo the doctrines which their own minds facshioned. As al-Mufid indicated, rather secure the safety
of the Shi‘ah than protect the honour of Umm Kulthum bint ‘Ali.
AFTER THE FOUNDING
OF THE SAFAVID EMPIRE
The founding of the Safavid empire in Iran at the dawn of the 16th century CE opened a new chapter in
Shi‘i history. Shi‘i scholarship in particular benefitted from the patronage of the Safavid monarchs who
invited them to fill the void left by the extermination and exile of the Sunni ‘ulama of Iran. Though at
first reluctant, they soon flowed into Iran in large numbers from Iraq, Bahrain and Syria, to fill posts
created by the newly established Shi‘i state, and to spread their faith amongst the people of Iran, the
vast majority of whom were at that stage still Sunni.
The establishment of a Shi‘i state did not bring discussion around the marriage of Umm Kulthum to an
end.
Question
It has been alleged that either Mu‘awiyah or his son Yazid was involved in the poisoning of
Sayyiduna Hasan. It is claimed that one of them persuaded one of Sayyiduna Hasan’s wives
to administer poison to him. What is the truth of this claim?
Answer
Any claim of a historical nature must be substantiated with proof. An accusation made without
providing proof is slanderous, and should accordingly be dismissed as such.
But even the mere presentation of evidence is not sufficient to prove the claim. There is one very
important condition that has to be met, and that is authenticity. The onus rests upon the claimant not
only to provide evidence for his claim, but also to authenticate his evidence. For as long as he fails to
prove its authenticity his claim is nothing more than an empty and worthless accusation.
This is a general rule which applies to all historical claims, and not only those to do with alleged
misdeeds of the Sahabah. Let us look, for example, at the issue of the "satanic verses" which was so
maliciously taken advantage of by the notorious Salman Rushdie. Mr. Rushdie did not suck the incident
out of his thumb; he found it in historical books. However, what he failed to do was to authenticate.
Why? The reason is obvious. He had his own agenda and his own preconceived notions.
Thus when someone accuses Mu‘awiyah or anybody else of poisoning Sayyiduna Hasan, and does not
care to examine the authenticity of the evidence for his accusation for no reason other than the fact that
he dislikes Mu‘awiyah, he is no less guilty than Salman Rushdie and his ilk. Let not your enmity for a
person become your only motivation for finding him guilty.
And do not ever let enmity for a people carry you away into injustice. Be just; that is closer to
piety. And fear Allah. Verily Allah is aware of what you do. (al-Ma’idah : 8)
It is authentically narrated that when Sayyiduna Hasan lay on his deathbed, dying from poisoning, his
brother, Sayyiduna Husayn came to him and asked him, "Brother, tell me who is the one who poisoned
you." Sayyiduna Hasan asked, "Why? That you may kill him?" Sayyiduna Husayn said, "Yes," to which
Sayyiduna Hasan responded, "I will not tell you anything. If it is the one I think it is, then Allah’s
revenge is harsher. And if it is not he, then by Allah, no innocent person will be killed on account of
me."1
This authentic narration shows that even Sayyiduna Hasan was not exactly sure of the identity of the
poisoner. Over and above that, he refuses to tell his own brother who he suspects. It is strange that
Sayyiduna Hasan himself displayed such great caution in the matter, fearing that he might be accusing
an innocent person, but that people today can blurt out, without the blink of an eye, that "Mu‘awiyah
poisoned Hasan".
The greatest concern Sayyiduna Hasan had was the preservation of the Ummah’s unity. It was on
account of this concern that he made peace with Mu‘awiyah in 41AH. It was also this outstanding
accomplishment of his which was predicted by his grandfather, Rasulullah r , in the well known hadith
"This son of mine is a sayyid, and soon the time will come when through him Allah will reconcile two
great masses of Muslims." He had this concern of not causing strife in the Ummah, right upto the time
of the death. It was his dearest wish to be buried with his grandfather, Rasulullah r , in the room of
Sayyidah ‘Â’ishah, but he instructed Sayyiduna Husayn not to resort to violence in the event Banu
Umayyah tried to prevent his burial there, and to bury him with his mother in Jannat al-Baqi‘.
Sayyiduna Hasan was prepared to sacrifice the things nearest and dearest to him in order to preserve the
peace and unity of the Ummah.
Therefore, if it was Mu‘awiyah whom he suspected of having him poisoned he would rather have been
expected to tell Sayyiduna Husayn something like "I fear that you will cause civil war if you try to
revenge yourself upon the one I suspect". In the fact that he does not allude to the prospect of disunity
and sedition at all, but rather expresses fear at an innocent person being killed on account of him, we
therefore have reason to see that the one whom Sayyiduna Hasan suspected of poisoning him was not
Mu‘awiyah.
Mu‘awiyah lived for ten more years after the passing of Sayyiduna Hasan. In all that time the valiant
and fearless Sayyiduna Husayn was alive, and so was his brother, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah, his
cousins ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, and numerous other members of the Ahl alBayt. However, not a single one of them ever confronted Mu‘awiyah on the poisoning of Sayyiduna
Hasan. In fact, they maintained cordial relations with him, especially Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Abdullah ibn
Ja‘far. They never uttered a word about Mu‘awiyah’s alleged involvement in the death of Sayyiduna
Hasan, neither in public nor to their closest followers. This gives us so much more reason to dismiss the
allegation against Mu‘awiyah as unfounded.
Now let us look at the material in the books of history on the basis of which the allegation is made. The
only report in which Mu‘awiyah is implicated in the death of Sayyiduna Hasan is narrated by the
historian, Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al-Waqidi. This report appears as follows:
[Al-Waqidi] says: I heard some people saying that Mu‘awiyah secretly made one of his servants
administer poison to him.2
As a report of history, this narration suffers from two fatally serious defects. The first is the universally
recognised untrustworthiness of al-Waqidi. Details of his unreliability as a narrator would probably fill
several pages, but all of it may be suitably condensed into a statement by Imam ash-Shafi‘i, who was
his contemporary, and who knew him personally. Ash-Shafi‘i has the following to say: "In Madinah
there were seven people who used to forge chains of narration. One of them was al-Waqidi."3
The second defect is much more glaring. Note that al-Waqidi does not mention the names of his
informants, and that he merely says "I heard some people say". This particular report comes after a
number of other reports in which al-Waqidi clearly mentions the names of his informants. When he
comes to this one, he merely says "I heard some people say". Is it on the basis of such flimsy evidence
that people today are bold enough to level an accusation of murder? Indeed, this smacks of a total
disregard for academic integrity for the sake of nothing but personal sentiments and prejudice.
There is another report in which the wife of Sayyiduna Hasan, namely Ja‘dah bint al-Ash‘ath, is
implicated in his murder by poisoning. This report has it that it was Yazid ibn Mu‘awiyah who set her
up to do it, promising to marry her thereafter. This report is narrated by Muhammad ibn Salam alJumahi. It is reproduced by al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal as follows:
Muhammad ibn Salam al-Jumahi narrates on the authority of Ibn Ju‘dubah that Ja‘dah, the
daughter of Ash‘ath ibn Qays, was the wife of Hasan ibn ‘Ali. A message was sent to her in
secret by Yazid, telling her, "Poison Hasan, and I will be your husband." So she did it. When
Hasan died she sent a message to Yazid asking him to fulfil his pledge. But he told her, "By
Allah, we didn’t approve of you as Hasan’s wife. Shall we approve of you as our own wife?"4
This is the way the report is found in the history books. To the uncritical reader who has no knowledge
of the criteria of authenticity and their application, it might well appear to be acceptable evidence. To
the one whose emotions have already caused him to be favourably disposed towards Sayyiduna Hasan,
and unfavourably disposed towards Yazid, it is nothing less than incontrovertible evidence. But the true
scholar never lets emotion make his decision for him. He first weighs the evidence, examines it and
scrutinises it, and only if it merits approval and acceptance will he accept it. To the discerning scholar,
emotions are shaped by evidence, and not evidence by emotions.
Now we return to the report under discussion. Ibn Ju‘dubah, who is Muhammad ibn Salam’s source for
this report, is properly known as Yazid ibn ‘Iyad ibn Ju‘dubah. He lived in Madinah during the time of
Imam Malik. Imam Malik’s student, ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn al-Qasim, once asked his opinion about a
person called Ibn Sam‘an. The Imam replied, "He is a liar." Ibn al-Qasim then asked, "And Ibn
Ju‘dubah?" Imam Malik replied, "An even bigger liar, an even bigger liar."5 All other rijal critics who
ever expressed themselves on his status as a narrator have concurred with Imam Malik in some way or
the other.
Furthermore, Ibn Ju‘dubah died in the days of the ‘Abbasid khalifah, al-Mahdi, whose reign came to an
end in 169 AH. If we assume that that he died in 165 AH, and that he lived a life of 70 years, we could
say he was born in about 95 AH. In other words, by the time of his birth, almost a half a century had
passed after the death of Sayyiduna Hasan. The "Yazid-Ja‘dah plot" therefore either came to his
knowledge through sources whom he refrains to mention, or it was the product of his own mendacious
and fertile imagination. In light of what his contemporaries thought of him (Ahmad ibn Salih al-Misri,
for example says of him "I think he used to invent hadith for the people."6) one is inclined to believe
that the whole plot was of his own invention. Looking at the times in which he lived— the early
‘Abbasid period— , we find more reason to believe that the report is a forgery by Ibn Ju‘dubah. During
the early ‘Abbasid times sentiments were running high against the recently ousted Umayyads, and a
person like the notorious Yazid would have been the perfect scapegoat.
To come back now to the alleged involvement of Ja‘dah bint Ash‘ath: There is one other report which
implicates her in the poisoning of Sayyiduna Hasan, but it does not mention anything about Yazid.7 It is
narrated from Umm Musa, who was a bondswoman of Sayyiduna ‘Ali.8 The chain of narration up to
Umm Musa is reliable. However, we might pose a question here with regard to Umm Musa herself: Did
she identify Ja‘dah as the culprit out of knowledge of her guilt, or must her words here be construed as
the emotional outburst of a bereaved woman who simply must find someone to blame for the cause of
her bereavement?
We do not pose this question out unnecessary skepticism. There are two things which prompt us to ask
it: Firstly, Sayyiduna Hasan’s own reluctance to name the person he suspected. Keep in mind also that
he himself merely suspected, and did not know it for a fact. Secondly, if there were reasonable grounds
for suspecting Ja‘dah bint Ash‘ath, no man would readily marry her, especially a man of the Ahl alBayt. But with Ja‘dah we find that after the demise of Sayyiduna Hasan she was married by his father’s
cousin Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, and that she bore him a son, Muhammad, and a daughter,
Quraybah.9
From the above discussion we may then draw the following conclusions:
The report implicating Mu‘awiyah is narrated by an extremely unreliable narrator— alWaqidi— from unnamed people
The report implicating Yazid and Ja‘dah are narrated by a known liar— Ibn Ju‘dubah—
who was born almost 50 years after the incident and names no sources at all. His report
comes into circulation during the early ‘Abbasid period in which anti-Umayyad
sentiments, and more particularly anti-Yazid sentiments, are common.
The report from Umm Musa which implicates Ja‘dah is more likely the emotional
outburst of a bereaved woman than an allegation based on factual knowledge.
Sayyiduna Hasan himself refused to disclose the identity of the one he suspected. He
restrained his brother Sayyiduna Husayn from taking any action.
After the death of Sayyiduna Husayn the Ahl al-Bayt maintain good relations with
Mu‘awiyah in Damascus.
In light of the above we fully endorse the statement by Ibn Kathir that none of these reports is
authentic.10 We hope that this demonstration— of how the words of a bereaved woman, a report by
unknown reporters, and a forgery by a known liar came to be regarded as factual history— will bring to
light the need of critically examining historical sources before levelling accusations against anybody.
___________________________________________________________________
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. See Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah vol. 7 p. 41 (Dar al-Hadith, Cairo 1414/1994); adhDhahabi, Siyar A‘lam an-Nubala vol. 3 p. 273 (7th ed., Mu’assasat ar-Risalah, Beirut
1410/1990); al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 6 p. 251 (Mu’assasat ar-Risalah, Beirut
1413/1992); Ibn Hajar, al-Isabah vol. 2 p. 13 (Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, n.d.); Ibn ‘Abd
al-Barr, al-Isti‘ab vol. 1 p. 390 (Dar al-Jil, Beirut 1412/1992)
The narration is authentic on account of the fact that all its narrators are well known for
reliability and trustworthiness, and that the chain of narration is uninterrupted from beginning to
end.
2. al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah vol. 7 p. 41; Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 6 p. 251
3. Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 p. 194, in a footnote
4. ibid. vol. 6 p. 253
5. ibid. vol. 32 p. 223
6. ibid. vol. 32 p. 224
7. ibid. vol. 6 p. 253
8. Ibn Hajar, Lisan al-Mizan vol. 7 p. 543 (Dar al-Fikr, Beirut 1407/1987)
9. Ibn Sa‘d, at-Tabaqat al-Kubra vol. 5 p. 241 (Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1410/1990)
10. al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah vol. 7 p. 41
Questions & Answers
Q
It is alleged that during the khilâfah of Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t , Khâlid ibn al-
Walîd, the Sahâbî military commander, killed Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah, and married his widow on the very
eve of his murder, without even waiting for her ‘iddah to expire. What is the truth of this allegation?
A
The incident of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah is one of those cases which are frequently cited
by Shî‘î propagandists whose first step in the direction of convincing and converting the Ahl as-Sunnah
almost invariably assumes the form of an attempt to prove how innately corrupt and evil the Sahâbah
were (na‘ûdhu billâh).
These are historical issues, and must be treated as such. This means that in judging their historicity one
should firstly include all the evidence which exists around the issue, both general and specific, and
secondly, be objective enough to look critically at the authenticity of one’s material. Seeking to brand
persons, and more especially the Sahâbah y , as corrupt and irreligious on grounds of only one side of
the available evidence, and stubbornly refusing to critically scrutinise the historical material upon the
basis of which a claim of this serious nature is made, can only point to the fact that the accusers have an
agenda— an agenda which they are committed to promote and uphold, no matter to what extent truth
and honesty might be compromised in the process.
It is indeed a sad indictment of the objectivity of the Shî‘î propagandists that they refuse point blank to
take into consideration, when discussing the Sahâbah y , the wealth of âyât in the Qur’ân which
announce the merits of the Sahâbah y . Similarly, they refuse to pay any attention to the numerous
ahâdîth, both general and specific, in which Rasûlullâh r himself extolls the virtues of his companions.
Thirdly, they cannot bear to even cast a glance at the services rendered to the cause of Islâm by any
particular Sahâbî. To them the vaguest notion of a black spot on the character of a companion of
Rasûlullâh and a champion of Islâm— even if amounts to nothing more an unsubstantiated, or even
forged, report in a book on history— is enough to render null and void decades of dedicated service to
the cause of Islâm, despite the fact that his service had been rewarded with approval by Allâh and His
Rasûl r .
Let us turn now to the actual issue. We will discuss it under two headings:
(1) The execution of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah
(2) Khâlid’s alleged marriage to Mâlik’s wife
The execution of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah
Shortly after the demise of Rasûlullâh r a number of tribes in the Arabian peninsula turned away from
Islâm. With many of them apostasy was expressed in the form of a refusal to pay the zakâh. From
Madînah Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t dispatched a number of punitive expeditions. Khâlid ibn al-Walîd was
placed in command of one such expedition.
After his victory against some of the apostate tribes, Khâlid set out for Banû Sulaym, another of the
apostate tribes. On his way towards Banû Sulaym he passed through the lands of Banû Tamîm. Mâlik
ibn Nuwayrah was a member of this tribe, and he had been appointed zakâh-collector of Banû Tamîm
by Rasûlullâh r . Reports had been circulating that Mâlik too, was withholding the zakâh.1 There were
even more disturbing reports about him having started to speak ill about Rasûlullâh, and referring to
him in derogatory terms.2
Sayyidunâ Khâlid t had orders from Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t to inspect the practices of the people of
the various locations he passed by in order to find out whether they were Muslims or whether they too,
had forsaken Islâm. If they heard the adhân and saw the people performing salâh they could conclude
that they were Muslims, and if they did not see them upholding the salâh that would be an indication
that they were not Muslim.3 In the case of Banû Tamîm, Sayyidunâ Khâlid’s spies differed: some
claimed that they did not make salâh, while others claimed that they did.4 According to one report, their
mu’adhdhin, a person by the name of Abul Jalâl, was absent, which was the reason why no adhân was
heard.5 It has even been reported that they encountered armed resistance from Mâlik and his men at an
oasis called al-Ba‘ûdah.6 Those who put up the resistance, including Mâlik, were captured and brought
before Sayyidunâ Khâlid. He decided that they must be put to death. This is how Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah
was killed.
In Sayyidunâ Khâlid’s party was the Sahâbî Sayyidunâ Abû Qatâdah t . He was amongst those who
claimed that they had seen Mâlik’s people making salâh. He was thus understandable upset at the
decision of Sayyidunâ Khâlid, and returned immediately to Madînah to complain to Sayyidunâ Abû
Bakr t . Sayyidunâ ‘Umar t insisted that Khâlid be removed from his position as commander on
account of his impetuousness. Khâlid was summoned back to Madînah and interrogated by the khalîfah,
who concluded that Khâlid’s deed was an error of judgement, for which it was not necessary to dismiss
him.7
Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t was guided in this decision by two things. Firstly, the hadîth of Rasûlullâh r
wherein he described Khâlid as “the sword which Allâh unsheathed against the Unbelievers”. The
second was the fact that a similar occurrence took place in the time of Rasûlullâh r , also with Khâlid
ibn al-Walîd. He was put in command by Rasûlullâh r of an expedition to Banû Jadhîmah. When
Khâlid asked them to accept Islâm they responded by saying “saba’nâ, saba’nâ”, a word which
literally means “We have become Sabeans”, but which had come to be used in the general sense of
changing one’s religion. To Khâlid this was not sufficient evidence of their acceptance of Islâm, and he
gave the order for their execution. When the news of their execution reached Rasûlullâh r he lifted his
hands and said, “O Allâh, I dissociate myself from what Khâlid has done.”8 Although Rasûlullâh r
dissociated himself from the haste Khâlid made himself guilty of, he did not punish him, since it was an
error in judgement on his part. A very regrettable error it was, but it was still an error. It was for this
reason that Rasûlullâh r did not hesitate to give Khâlid command over other expeditions as well.
Shortly after the Banû Jadhîmah incident Rasûlullâh entrusted him with the mission to destroy the
temple of the pagan goddess ‘Uzzâ at a place called Nakhlah.9 In Jumâdâ al-Ulâ in the year 10 AH he
was sent on a da‘wah mission to Banû Hârith ibn Ka‘b, and they accepted Islâm at his hands without a
drop of blood being shed.10 It was also to Khâlid that Rasûlullâh r entrusted the expedition to Ukaydir
ibn ‘Abd al-Malik.11
Above all there was the day, at the battle of Mu’tah in the year 8 AH, when Khâlid ibn al-Walîd would
prove his valour and military genius by saving the day for Islâm and the Muslim ummah in its first ever
encounter with the Roman Empire. The three generals appointed by Rasûlullâh r all attained
martyrdom in succession, and the standard was taken over by the valiant Khâlid, who through his sheer
genius managed to save the honour of Islâm by effecting a tactical withdrawal after what seemed like
certain defeat. Rasûlullâh was informed by Allâh of what had happened at Mu’tah, and although his
eyes were filled with tears at the martyrdom of his beloved cousin Ja‘far ibn Abî Tâlib, his adopted son
Zayd ibn Hârithah and the poet ‘Abdullâh ibn Rawâhah y , he saw reason to give the Muslims in
Madînah the glad tidings of Khâlid’s victory, saying, “then the standard was taken up by a Sword from
amongst the Swords of Allâh, and upon his hands did Allâh grant victory.”12
All of this show that Rasûlullâh r saw the Banû Jadhîmah incident, as regrettable as it was, as a
mistake on the part of Khâlid. In not punishing Khâlid for the execution of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah, and
not dismissing him from his post as commander, Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t was thus completely justified.
His interrogation of Khâlid revealed that Khâlid had committed an error of judgement, and the
insistence of Sayyidunâ ‘Umar t that Khâlid be dismissed was met by a resolute answer form
Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t : “I will not sheath the sword that was drawn by Allâh.”13 Like Rasûlullâh r
did in the case of Banû Jadhîmah, Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr paid out blood money to Mâlik’s brother
Mutammim, and ordered the released of all captives taken by Khâlid.13
Khâlid’s alleged marriage to Mâlik’s wife
With the passage of time the incident of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah became the object of the attention of
certain unscrupulous transmitters of history. An obnoxious tail was soon introduced into the story in the
form of Mâlik’s wife, who is named as Umm Tamîm bint Minhâl. Khâlid, it was said, was so
enamoured of the beautiful Umm Tamîm that he saw fit to slaughter Mâlik and his entire tribe in order
to possess her, and barely was the slaughter over when he took her as his own wife.
In an allegation as serious as this one would have expected the party levelling the accusation to produce
reliable evidence to support their claim. However, all that is ever produced is fragments of statements
by historians. The accusers consistently fail to realise that a quotation is of no value for as long as it
cannot be authenticated. While they display great vigour in levelling the accusation and stating their
references, complete with volume and page numbers, they conveniently and consistently forget to
authenticate those “facts”. The great imâm ‘Abdullâh ibn al-Mubârak stated a most profound truth when
he said:
Isnâd (stating the chain of narration) is part of Dîn. Were it not for isnâd, anyone
could have said just what he wished.14
A study of the texts wherein reference is made to the story of the Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah reveals that not a
single one of them is reported with an uninterrupted chain of narration that consists of reliable
authorities. We may confidently say that we have looked at almost all the available material on the
issue of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah, and we have found that they may be classified into two types: (1) reports
in which no mention at all is made of Mâlik’s wife, and (2) reports in which she is mentioned. The
former type includes material narated via authentic as well as unauthentic chains of narration. As for the
latter type (the reports which make mention of Mâlik’s wife), they have been handed down exclusively
through highly unreliable chains of narration. They all suffer from two deficiencies: untrustworthy or
unknown narrators, and suspicious interruptions in the chain of narration. We might, for example, look
at the reports about Mâlik’s wife mentioned in sources like at-Tabarî’s Târîkh and Ibn Hajar’s al-Isâbah:
(1) Khâlid married Umm Tamîm the daughter of Minhâl, and left her till her
clean period ended.15
This report appears in a long narrative documented by at-Tabarî on the authority of the following chain
of narration:
at-Tabarî— (narrrates from)— as-Sarî ibn Yahyâ— (who narrrates from) —
Shu‘ayb ibn Ibrâhîm— (who narrrates from)— Sayf ibn ‘Umar— (who narrrates
from)— Sahl (ibn Yûsuf)— (who narrrates from)— Qâsim (ibn Muhammad) and
‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb, who say...
This isnâd is extremely defective, on several counts. Firstly, it runs through the historian Sayf ibn
‘Umar at-Tamîmî, whose extreme unreliabilty is a matter of consensus among the rijâl critics. Ibn
Hibbân has summed up their opinions of him in the words: “He narrates forged material from reliable
narrators. They (the critics) say he used to forge hadîth.” He adds that Sayf was suspected of zandaqah
(secret heresy).16 Of recent there has been much protest by Shî‘î authors about reliance upon Sayf’s
narrations about ‘Abdullâh ibn Saba, (despite the fact that Sayf is not the only historian who mentions
Ibn Saba and his role). However, it seems when the very same Sayf narrates historical material in which
the Sahâbah y are maligned, a blind eye must be turned to his proven mendacity.
The second problem is with the person who narrates from Sayf, namely Shu‘ayb ibn Ibrâhîm. This
person, we are told by Ibn Hajar in Lisân al-Mîzân, was virtually unknown. He quotes Ibn ‘Adî who
says: “He is not known. He narrates ahâdîth and historical reports which uncorroborated to a certain
extent, and in which there is an element of prejudice against the Salaf (early Muslims). ”17 Is it in any
way acceptable to use information that was handed down by a non-entity such as this to malign a man
who was named “the Sword of Allâh” by Rasûlullâh r , and who is one of those of whom it was stated
in the Qur’ân:
Those of you who spent (their wealth) before the conquest (of Makkah) are not equal (to the
rest). They are greater in status than those who spent thereafter and fought. And all of them have
been promised good by Allâh. (al-Hadîd:10)
Khâlid ibn al-Walîd t became Muslim before the conquest of Makkah.
The third point of criticism against this isnâd is the person who appears as Sayf’s direct source: Sahl ibn
Yûsuf al-Ansârî. This person, like Shu‘ayb ibn Ibrâhîm, is unknown.18 The same may therefore be said
of him as a narrator, and of the nature of his narration in maligning the character of a Sahâbî who
sacrificed so much for Islâm, as was said of Shu‘ayb’s narration.
Finally, even if we were to assume, for argument’s sake, that this isnâd is free from all defects right up
to Sahl ibn Yûsuf, there remains one crucial problem. The persons who allegedly narrate the story
appear here as Qâsim ibn Muhammad and ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb. Neither of these two figures were even
born at the time when the incident of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah occured. Whichever way one looks at it, this
report simply does not conform to the two most basic conditions for authenticity: reliability of the
narrator, and an uninterrupted chain of narration.
Let us now look at another narration in Târîkh at-Tabarî:
(2) ‘Umar told Khâlid: “You enemy of Allâh! You killed a Muslim man and
thereafter took his wife. By Allâh, I will stone you.”19
The chain of narration on the authority of which this report reached at-Tabarî is as follows:
at-Tabarî— (narrrates from)— (Muhammad) ibn Humayd (ar-Râzî)— (who
narrrates from) — Salamah (ibn al-Fadl ar-Râzî)— (who narrrates from)—
Muhammad ibn Ishâq— (who narrrates from)— Talhah ibn ‘Abdillâh ibn ‘Abd
ar-Rahmân ibn Abî Bakr— who says that it used to be Abû Bakr as-Siddîq’s
instruction to his armies...
This isnâd too, is defective and unreliable. It is unreliable on account of Muhammad ibn Ishâq, who was
a much more truthful historian than Sayf ibn ‘Umar, but who used to commit tadlîs. Tadlîs is when a
narrator intentionally omits the name of his direct source and ascribes his information to a source higher
up in the chain of narration. Ibn Hibban states about him: “The problem with Ibn Ishâq is that he used to
omit the names of unreliable narrators, as a result of which unreliable material crept into his narrations.
However, if he makes it clear that he has actually heard from the person whom he states as his source,
then his narration is authentic.”20 When we look at the way in which Ibn Ishâq has narrated this
incident from Talhah ibn ‘Abdillâh ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmân ibn Abî Bakr, we find that he has not explicitly
stated that he heard this information from him. He uses the ambiguous term ‘an, which was a common
device used by narrators committing tadlîs. Ibn Ishâq, we are told by Ibn Hajar, was well-known for
committing tadlîs by omitting the names of unreliable and unknown persons, and even from narrators
who are regarded as unreliable for more serious reasons.21
Besides Ibn Ishâq himself, it must also be taken into consideration that Muhammad ibn Humayd arRâzî, who appears in the isnâd as at-Tabarî’s direct source, has come under severe criticism from the
muhaddithîn. Many of them have outrightly labelled him as an outright liar. He has also been proven to
be dishonest in his claim to narrating the Maghâzî of Ibn Ishâq from Salamah ibn Fadl. Some of the
muhaddithîn who at one stage entertained a good opinion of him had to change their opinions when it
became clear that the man was a shameless forger. One critic expresses his opinion as follows: “I have
never seen a natural liar, except for two persons: Sulaymân ash-Shâdhakûnî and Muhammad ibn
Humayd. He used to memorise all of his ahâdîth, and his hadîth used to grow longer every day.”22
Besides the above, it must not be forgotten that the final source for this narration wasn’t even born
when Sayyidunâ ‘Umar t allegedly spoke these words to Sayyidunâ Khâlid t . These were events that
supposedly took place in the time of Sayyidunâ Abû Bakr t , but the one who tells us about it is his
great grandson— three generations later. Like the previous report, this one too, suffers from a huge gap
in the chain of narration.
Shî‘î authors have the habit of supplying incidents like this with multiple references. In order to fully
convince the uninformed Sunnî reader, they will quote not only at-Tabarî as the source for the incident,
but also Ibn Kathîr’s al-Bidâyah wan-Nihâyah, Ibn al-Athîr’s al-Kâmil, etc. They conveniently forget
that Ibn Kathîr and Ibn al-Athîr, and like them, most later historians, draw directly from at-Tabarî, and
have stated as much in their respective introductions. It is thus of no benefit to quote them as separate
references, since all they do is quote at-Tabarî. And as for at-Tabarî himself, he has never claimed all
the material in his huge work to be the truth. On the contrary, he states very clearly in his introduction:
Whatever is to be found in this book of mine as quoted from some past source, which the reader
finds unacceptable or the hearer deems repugnant for the reason that he does not see any
authenticity in it or does not find real meaning in it, let it be known that we are not responsible
for it. The one responsible for it would be one of those who transmitted it down to us. We for our
part have only reproduced what has been transmitted to us.
A third report mentioning the wife of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah, which is widely quoted by those wishing to
add a tragically romantic flavour to their basic aim of harming the reputation of Sayyidunâ Khâlid t ,
is the following:
(3) Khâlid saw the wife of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah. She was very beautiful.
Thereupon Mâlik told his wife, “You have killed me,” meaning that she will be
the cause of his death. And so it happened.23
This twist to the story is usually quoted with Ibn Hajar’s work al-Isâbah as reference. Closer inspection
of that work reveals that Ibn Hajar quoted it from a source called ad-Dalâ’il by one Thâbit ibn Qâsim.
Despite a lenghty search for information about this author or his book, we were unable to unearth a
single fact about him in any of the biographical dictionaries available to us. Neither the classical works
(such as the biographical works of al-Bukhârî, Ibn Abî Hâtim, Ibn Hibbân and al-Khatîb al-Baghdâdî)
nor the works of later scholars (such as adh-Dhahabî and Ibn Hajar) provide any clue as to who Thâbit
ibn Qâsim was, when his book ad-Dalâ’il was composed, and what it contains. Even a contemporary
work like al-A‘lâm of az-Ziriklî contains no information whatsoever about a person called Thâbit ibn
Qâsim. Therefore we may say with a great degree of confidence that this report, as tragic and romantic
as it may be, amounts to nothing more than a fable spurned by the fertile imagination of some
unscrupulous person. A fable such as this would only be used against a Sahâbî like Sayyidunâ Khâlid
ibn al-Walîd t by a person whose hatred of the Sahâbah y has blinded him against all truth and reason.
It is extremely unfortunate that the vicious and unscrupulous propaganda of the Shî‘î missionaries has
succeeded in turning the sentiments of many a Muslim against this great son of Islâm and the pride of
its military commanders. Having swallowed the story about the wife of Mâlik ibn Nuwayrah hook, line
and sinker, they now cannot bear to think of Khâlid ibn al-Walîd except in the vilest of terms. They find
themselves unable to associate his name except with the concocted legend of the wife of Mâlik ibn
Nuwayrah. All his services rendered to Islâm, and even the title of “Sayfullâh” given to him by
Rasûlullâh r are simply ignored, and on the basis of nothing but a fable. It is heart rending to see the
brazenness with which Shî‘î authors like Muhammad Tijani Samawi in his book Then I was Guided
challenge the title of “Sayfullâh” (Sword of Allâh) bestowed upon Sayyidunâ Khâlid t by none other
than Rasûlullâh r , and to see them labelling him “the crippled sword of the devil.”24 Such,
unfortunately, is the destiny of those whose faith is founded upon fables and legends.
There is another point which definitely merits mention in this regard. The Imâmî (Ithnâ ‘Asharî) Shî‘ah,
for all their political rhetoric, have never in the history of Islâm been known for positive political or
military action.25 It is for this reason that the Shî‘ah, unlike the Ahl as-Sunnah, do not have military
leaders like Sayyidunâ Khâlid t of whom to be proud, and whose names to invoke as paragons of
courage and valour. Thus, when the need arose for a person like Khumaynî to speak about Islâm’s
military successes of yesterday, he could not find anything of that nature within the legacy of his own
tradition. It was the history of the Sahâbah y — those very same Sahâbah whom he and his ilk had
been slandering and denouncing as apostates, hypocrites and unbelievers for centuries— that he was
forced to turn. Look at the tongue-in-cheek manner in which he writes in his book Kashf al-Asrâr:
The rulers of Islâm in those days did not sit in their courts upon silk carpets, because the Prophet
of Islâm forbade its use. The religious spirit was firmly implanted within them, to the extent that
it led a great Muslim commander to swallow a quantity of lethal poison in the firm belief that the
Rabb of Islâm and the Qur’ân will protect him before the enemies of Islâm. That is exactly what
happened when sixty persons from the Muslim army attacked a Roman army of sixty thousand
and gained the upper hand over them. Similarly, a few thousand of them defeated seven hundred
thousand Romans, and a small number of Muslims overran the whole land of Iran. All of that
was achieved through the power of religion and faith, and not because they thought of religion
and its tenets as a shame and a disgrace. What is there in you which resembles that which they
had? They believed that death and martyrdom is happiness, and that martyrs enjoy the life of the
hereafter by the favour and grace of Allâh. It was on account of this that they achieved those
such astonishing success. The point is that they had a great amount of love for Dîn, belief in the
Unseen and partiality towards religiousness. As for ourselves, we are different in all of those
things, and thus will we remain...26
These words speak for themselves. They are in no need of commentary of any sort. However, there is
maybe just one thing upon which light needs to shed, and that is the identity of the “great Muslim
commander who swallowed a quantity of lethal poison in the firm belief that the Rabb of Islâm and the
Qur’ân will protect him before the enemies of Islâm”. That leader was none other than the Sword of
Allâh, Sayyidunâ Khâlid ibn al-Walîd t . The incident is documented by adh-Dhahabî in his work
Siyar A‘lâm an-Nubalâ from two separate sources, both of which we reproduce here:
Qays ibn Abî Hâzim says: I saw poison being brought to Khâlid, and it was asked, “What is
this?” The answer was given, “It is poison.” He said, “Bismillâh” and drank it. I said, “By Allâh,
this is a miracle, this is true courage.”
Abu’s-Safar says: Khâlid stayed in al-Hîrah at the house of the mother of the Banû Marâzibah.
They said, “Be on your guard against the Persians, lest they poison you.” He said, “Bring it to
me.” He took it and said, “Bismillâh”, and did him no harm.27
Maybe we can now understand why Khumaynî thought it prudent not to mention the name of that
“great Islamic leader.” But if one such as he could see and admit (albeit grudgingly) that men like
Khâlid ibn al-Walîd “had a great amount of love for Dîn, belief in the Unseen and partiality towards
religiousness” and that “we ourselves are different in all of those things, and thus will we remain” (in
other words that we can never compare ourselves to men like Khâlid ibn al-Walîd) then why is it that
some Shî‘î neophytes, who regard themselves as followers of Khumaynî, cannot bear to spare even a
single good thought for the “great Islamic leader” Khâlid ibn al-Walîd, and continue to spread
calumnious falsehoods about him? Why does revolutionary Iran, which regards itself as the
manifestation of Khumaynî’s political philosophy, flood the Muslim world with literature in which
Sayyidunâ Khâlid ibn al-Walîd t is acrimoniously denounced as “the crippled sword of the devil”? Is
it in order to achieve the sanctimonious goal of Muslim unity, or simply to score a point for Shî‘ism
against the Ahl as-Sunnah?
We will leave the reader to ponder over these questions.
_________________________________________
REFERENCES
1. Ibn Hajar, al-Isâbah vol. 6 p. 36 (Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut n.d.);
Ibn Hibbân, Kitâb ath-Thiqât vol. 2 p. 164 (Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut,
reproduced from Hyderabad edition)
2. al-Isâbah vol. 6 p. 37; compare Târîkh at-Tabarî vol. 2 p. 273 (Dâr al-Kutub
al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1408/1988)
Note that it is by no means our contention that all of these reports were in fact
true or that they have been authentically narrated. We quote it merely to show
that there is another face to the narrated material on the issue of Mâlik ibn
Nuwayrah as well— a face that the Shî‘î propagandists would rather keep hidden
and unknown.
3. Khalîfah ibn Khayyât, Târîkh p. 104 (ed. Dr. Akram Diyâ’ al-‘Umarî, Dâr
Taybah, Riyadh, 2nd edition 1405/1985)
4. adh-Dhahabî, Siyar A‘lâm an-Nubalâ’ vol. 1 p. 377 (ed. Shu‘ayb al-Arnâ’ût et
al, Mu’assasat ar-Risâlah, Beirut, 7th edition 1410/1990)
5. Khalîfah ibn Khayyât, Târîkh p. 105
6. ibid. p.104
7. ibid. p. 105. Also cited in Siyar vol. 1 p. 376
8. Sahîh al-Bukhârî no. 4339
9. Sîrat Ibn Hishâm vol. 4 p. 1282 (Dâr al-Fikr, Cairo n.d.)
10. ibid. vol. 4 p. 1448
11. ibid. vol. 4 p. 1378
12. Sahîh al-Bukhârî no. 4262
13. al-Isâbah vol. 6 p. 37
14. Sahîh Muslim vol. 1 p. 87 (with an-Nawawî’s commentary)
15. Târîkh at-Tabarî vol. 2 p. 273 (Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1408/1988)
16. Cited in al-Mizzî, Tahdhîb al-Kamâl vol. 12 p. 326 (ed. Dr. B.A.Ma‘rûf,
Mu’assasat ar-Risâlah, Beirut, 1413/1992)
17. Lisân al-Mîzân vol. 3 p. 176 (Dâr al-Fikr, Beirut)
18. ibid. vol. 3 p. 146
19. Târîkh at-Tabarî vol. 2 p. 274
20. Tahdhîb al-Kamâl vol. 24 p. 428
21. Ibn Hajar, Ta‘rîf Ahl at-Taqdîs p. 38 (ed. Tâhâ ‘Abd ar-Ra’ûf Sa‘d, Maktabat
al-Kulliyyât al-Azhariyyah, Cairo n.d.)
22. Tahdhîb al-Kamâl vol. 25 p. 105
23. al-Isâbah vol. 6 p. 37
24. Samawi, Then I Was Guided p. 188, (Ansariyan Publications, Qum, n.d.)
25. Khumaynî’s reinterpretation of the doctrine of Wilâyat al-Faqîh, and his
widening of its scope to include the political arena as well, is unprecedented in
the history of Shî‘ism. (See Nazriyyat Wilâyat al-Faqîh by Dr. ‘Irfân ‘Abd alHamîd Fattâh, Dâr ‘Ammâr, Amman, 1988.) It was, and still is regarded by many
of the leading mujtahids of Iran and Iraq as an innovation in Ja‘farî jurisprudence.
26. Khumaynî, Kashf al-Asrâr p. 23 (translated into Arabic by Dr. Muhammad alBundârî, Dâr ‘Ammâr, Amman, 1987)
27. Siyar A‘lâm an-Nubalâ vol. 1 p. 376
Are
there Hypocrites
among
the Prophet's
Companions?
²²²
by Muhammad Al-khider
The following verse of the Holy Qur’an suffices as an answer to the above-presented
question: Allah Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an: “The vanguard (of Islam) the first of
those who forsook (their homes) and those who gave them aid, and (also) those who
followed them in (all) good deeds, well-pleased is Allah with them, as are they with Him.
For them hath He prepared gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever;
that is the supreme felicity. Certain of desert Arabs round about you are hypocrites as
well as (desert Arabs) among the Madinah folk; they are obstinate in hypocrisy. Thou
knowest them not; We know them: Twice shall We punish them: and in addition shall they
be sent to a grievous penalty.” (9: 100-101)
In the aforementioned verses, Allah Almighty put the Muhajirs (those who forsook their
homes in Makkah and emigrated to Madinah,) and the Ansa’r (the citizens of Madinah
who rendered a helping hand to the emigrants) on one scale of the balance, and the
obstinate hypocrites among the desert Arabs and the hypocrites of Madinah, on the other
pan of the balance.
Hence, it became incontrovertible to the Sunni Muslims that the title “Sahabah” is not
bestowed except on those who met the Prophet (PBUH), believed in him and died in the
state of full belief, worship and obedience to Allah Almighty. However, hypocrites cannot
be referred to as Sahabah (Companions of the Prophet) simply because they concealed
their disbelief and revealed Islam (Peaceful submission to the Will of Allah and His
commands). Any body who dissembled and became a hypocrite during Prophet
Muhammad’s era cannot whatsoever be endued the title Sahabiy.
The bona-fide companions of the Prophet (PBUH) are classified into two major
categories according to the Shiite Belief. The following is the illustration:
First: the rightly guided companions who neither recanted nor retraced their steps after the
demise of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him). Those are not less than three and no
more than seven, according to the Shiite sources. Imam Al-Kalbiy narrated in Al-Ka’fiy
(one of the reliable and credible Shiite Sources of Hadith) that: It was reported that
Hamr’an bin A’yun said: I said to Abu Ja’far (may peace be upon him): “May God
make me your ransom, what a small community we are! If we all assemble at a sheep for
a meal, we cannot finish it.” Abu-Ja’far replied: “Should I tell you of a more amazing
fact than that? The Muhajirs (those who emigrated from Makkah to Madinah) and the
Ans’r (the inhabitants of Al-Madinah who received and helped the Muhajirs), have all
renounced their religion except three of them.” (Al-Ka’fi 2/191, section, Rearing of the
Believers)
Al-Ka’shiy also narrated in his book about the rightly guided companions as follows: It
was reported by Hana’n bin Sadeer from his father that Ja’far (on him be peace) said:
“All the people defected from their religion after the death of Prophet Muhammad
(PBUH) except three.” Who are those three? I interjected. He replied: “Al-Miqda’d bin
Al-As-wad, Abu Dharr Al-Ghifa’riy, and Salma’n Al-Fa’risiy.”
There is a myriad of texts which indicate that the aforementioned companions of the
Prophet were followed in the course of clinging to the right path after the Prophet’s
demise by four others. Thus, the number of the true devoted believers reached seven,
according to the Shiite standards. To confirm the aforementioned Shiite illusion, many
narratives have been quoted. The following is one of them: It was reported that AlHa’rith bin Al-Mugheerah An-Nasiriy said: “I heard Abdul-Ma’lik bin A’yun ask
Abu Abdallah [on him be peace] a number of questions until he reached the statement:
So did people recant their faith?” To this, Abu Abdullah replied: “Yes, I swear by the
name of God, they did defect from their faith except three of the companions of the
Prophet (PBUH). Then they were shortly followed by: Al-Hussein bin Al-Mundhir
(Abu Sa’sa’n), Amma’r bin Ya’ser, Shateerah and Tha’labah bin Amr (AbuShateerah). Thus, the number totaled seven.
All of the Shiite texts regarding this matter are unanimous that the number of the sincere
devoted believers among the ranks of the Prophet’s Companions did not exceed seven.
Abu-Ja’far said: “Therefore, they were only seven, and no body except those seven knew
the rights of the Leader of the Believers viz. Ali bin Abi Ta’lib, save those seven
committed sincere companions of the Prophet.” (Rija’l Al-Kishiy, pages 11&12)
Hence, Abu Abdullah used to swear by the name of God to prove the veracity of that
unfounded claim. He said: “I swear by the name of God Almighty, no body fulfilled his
pledge of allegiance and obedience to Ali bin Abi Ta’leb save seven people.” (Biha’r AlAnwa’r 22/322)
Worthy of mention, is that those seven men, especially the first three, namely: AlMiqda’d, Amma’r, and Abu Dharr, amazingly were not treating each other like
brethren who are affiliated to one faith and creed. It was reported in the book of “Rija’l
Al-Kishiy that the Leader of the Believers (Ali bin Abi Ta’leb) said: “O Abu Dharr! If it
so happened that Salma’n Al-Fa’risiy revealed to you what he knew, you could instantly
state:“May God’s grace be on he who kills Salma’n,” out of jealousy. It was also
reported that Abu Baseer said: “I heard Abu Abdallah [on him be peace] say: “God’s
Messenger (Peace be upon him) said: “O Salma’n! If your knowledge were to be exposed
to Miqda’d bin Al-Aswad, he would have become an infidel. O Miqda’d! If your
knowledge were to be revealed to Salma’n, he would have forsaken Islam.” (Rija’l AlKishiy, page 11)
Hence, they dealt with each other by utmost disguise and concealment of their thoughts,
knowledge and agenda. It was reported by Ja’far that his father said: I mentioned
disguise and concealment once in front of Ali [on him be peace], so he said: “If it so
happened that Abu Dharr knew what was in the heart of Salma’n, he would obviously
murder him.” He mentioned this of them despite the fact that Prophet Muhammad
(Peace be upon him) had established brotherhood between both of them in Madinah.
Therefore, what do you think of the rest of human-folk? Even those seven sincere devoted
companions of the Holy Prophet did fein ignorance of each other and concealed whatever
they knew in awe of being envied. We confer from the Shiite narratives that the
companions of the Holy Prophet who did not recant after his death were seven in number;
viz. Al-Miqda’d bin Al-Aswad, Amma’r bin Ya’ser, Abu Dharr Al-Ghifa’riy,
Salma’n Al-Fa’risy, Al-Hussein bin Al-Mun’dhir (Abu Sa’sa’n), Tha’labah bin
Amru (Abu Umrah, the Helper inhabitant of Madinah) and Shateerah.
The second category comprises the hypocrite and dissembler companions. Their
hypocrisy was two pronged; either as spawn of their own vested interests and great desire
for the luxury of this ephemeral world or hypocrisy in belief as a result of hatred geared
against Islam. Regarding this category, whether you consider it one or two categories, in
Islamic perspective, they are an ignominious, despised and held in indignation as one
clique conspiring against Islam. According to the Shiite Belief, the rest of the Prophet’s
Companions fall under the second category except the aforementioned seven of them.
Under the influence of such classification, a question presents itself as follows: If only a
few of the companions were sincere and good and the majority of them were over-ridden
by hypocrisy and their own vested interests, then which type of Prophet’s Companions
does the Holy Qur’an praise explicitly and profusely a couple of times?
I do not expect anyone to answer that: the Holy Qura’n, in its continual praise of the
companions was referring only to a minority of them who do not exceed seven. That is
simply because if there happens to be in a corrupt and wicked society, a small minority of
righteous men, it cannot wholly be judged as a good, righteous and prosperous society.
Therefore, how can the Holy Qura’n praise the rightly guided companions of the Holy
Prophet and give them glad tidings that their abode is Paradise beneath which rivers flow,
while they are of a mean and debased caliber? From where did this classification come?
Did it come from the Holy Qur’an or from the Sunnah (traditions and narratives of the
Holy Prophet)? Or they are rather mere false fancies and caprices of the Shiite Adherents!
Another question that can be presented is: Had the hypocrites, as many as we have earlier
stated, ran the state after the sorrowful demise of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), and as such
held high ranking positions in the state portfolios. Then how comes that Islam spread all
over the world and eventually the flags of disbelief hang half-mast high due to the
collapse of the infidel empires of Persia and Rome?
I would like herein to draw the attention of the reader to the following fact: Hypocrites
during the era of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) were not an anonymous
community; they were rather an uncovered and dishonored cabal. Some of them were
exposed personally and others were unmasked by their taints and ill qualities mentioned
in the Holy Qur’an. God Almighty unveiled the marks of the hypocrites in both chapters
of the Holy Qur’an viz. “At-Tawbah” which was known as “the Revealer and
Destroyer, due to the fact that it exposed their tainted qualities and intrigues. Thereafter,
the status of the believers among the rightly guided companions of the Holy Prophet was
mentioned with God Almighty’s certification. In addition to that, chapter “AlMunafiqoon”, was revealed primarily to address the ring leader of the hypocrites,
Abdallah bin Ubayy bin Salool and his henchmen, as mentioned by At-Tabrisiy, one of
the most reputed Shiite Interpreters of the Holy Qur’an. (Muj’maa Al-Baya’n Fiy Tafseer
Al-Qur’an, page 85)
As far as Surat (chapter) At-Tawbah is concerned, it did obliterate the traces of the
hypocrites and revealed many of their marks and ill qualities in many verses therein.
Allah Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an: “Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day
ask thee for no exemption from fighting with their goods and persons… until: “And
indeed Hell surrounds the Unbelievers (on all sides) (9: 49)
This suffices to reveal to you the quirks and tainted qualities of the hypocrites. It is crystalclear that the sincere devout companions of the Holy Prophet had all gone out to fight in
the expedition of Tabook. At the outset, Abu Dharr and Abu Khaithamah had
slackened and eventually decided to trace the blazing trail of the Prophet (PBUH).
Among the slackers in the beginning were as follows: Ka’b in Ma’lik, Hilal bin
Umayyah, and Mar’arah bin Rabeei. They were all among the Ansariy folk (those who
received, helped and sheltered the Prophet and his companions in Madinah), whose
repentance Allah Almighty accepted and forgave them eventually. God Almighty says in
the Holy Qur’an: “(He turned in mercy also) to the three who were left behind; (they
felt guilty) to such a degree that the earth seemed straitened to them, for all its
spaciousness, and their (very) souls seemed straitened to them. And they perceived
that there is no fleeing from Allah (and no refuge) but to Him. Then He turned to
them, that they might repent: For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.” (9: 118)
It is enough for us to mention herein that Allah Almighty, revealed to His entire believing
folk all the characteristics, marks and the true state of the hypocrites’ affairs, after they
had been secretly plotting and intriguing against Islam and Muslims. Allah the
Omniscient says in the Holy Qur’an: “Or do those in whose hearts is a disease, think
that Allah will not bring to light all their rancour? Had We so willed, we could have
shown them up to thee, and thou shouldst have known them by their marks: But
surely thou wilt know them by the tone of their speech! And Allah knows all that ye
do.” (47: 29-30)
Therefore, this meaning is confirmed in the interpretation of Al-Ayashi (one of the
resounded Shiite Scholars) of the following verse: “For Allah loves those who turn to
Him constantly, and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean.” (2: 222)
It was reported that Salma’n said: “I was once with Abu Jaafar (on him be peace), when
Hanra’n bin Aayun entered and inquired about many things. When Hamra’n was about
to depart, he said to Abu Jaafar (on him be peace): “Explain to us, may Allah prolong
your life and make us enjoy your company, the wisdom behind the fact that whenever we
come to you, no body vacates but with a tender heart and think no more about the gains of
this fleeting world. Moreover, we do not heed and give much concern to what people
possess of the material things of this transient world. However, after we depart from you
and intermingle with the laity and men of trade in their hustle and bustle, suddenly our
hearts become pawns of love for the world.” He said: “Then Abu Jaafar (on him be
peace) replied: “Indeed our hearts are susceptible to temptation; sometimes they easily
defy inclination towards worldly gains and sometimes it is hard for them to resist any
temptation.”
Then Abu Jaafar (on him be peace) went on to say: “Verily the rightly guided and
sincere companions of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) said to him: “O messenger
of God! We are afraid that we might be bearing some traits of hypocrisy!” He replied:
“Why should you fear that?” They said: “In your presence when you admonish us we feel
apprehensively dreaded, as such we forget all the worldly interests as though we are
witnessing the hereafter, paradise and Hell-fire. But when we depart from you and enter
our houses that we find fragrant with the scent of our children, spouses and presence of
wealth, we tend to forget everything as though nothing had happened. Don’t you think
that the aforementioned qualities might be among the signs of hypocrisy?
The messenger of God (Peace be upon him) calmed them down by saying: “Nay, those are the evil
steps taken by Devil [Old Nick] to awaken your desire for this ephemeral world. I swear by the
name of Allah Almighty, had it so happened that you stayed perpetually in the same situation
during your presence with me, as you have earlier explained, then the angels would have shaken
hands with you, and you would be walking above water. Had it not been that you commit
mistakes and ask for forgiveness from Allah Almighty, He would have created instead of you
other people who would commit mistakes after which they would seek His forgiveness. And surely
He would forgive them.” Indeed a true believer is the one who after being tempted to commit evil,
returns often to Allah the Exalted for forgiveness. Don’t you read the verse wherein God Almighty
says: “For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly.” (2: 222) and the verse: “Seek ye the
forgiveness of your Lord and turn to Him in repentance?” (11: 03)
Integrity of
the Prophet's Companions
by
By Muhammad Alkhider
Some people intentionally or unintentionally do refer to the meaning of Integrity and the
concept of Infallibility as synonymous, although the difference between them is crystalclear. As such, they think that attributing virtuousness to the companions of the Holy
Prophet necessitates their infallibility. What a grave mistake!
Integrity of the Prophet’s companions means that: they were neither hypocrites, liars,
lewd, immoral nor infidels. Besides, they were righteous believers who would err
sometimes and correct their mistakes thereafter. They committed mistakes after which
they hastened to repent and seek forgiveness from Allah Almighty. They obeyed God, the
Most High, and expected His acceptance of their acts of devotion without an iota of
doubt.
Infallibility requires of a person to be exalted from committing sins or perpetuating
shortcomings. Both his mind and body should be immaculate of blemishes and
shortcomings that can easily defame his rank and traduce his status.
The difference between Integrity and Infallibility is crystal-clear in Islam. The Sunni
Muslims do refer to the companions of the Holy Prophet as straightforward, virtuous and
honest but not infallible. Impeccability according to the belief of the Sunni Muslims is
only attributed to Prophets and Messenger of God Almighty.
Regarding the source of integrity and the question whether it is a Philosophical theory or
rather an Islamic fact that a host of texts has proved authentic, the answer is as follows:
A pondering and reflecting look at the Holy Qur’an and a study that Muslims render to
the Book of God and the authentic traditions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) is able to
provide a convincing answer to the aforementioned question. Allah, the Holy One, says in
the Holy Qur’an: “Allah’s good pleasure was on the believers when they swore Fealty
to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down
Tranquility to them: and He rewarded them with a speedy victory.” (48: 18)
God Almighty in the above-mentioned verse explained to His messenger and the entire
believing folk that His pleasure was on the believers, men and women, who plighted
fealty to Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). He informed his messenger
furthermore that He knew what was concealed in their hearts regarding faith in Him and
truthfulness. Hence, He sent down tranquility, peace, calm and sense of security and
confidence to them. This suffices as testimony from God Almighty regarding the veracity
of the companions’ faith, their truthfulness and sincerity. It has been proven that the
messenger of God (PBUH) said: “No one among those who swore their fealty to me
under the tree will be consigned to Hell except the owner of the red camel.” (Related
by At-Tirmidhiy in “Al-Mana’qib [Virtues of the Companions], and Muslim in the same
titled book)
The man who was doomed to Hell-fire according to the above-mentioned Hadith, was
among the arch-hypocrites of Madinah called Al-Jaddu bin Qais.
The number of the companions who swore their fealty to the Prophet (PBUH) was 1,400.
According to other traditions it reached 1,500. God Almighty testified to their sincere and
truthfulness and confirmed to His messenger that there was no grain of hypocrisy in their
hearts except one man. The messenger of God (PBUH) eventually revealed his name to
the companions. His name was Al-Jaddu bin Qais. He did not swear his fealty to the
messenger of God as did the companions under the Tree of Allah’s Pleasure. Allah,
Exalted in Might, says in the Holy Qur’an: “Not equal among you are those who spent
(freely) and fought before the victory (with those who did so later). Those are higher
in rank than those who spent (freely) and fought afterwards. But to all has Allah
promised a goodly (reward.) (57: 10)
God, the Most High, in the above-mentioned verse, promised the companions who spent
freely before and after the speedy victory of the liberation of Makkah, a goodly reward.
Moreover, He passed a verdict regarding the ones He promised a goodly reward, that they
would be safe from the torment of the Hell-fire on the Resurrection Day. He says in the
Holy Qur’an: “Those for whom the good (record) from Us has gone before, will be
removed far therefrom. Not the slightest sound will they hear of hell. What their
souls desired, in that will they dwell. The Great Terror will bring them no grief.”
(21: 101-103) Allah Almighty also says in the Holy Qur’an: “Ye are the best of peoples,
evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and
believing in Allah.” (3: 110)
However, it is incredible for a nation (People) that Allah Almighty has referred to as the
best of people evolved for mankind, as testimony from Him to be as the Shiite Adherents
and Sources maintain! For they say: “The emigrants (from Makkah to Madinah) and the
Ansa’r (those who welcomed, helped and hosted the Prophet and his companions who
came from Makkah) all of them recanted their religion except three.” (Al-Kaafiy, 2/244)
Had it been true that they were really as described by the Shiite Sources, Allah Almighty
would have not praised and placed them in a lofty rank in the aforementioned verse and in
many others. The messenger of God (PBUH) says: “Prophet Noah (on him be peace) is
going to be summoned by God Almighty on the Resurrection Day. He will say:
“Here I am at your service O my Lord!” Then God Almighty will ask him: “Did you
convey the message?” Noah’s response will be: “Yes.” Then God Almighty will ask
Noah’s people: “Did he convey the message?” They will apparently say: “No
Warner came to us.” Then God Almighty will ask Noah (Peace be upon him): “Who
will testify that you conveyed the message?” Noah will obviously say: “Muhammad
(Peace be upon him) and his people (followers).” Then the followers of Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) will unanimously testify that Noah (on him be peace) delivered
the message entrusted to him by God Almighty.”
Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) informed us of the aforementioned situation in
his interpretation of the following verse: “Thus have We made you an Ummah (nation,
people) justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over yourselves.” (2: 143)
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the context of his interpretation of the aforementioned
verse said: “To be justly balanced means: to be straightforward.” Related by AlBukha’riy
Thus the messenger of God (PBUH) confirmed the non-shaky integrity of his honest,
truthful and sincere companions.
A Response to
PESHAWAR NIGHTS
by
Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi
INTRODUCTION
The art of fictional narration
The art of fictional narration can be traced back to the earliest civilizations, and has assumed various
different appearances over the centuries. The fact that this form of narration is fictitious was never
really used to discredit literary fiction, since the lessons the author of Aesop’s Fables, for example,
wished to impart, did not depend upon whether his animal characters could or did really speak.
Similarly, Shakespeare, in his quasi-historical works, does not attempt to convey to the reader the
notion that the words or actions he ascribes to his characters were really said or done by them.
However, it is when the author of the fictional narrative tries to overstep the bounds of fiction and
confer upon his work the appearance of historical authenticity, that his work loses the respectable
designation “literary fiction”, and earns for itself the ignominious epithet “literary hoax”.
The Historicity of “Peshawar Nights”
In the book “Peshawar Nights”, whose author is styled as “Sultan al-Wa‘izin Shirazi”, we have an
example of a work which purports to be the record of a Sunni-Shi‘i debate. However, an objective
analysis of the book leads us to the inevitable conclusion that in this particular work Shirazi has done
nothing more than employ the literary device of fictional narration—a device that for centuries has
found favour with Shi‘i polemicists.
Shi‘i polemicists were quite aware that to actually engage the ‘ulama of the Ahl as-Sunnah in debate
would considerably curtail their advantage, and therefore they resorted to the more convenient ploy of
creating their own opponents, since by doing so they would be able to manipulate the “opponent’s”
arguments to their own advantage. Thus, when Sultan al-Wa‘izin Shirazi decided to choose this style of
writing for his book, he was not being original at all. He was merely imitating the precedent set by
earlier Shi‘i writers like Abul Futuh ar-Razi and Radiyy ad-Din Ibn Tawus. Below we look at three
works in this genre by these two authors.
Husniyyah
A book by this title appeared during the latter half of the previous century, purporting to be the record
of a debate that had taken place at the court of Harun ar-Rashid between Husniyyah, a slave girl owned
by a merchant friend of Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq, and the Imams Abu Yusuf and ash-Shafi‘i. This slave
girl had supposedly stayed with Imam Ja‘far upto the age of twenty, and had acquired expertise in
numerous branches of knowledge from him. In the book she publicly humiliates the two Imams,
defeating their arguments and presenting them with “incontrovertible evidence” of the truth of the creed
of the Shi‘ah.
The book is full of anachronisms. For one, ash-Shafi‘i came to Baghdad only after the death of Abu
Yusuf, so it is impossible that they could ever have taken part together in any discussion. The book also
speaks of a third learned man by the name of Ibrahim Khalid of Basrah, who was supposedly regarded
by Abu Yusuf as “superior in knowledge to them all.” When they themselves were unable to answer the
arguments of Husniyyah, they referred the matter to this Ibrahim Khalid, but he too, was incapable of
responding to her. History, however, has recorded nothing of a person by this name, and the effort to
identify him with Abu Thawr, whose name was Ibrahim ibn Khalid, is futile, since Abu Thawr was a
Baghdadi by birth and lived there all his life. Far from being regarded as ash-Shafi‘i’s superior, he was
his student, and one of the four narrators of his qadim views. Even of Husniyyah herself, the annals of
history and biography have recorded nothing at all. It is only in this belated document that mention is
made of her existence.
It is recorded by the prominent Shi‘i bibliographer, Aqa Buzurg Tihrani in his bibliographical lexicon
adh-Dhari‘ah that this booklet was originally found in the possession of a sayyid in Syria by Mulla
Ibrahim al-Astarabadi when the latter returned to Iran from Hajj in the year 958/1551. He translated it
into Persian, and it was first published in 1287/1870. (adh-Dhari‘ah, vol. 4 p. 97 no. 452, 3rd edition,
Dar al-Adwa’, Beirut 1401/1981)
The Shi‘i biographer Mirza ‘Abdullah Effendi al-Isfahani has done us a favour by exposing the real
author of the book Husniyyah, and his purpose in writing such a book. He writes in his book Riyad
al-‘Ulama’:
Such a degree of learning and eminence is accorded to Husniyyah in this
booklet, that it creates the impression of it being the fraudulent work of Shaykh
Abul Futuh ar-Razi, written and forged by him. He ascribed it to Husniyyah in
order to bring disgrace to the beliefs of the Ahl as-Sunnah, and to humiliate them
by exposing their beliefs. (Riyad al-‘Ulama’ vol. 5 p. 407 (Maktabat Ayatullah alMar‘ashi, Qum 1401/1981)
This identification of Abul Futuh ar-Razi with the authorship of the booklet Husniyyah is supported by
Sayyid Muhsin al-Amin, the author of A‘yan ash-Shi‘ah, one of the most authoritative contemporary
biographical dictionaries of the Shi‘ah. He states categorically that this book “is the work of Abul Futuh
ar-Razi”.
Yuhanna the Christian
This same Shaykh Abul Futuh ar-Razi is credited with the authorship of another spurious polemical
tract called Risalat Yuhanna an-Nasrani (the tract of Yuhanna [John] the Christian). In this tract, quoted
by a number of Shi‘i writers as factual truth, a Christian by the name of Yuhanna engages the Sunni
‘ulama of Baghdad in a debate during which he demonstrates the “fallacies” in the creed of the Ahl asSunnah. Eventually he declares his acceptance of Shi‘ism as the true religion. Mirza ‘Abdullah Effendi
ascribes this work to Abul Futuh ar-Razi. The “strength” of this polemic is supposed to derive from the
fact that even a non-Muslim is able to discern the “falsehood” of Sunni belief from the “truth” of
Shi‘ism.
‘Abd al-Mahmud the Dhimmi
Radiyy ad-Din Ali ibn Tawus belonged to a prominent Shi‘i family that lived at Hillah near Najaf at the
time of the sack of Baghdad by the Tartars under Hulagu. Shi‘ite complicity in the fall of Baghdad is a
fact of history. This explains why the Mongol conquerors favoured the Shi‘i intellectuals. Ibn Tawus,
for example, was appointed Naqib al-Ahsraf by Hulagu, the destroyer of Baghdad. He gladly accepted
this office, having earlier persistently refused it from the late Khalifah, al-Mustansir.
With the fall of Baghdad came a new surge in Shi‘ite propagation, the like of which was only seen in
the days of the Buwayhids during the 5th century. The high positions occupied by Shi‘i dignitaries in
the Ilkhanid (Mongol) administration afforded the Shi‘ah the influence and leverage they needed to
prosper. In Iraq the town of Hillah soon developed into the most important center of Shi‘i learning.
This age also saw the composition of a number of polemical works. As the most prolific Shi‘i author of
the time, it would be only natural for Ibn Tawus to contribute to this genre of literature. However, he
preferred to do so under an assumed identity. His book, entitled at-Tara’if fi Madhahib at-Tawa’if, was
written under the nom-de-plume ‘ Abd al-Mahmud ibn Dawud al-Mudari.
He commences his book with the (patently false) statement that he is a man from amongst the Ahl adhDhimmah (Jews or Christians living under the protection of the Muslim state). He then proceeds on to a
comparative study of different religious persuasions, and predictably enough, ends up with Ithna
‘Ashari (Twelver) Shi‘ism as the only true religion. Like Abul Futuh ar-Razi before him, he seeks to
inject objectivity into his work by assuming the identity of a supposedly unbiased observer. (See Riyad
al-‘Ulama’ vol. 5 p. 407)
____________________
This survey of the use of fictional narration by Shi‘i polemicists in history creates the background
against which we will now proceed to examine the historicity of “Peshawar Nights” and its contents.
Authorship
The first thing which draws the attention of the unbiased reader should be the fact that while there were
two sides who participated in the discussion, the book itself came from the peof the Shi‘i participant
exclusively. This fact might at first glance escape the notice of the unsuspicious reader who has
complete faith—to the point of gullibility—in the goodwill of the author. However, no one possessed of
a sense of discretion can help but notice this discrepancy.
The writer of the foreword seeks to make amends for this serious indictment of the book’s historicity by
stating that “four reporters recorded the discussions in the presence of approximately 200 people (Shia
and Sunni Muslims),” and that “local newspapers published these accounts each following morning.”
Yet, both Shirazi and his publishers fail to produce the least bit of factual evidence in the form of copies
of the newspaper reports from which it is alleged that Shirazi ultimately compiled the book. All we
have to vouch for the occurrence of this ten-night discussion is the word of Shirazi himself.
There is furthermore no external corroboration at all, least of all by the Sunni participant or the five
other dignitaries who are alleged in the translator’s preface (p. xviii) to have publicly acknowledged
their conversion to Shi‘ism. Once again, we have nothing but Shirazi’s own claim to support the
historicity of the event upon which “Peshawar Nights” is based.
Publication
The book is published not in Peshawar, the city in which the discussion reportedly took place, but in
Tehran. It is published not in Urdu or Pushtu, the language of the North West Frontier, but in Persian,
the language of Iran.
It is highly unlikely that there was a Persian language newspaper in Peshawar, or in the rest of India for
that matter, at the time of the alleged debate. In India at that time, Persian had diminished into an
archaic language, more suited for the occasional moments of inspiration of the romantic poet than for
the practical use of the media. Shirazi himself was merely a visitor to India, and is therefore not likely
to have known either Urdu or Pushtu. The question about how he came to transcribe his book from
newspaper accounts published in a language he did not know will remain a mystery for as long as one
believes that the book is the record of an historical debate. On the other hand, if one accepts the much
more plausible, rational, and indeed logical position that the author of the book has employed the
literary device of fictional narration, for whatever reason, the mystery is immediately and conclusively
solved.
The participants
The names of the participants are given as Hafiz Muhammad Rashid and Shaykh ‘Abd as-Salam, and
they are said to be from Kabul. None of these two persons are identified beyond their first names.
Eponymous descriptions that identify persons in terms of their localities or family connections, and
which are so common amongst the ‘ulama of India and Afghanistan, are conspicuously absent. The
same is true for the third person, Sayyid ‘Abd al-Hayy. Even the Nawab Sahib, whose conversion at the
end of the 10th session is prominently touted, is not clearly identified. Why, if the incident and the
personalities were as real as the author tries to make them seem, does he prefer to keep it secret?
Furthermore, Sunni-Shi‘i polemics was at that time a very well developed discipline. Shi‘i
proselytization in the established Sunni community had led to some Sunni ‘ulama taking up the task of
debating and refuting the Shi‘ah. Beginning with Shah Waliyyullah and his son Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz,
there were literally scores of Sunni ‘ulama who specialized in Sunni-Shi‘i polemics. At the time this
debate was supposedly taking place in the remote city of Peshawar, there lived in India an intellectual
giant like ‘Allamah ‘Abd ash-Shakur of Lucknow, a scholar whose devotion to Sunni-Shi‘i polemics
had earned him the title “Imam Ahl as-Sunnah”. In 1345 when this debate allegedly occurred ‘Allamah
‘Abd ash-Shakur was in his prime at the age of 52.(See Nuzhat al-Khawatir, vol. 8 p. 271) The erudite
Mawlana Anwar Shah Kashmiri was at that time 53 years of age. (See Nuzhat al-Khawatir, vol. 8 p. 90)
If Sultan al-Wa‘izin Shirazi was at all serious about an objective discussion of Sunni-Shi‘i differences,
he would have been engaging scholars of this caliber, and not figures of obscure historicity, who
probably never existed outside his own imagination.
Sources
Shirazi’s citation of sources cannot fail to attract the reader’s attention. The translators ascribe this to
his erudition: “Although the dialogue was extemporaneous, such was the erudition of Sultanu’l-Wa`izin
Shirazi ... that the transcript serves as a detailed bibliographical reference to hundreds of Sunni treatises
well known and little known, in which the claims of the Shi`ites are acknowledged.” (p. xviii) However,
to the careful—and knowledgeable—reader, this very same manner of citation reveals a fatal fault in
the authenticity of the book as a faithful record of a debate in 1345/1927.
There are many occurrences of this phenomenon throughout the book, but a few random examples
should suffice to clarify its nature to the reader.
1. One of the sources quoted by Shirazi, complete with volume and page numbers, is the book atTarikh al-Kabir by Imam Bukhari. (See p. 229) This work would be printed in Hyderabad,
Deccan for the first time ever in the year 1362/1943, no less than 16 years after the “debate”
took place.
2. Another work cited by Shirazi is Hilyat al-Awliya by Abu Nu‘aym al-Isfahani. (See p. 139) The
first edition of this work was published in Cairo, from 1351/1932 to 1357/1938. The printing of
this first edition commenced 6 years after the date of the alleged debate in Peshawar, and was
completed 12 years after that date.
3. The book Tarikh al-Khulafa by Suyuti is quoted with page number by Shirazi. (See p. 147) Yet
the first ever edition of this book would appear in print in 1371/1952, 26 years after the event.
4. The Tarikh of Ya‘qubi would be published for the first time by Dar Sadir in Beirut only in 1960.
Shirazi quotes from it, complete with page reference, 33 years before its first edition would see
the light. (See p. 147)
5. The fifth volume of Baladhuri’s Ansab al-Ashraf would be published by the University Press in
Jerusalem in 1936. Sultan al-Wa‘izin Shirazi cites from this very same volume, to the point of
supplying the page number, 9 years earlier. (See p. 146)
6. Muruj adh-Dhahab by Mas‘udi was first published by Dar Sadir in Beirut in 1368/1948, 3 years
before Shirazi could quote it with volume and page numbers. (See p. 146)
7. al-‘Iqd al-Farid by Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih is quoted with page and volume numbers by Shirazi. (See
p. 190) Yet it was printed for the first time in Cairo in 1952, a quarter century after the alleged
debate in Peshawar.
8. al-Haythami’s book Majma‘ az-Zawa’id is confidently cited by Shirazi, with page and volume
numbers. (See p. 82) Yet the book would be printed for the first time in 1352, 7 years later.
9. ‘Umdat al-Qari by Badr ad-Din al‘Ayni was first published in 1348. Shirazi manages to cite this
work by page and volume numbers 3 years before its publication. (See p. 239)
10. The book Tarikh Baghdad was first published by Maktabat al-Khanji in Cairo in 1349/1930.
Again Sultan al-Wa‘izin Shirazi manages the impossible by citing from this work with page and
volume numbers 4 years before its publication. (See p. 183)
Thus Shirazi’s habit of supplying copious lists of references, and thereupon attempting to inject
authority into them by citing page and volume numbers, had an unexpected—and a most definitely
undesired—side effect. Instead of bolstering the authority of his book, it destroyed the entire image of
the book as the authentic record of an objective debate.
Aside from the above cases where Shirazi has made reference to sources which were to be printed
several years after the date of his alleged debate in Peshawar, he also has the tendency to list a large
number of references which he could never possibly have laid hands or eyes on. Most of his references
lack volume and page numbers. This shows that he did not have access to these works, and was merely
quoting them from secondary, unnamed sources. A substantial number of them refer to books that have
been completely missing for ce, and of which nothing is known besides their titles.
_______________
Source methodology
One point of criticism which will recur throughout the book is the author’s indiscriminate use of
sources. In matters of Shari‘ah and history, source methodology accounts for four fifths of any textual
argument. No quotation can be presented as an authoritative argument if its authenticity has not
satisfactorily been accounted for.
The key word here is authenticity. No hadith is authentic simply for the reason of it being documented
in a book. Of all people, the Shi‘ah are supposed to be the first to take note of this fact. Whenever they
are confronted with the fact that their hadith literature contains a huge number of ahadith (2000,
according to Ni‘matullah al-Jaza’iri in al-Anwar an-Nu‘maniyyah) indicating that the present Qur’an
suffered interpolation at the hands of the Sahabah. To know just how much importance the Shi‘ah
attach to authenticity, one needs only to look at the vehemence and fervour with which Ayatullah
Muhammad Husayn Burujirdi—the supreme Shi‘i mujtahid upto his death in 1961—rejected the Shi‘i
ahadith proving interpolation in the Qur’an as being “extremely weak”. (Lutfullah as-Safi, Ma‘ alKahtib fi Khututihi al-‘Aridah, p. 53)
Is authenticity a principle that only the Shi‘ah can invoke when things turn against them? No person
possessed of a sense fairness can fail to see the double standards of him who complains when
unauthentic quotations from his own legacy are used against him, but freely quotes from the literature
of his opponents without bothering to secure the authenticity of what he quotes.
In the following pages I will survey the sources of Sunni hadith cited by Shirazi. The sources from
which he cites Sunni hadith may be classified under three headings: (1) primary sources (2) secondary
sources (3) obscure sources.
1. Primary sources
Hadith books in this category are characterized by the fact that they utilize isnads (chains of narration)
for their material. It includes books such as the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the six major
works of al-Buhkari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, an-Nasa’i and Ibn Majah, the works of alBayhaqi, ad-Daraqutni, and of authors as late as Abu Nu‘aym al-Isfahani and al-Khatib al-Baghdadi.
The narrated material in any collection utilizing isnads is as a rule only as good as the isnad. In Sahih alBukhari and Sahih Muslim we have a unique case, in that these two authors have applied a rigorous set
of criteria to the ahadith which they admitted into their collections. The ahadith in the Sahihayn are
therefore all authentic, not simply for the fact that they appear in those books, but because they conform
to the criteria of authenticity stipulated by al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Books besides the Sahihayn are all subject to scrutiny of their isnads to determine to what extent they
conform to the criteria of authenticity. There never has been a claim, neither by the authors of these
works, nor by anyone else, that these works incorporate exclusively authentic material. Muhaddithin
like al-Hakim, the author of al-Mustadrak, and Ibn Hibban, the author of at-Taqasim walAnwa‘ (commonly known as Sahih Ibn Hibban), have attempted to follow the example of al-Bukhari
and Muslim by documenting only authentic ahadith, but their criteria, as well as the extent to which
they abided by those criteria left a lot to be desired, and consequently came under censure from later
muhaddithin.
Indiscriminate quoting from these works would therefore only occur if a person suffers from one of two
defects: ignorance of the science of hadith; or a Machiavellian attitude of the end—in this case the
conversion of the Ahl as-Sunnah—justifying the means. Either of these defects is sufficient to
disqualify anyone as an objective polemicist.
1. Secondary sources
Books in this category do not use isnads. Instead, they reproduce the texts of hadith from the primary
sources, and give a reference to the source from they have taken it. An example here would be the book
Majma‘ az-Zawa’id by Abul Hasan al-Haythami. In this work the author has collected those ahadith in
the Musnads of Ahmad, al-Bazzar and Abu Ya‘la, and the three Mu‘jams of at-Tabarani—al-Kabir, alAwsat and as-Saghir—that do not appear in the six major collections.
Since the hadith collections in this category basically draw from the previous category, the same is
applicable to it in terms of authenticity as was stated for the primary sources. In fact, when quoting
from such secondary sources, the onus to prove authenticity is even greater.
Shirazi seems quite oblivious to—or ignorant of—the fact that works such as Majma‘ az-Zawa’id
merely reproduce ahadith from primary sources. Therefore he thinks nothing of adducing Majma‘ azZawa’id as a source after having already ascribed the hadith to al-Mu‘jam al-Awsat of at-Tabarani. (See
p. 82) This is but one example of many. One wonders how someone who displays such an astonishing
lack of proficiency in hadith could be bold enough to present himself as an erudite scholar.
Other books in this category are ad-Durr al-Manthur and Tarikh al-Khulafa, both by as-Suyuti, Ihya’
‘Ulum ad-Din by al-Ghazali, Tafsir Mafatih al-Ghayb (also known as at-Tafsir al-Kabir) by Fakhr adDin ar-Razi, Jami‘ al-Usul by Ibn al-Athir, and Kanz al-‘Ummal by ‘Ali al-Muttaqi. This list is by no
means exhausitive. These titles are mentioned merely by way of example.
1. Obscure sources
Shirazi has shown an idiosyncratic predilection to quote from obscure and doubtful sources. A number
of his sources stand out prominently in this regard: Yanabi‘ al-Mawaddah by Sulayman al-Qanduzi alHanafi; Kifayat at-Talib by Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Kanji ash-Shafi‘i; and Fara’id as-Simtayn by alHamawayni.
The first of the three, al-Qanduzi, is described in Mu‘jam al-Mu’allifin (vol. 4 p. 252) as a Sufi who
lived during the latter half of the 13th/19th century. Al-Kanji, although very prominently labelled by
Shirazi as a Shafi‘i, is completely unknown to biographers of the Shafi‘i fuqaha such as Imam anNawawi in Tahdhib al-Asma’ wal-Lughat, Ibn as-Subki in Tabaqat ash-Shafi‘iyyah al-Kubra, Ibn Qadi
Shuhbah in his Tabaqat ash-Shafi‘iyyah, and Jamal ad-Din al-Isnawi in his Tabaqat. Having died in
658 (as stated by Zerekly in al-A‘lam vol. 7 p. 150) he lived at least a century before an-Nawawi (who
died in 767) and two centuries before the remaining biographers. It is therefore of great significance that
that not one of these biographers make any mention of him. Of al-Hamawayni I have not been able to
locate a single trace in any of the biographical dictionaries.
When authors such as these compile works in which they include ahadith the like of which was never
heard of before them, what status shall be accorded to such ahadith? Shall they be regarded as
“authentic ahadith” from “your own reliable Sunni scholars”? I leave this question to the great Imam
Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi to answer. In his book al-Mahsul fi ‘Ilm al-Usul (vol. 4 p. 299) he lists the kinds
of narrations which are known with certainty to be untrue and baseless. The fourth kind is the following:
The narration which is narrated at a time when narrations have already become
established, and when it is searched for it cannot be found in books nor in the memories
of the narrators—such a narration is known to be baseless.
The same line reasoning is to be found in Abul Husayn al-Basri’s book, al-Mu‘tamad (vol. 2 p. 79):
A narration which, after the stabilization of hadith, is searched for but cannot be traced in
the corpus of hadith, is known for a fact to be a forgery, since we know that the ahadith
have been documented. The narration of a hadith after documentation can therefore only
be the narration of documented ahadith. So if we do not find that (i.e. we find a hadith
being narrated which was not previously documented) then we know it to be an untrue
narration.
Thus, when you see the gloating manner in which Shirazi cites hadith from latter day “Sunni” authors
such as al-Qanduzi and al-Kanji, or the unknown Ibn al-Maghazili and al-Hamawayni, then pity his
gross lack of knowledge of this fieldof hadith, of which he has set himself up as an expert. And if
Shirazi deserves pity, how much more deserving of pity would those be whose utter gullibility would
lead them to swallow the fruits of his “erudite scholarship” hook, line and sinker?
_______________
The question one cannot help asking oneself is this: Can a book as elliptical, as blatantly dishonest, and
as seriously defective in scholarship as this one ever serve to build bridges over the yawning chasm
which separates the Ahl as-Sunnah from the Shi‘ah? This book was never intended for that purpose. Its
publication today stands as the unmistakable recommitment by the Shi‘ah of today to the ideal of
yesterday. That ideal is to convert the Ahl as-Sunnah to the faith of the Shi‘ah. The author preferred to
refer to himself in the book as “Da‘i”. This was mistranslated by the translators—who obviously do not
know Arabic—as “well-wisher”. Da‘i does not mean well-wisher. It means missionary.
After this introduction I will proceed to analyze and criticize the arguments of the author in detail. The
destruction of the historicity of the book has only removed the veil of objectivity and fair dialogue that
was clouding they sight of the credulous reader. Now that the book has been revealed to be the work of
a Shi‘i missionary using a deceptive literary device to win the trust and confidence of his credulous
reader, the only thing that remains is to critically analyze his arguments. Towards the fulfillment of that
objective I seek the aid of Allah.
THE FIRST SESSION
Three issues are discussed by Shirazi in this session. After making reference to the fact that he is a
descendant of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, he has the Hafiz inquire about his line of descent.
Then, after having the Hafiz object to his genealogy, he launches into a three page justification of his
descent.
Thereafter, he introduces a break for the ‘Isha prayer. He uses this juncture to introduce discussion of a
phenomenon which is to the lay person one of the most conspicuous points of divergence between the
Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah. This is the issue of combining prayers. The Shi‘ah are known to combine
the Zuhr and ‘Asr, as well as Maghrib and ‘Isha prayers; Sunnis perform each prayer in its appointed
time. The questioner in this case is the Nawab, being the lay participant in the discussion. By citing a
hadith from Sunni books, he attempts to prove the validity of joining prayers, and at the same time
makes use of the opportunity to indulge in another favoured strategy of the Shi‘i proselytizer: casting
aspersions against Imam al-Bukhari and his book, al-Jami‘ as-Sahih.
Shirazi then introduces the matter of how the grave of Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu
was discovered at Najaf. He gives an apocryphal story of exactly how the grave was discovered, and
makes reference to Umayyad atrocities in history.
Shirazi’s genealogy
Before the actual discussion ensues, the Hafiz is made to stipulate it as condition that “reference be
made to ahadith and events that are based on indisputable evidence.” He asks that they should “refrain
from referring to doubtful sources.” To this Shirazi readily and confidently agrees, but his lamentable
failure to abide by this condition has already been noted in the introduction.
In trying to assure his audience of his integrity in this regard, he makes reference to the fact that he is a
descendant of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. He presents his personal pride is this descent as
guarantee that he would abide by this condition. The fact that he fails to abide by it demonstrates one of
three things: (1) He does not possess the knowledge and skills required to distinguish between authentic
and unauthentic sources; or (2) he does not care enough for his genealogy to fulfil the condition for
which he has made it a guarantee; or (3) the genealogy itself is doubtful. This third deduction may
appear petty and vindictive at first glance, but closer inspection of Shirazi’s genealogy as stated in the
book gives us very solid grounds for having reservations about it.
The historian Ibn Khaldun, through an inductive study of genealogies, formulated a method of testing
the authenticity of any genealogy. This method is based upon the natural law of averages. It involves
the median age to which people of this Ummah live, the age at which they have children, and the fact
that at any given time there are three generations in co-existence. Essentially it comes down to
assigning 3 persons for every 100 years spanned by the genealogy.
The line of descent given by Shirazi contains 27 persons. The name of Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq is missing
between Imam Musa al-Kazim and Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, which I assume to be the error of the
typesetter or the translators. We may therefore consider this genealogy to contain 28 persons.
Considering that the person at the one end—Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu—was born
23 years before the Hijrah, and that Shirazi himself at the other end of the genealogy died 1390 years
after the Hijrah, we have a timespan of 1413 years. If we were to assign 3 persons for every hundred
years, we would be looking for a genealogy consisting of at least 42 persons. Shirazi’s genealogy falls
short of this figure by at least 14 persons. A difference of 3 or 4 would have been acceptable, but it
requires an extremely credulous mind to accept a genealogy that suffers from 14 missing links as
authentic.
Next we turn to the issue of the descendants of Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha. Shirazi makes the
Hafiz object to him tracing his descent from the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam through Sayyidah
Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha, since he is of the opinion that “descent is recognized from the male side
only.” Shirazi responds firstly by quoting an alleged dialogue between Imam Musa al-Kazim
(erroneously described in the text of Peshawar Nights as Imam Musa Ja‘far) and the Khalifah Harun arRashid. This is the first place in the book where he fails to comply with his undertaking to use only
authentic quotations, and it is significant to note that he is quoting from Shi‘i sources. He fails to inform
his opponents that the quotation is documented in the books ‘Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida and al-Ihtijaj on the
authority of a defective chain of narrators.
As-Saduq Ibn Babawayh, author of ‘Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida narrates it on the authority of Abu Ahmad
Hani ibn Muhammad al-‘Abdi, and he on the authority of a person named simply as Abu Muhammad.
Abu Mansur at-Tabarsi has in al-Ihtijaj merely reproduced this narration from ‘Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida.
(See al-Ihtijaj vol. 2 p. 389) Abu Ahmad Hani ibn Muhammad al-‘Abdi and his source of information,
Abu Muhammad, are completely unknown figures. The only thing known about the former is that Ibn
Babawayh narrates from him, and that after mentioning his name, he writes “radiyallahu ‘anhu”.
Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Mamaqani, the Shi‘i expert on narrator biography, found himself at a total loss for
evidence of this person’s integrity, and could only rely upon Ibn Babawayh’s invocation in his attempt
to prove his integrity as a narrator. (See Tanqih al-Maqal vol. 3 p. 290) However, even the acceptance
of Hani ibn Muhammad al-‘Abdi as a reliable narrator fails to solve the problem, since we face an
insurmountable problem in the person of the second narrator, named as Abu Muhammad. Nothing at all
is known about this person. He is not mentioned by name; only by his ambiguous kunyah, Abu
Muhammad.
The dialogue between Imam Musa al-Kazim and Harun ar-Rashid is lengthy one. It covers four A4
pages in relatively fine print. It covers a variety of issues and is not restricted to the deduction from the
Qur‘an that the progeny of Fatimah are descendants of the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. The
brilliance of that deduction is marred by a hadith which the Imam supposedly quotes to the Khalifah in
the opening paragraph of the dialogue. This hadith, which Imam Musa reportedly narrates on the
authority of his forefathers, the preceding Imams, from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, says
that when blood relations meet one another, the blood in their veins moves and becomes agitated. The
Khalifah is reported to hug the Imam in order to test the veracity of this hadith, and—predictably enough
—experiences an abnormal activity of the blood in his veins. Any person who wants to ascertain the
authenticity of this narration merely has to hug a blood relative. He will soon come to know that this
entire narration—the deduction from the Qur’an included—was invented, either by Abu Ahmad Hani
ibn Muhammad, or by his source of information, the ambiguous Abu Muhammad.
The fact that Sayyiduna Hasan and Sayyiduna Husayn radiyallahu ‘anhuma are the sons of Rasulullah
sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam has never been an area of contention to the Ahl as-Sunnah. For the Hafiz to
contest this fact shows either his own ignorance—in which case he is effectively disqualified as a
spokesperson for the Ahl as-Sunnah—or reveals the manipulative hand of Shirazi himself behind the
characters in his drama. Had he been courageous enough to engage recognized scholars like ‘Allamah
‘Abd ash-Shakur of Lucknow in debate, he would not have had the puppeteer’s freedom to make his
marionette say whatever he wishes him to say. What he needed was an “opponent” with enough
flexibility that he can be made to appear helpless in the face of Shirazi’s own “erudition”, and thereby
effect a victory for Shi‘ism over Sunnism.
Since the point is really undisputed, there seems to be no sense in prolonging discussion about it.
However, since Shirazi is bent upon ridiculing the knowledge of his self-copponent, he devotes another
page to citations from a variety of “Sunni” books. The first source he quotes is Ibn Abil Hadid, the
commentator of Nahj al-Balaghah, whom he describes as “one of your own great scholars”. ‘Abd alHamid ibn Hibatillah al-Mada’ini, better known as Ibn Abil Hadid (died 655 AH) is not of the Ahl asSunnah, and never even claimed to be. He was a self-professed Mu‘tazili and a Shi‘i. Shirazi himself
calls him “Ibn Abil Hadid Mu‘tazali”. The Mu‘tazilah never claimed to be of the Ahl as-Sunnah. If
anything, they regarded themselves as the opponents of the Ahl as-Sunnah. Is Shirazi so blinded by his
proselytizing zeal that he no longer sees his won glaring contradictions? Or is he simply lacking in
knowledge?
As for Ibn Abil Hadid being a Shi‘i, that is borne out by his own poetry. Some of his most explicit
declarations in this regard may be seen in Abul Fadl Ibrahim’s introduction to his Sharh Nahj alBalaghah. Ibn Kathir describes him as follows in al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah (year 655, vol. 9 p. 82):
Ibn Abil Hadid al-‘Iraqi: the poet ‘Abd al-Hamid ibn Hibatillah ibn Muhammad ibn
Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, Abu Hamid, Ibn Abil Hadid, ‘Izz ad-Din al-Mada’ini; the
man of letters, the eloquent poet, the extremist Shi‘i. He is the author of a commentary on
Nahj al-Balaghah in 20 volumes. He was born at Mada’in in the year 586. Then he went
to Baghdad and became one of the poets in the court of the Khalifah. He enjoyed the
favour of the wazir Ibn al-‘Alqami, on account of the two of them having literature and
Shi‘ism in common.
In the following paragraph Shirazi cites a hadith from Jabir ibn Abdillah: “Allah created the progeny of
every Prophet from his own generation, but my progeny was created from the generation of ‘Ali.” He
ascribes this narration to Kifayat at-Talib of Muhammad ibn Yusuf Ganji, and as-Sawa‘iq al-Muhriqah
of Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, both of whom cite it from at-Tabarani. The books as-Sawa‘iq al-Muhriqah
and Kifata at-Talib are both secondary sources; they derive their material from primary sources. In this
case the primary source is al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir of at-Tabarani, which was unavailable in print at the
time when Shirazi was writing his book. Today this book is in print, and thus reference to the original
source is possible. In al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir (vol. 3 p. 45, hadith no. 2630) this hadith is found to be
narrated with an extremely defective chain of narrators. One narrator, namely Yahya ibn al-‘Ala arRazi, is a notorious forger known for narrating falsified ahadith. (See Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 31 pp. 484488) Once again Shirazi fails to fulfil his promise of making reference to authentic ahadith exclusively.
The only excuse that can possibly be made for him is ignorance.
A similar narration from Ibn ‘Abbas is quoted from the Manaqib of Khatib Khwarizmi. This author,
Abul Mu’ayyad Muhammad ibn Mahmud al-Khwarizmi lived during the seventh century, and died in
655AH. (Mu‘jam al-Mu’allifin vol. 12 p. 3; al-A‘lam vol. 7 p. 87) This source therefore falls squarely
within the bracket of late “obscure” sources referred to in the introduction. The fact that al-Khwarizmi
can come more than two centuries after the era of documentation, and produce a hadith from Ibn
‘Abbas that no one else before him knew of, is sufficient proof to reject it. Until and unless anyone can
produce an isnad for it, and prove the authenticity of that isnad, it will remain an unauthentic quotation.
Shirazi, having promised upon the sanctity of his descent to quote exclusively from reliable sources,
should have known better than to produce evidence from a source of such obscurity.
Next he cites a hadith from the above mentioned al-Khwarizmi in al-Manaqib, Sayyid ‘Ali alHamadhani in Mawaddat al-Qurba, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, and Sulayman al-Balkhi
(al-Qanduzi) in his book Yanabi‘ al-Mawaddah. He does not produce page and volume numbers for any
of these sources. The text of the hadith is as follows: “These my two sons are flowers of this world, and
both of them are Imams, whether they are Imams openly or silently sitting at home.”
Out of the four sources cited, only one is worthy of mention, which is the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn
Hanbal. The other sources are all secondary sources by latter day authors who do not document their
material with chains of narration. Al-Khawrizmi, as we have seen, died in 655AH; Sayyid ‘Ali alHamadhani died in 786AH (more will be said about his book Mawaddat al-Qurba later); and alQanduzi died as late as 1294AH/1877. It is therefore most unscholarly for Shirazi to cite all three of
these sources together with the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, who died in 241AH. Out of the four cited
sources, it is only the Musnad that can give us an idea of the authenticity of the hadith.
When we turn to the Musnad to look for the hadith, we encounter a most unpleasant surprise. This
hadith, so confidently quoted by Shirazi, is nowhere to be found in the Musnad. The concordance alMu‘jam al-Mufahras li-Alfaz al-Hadith an-Nabawi, the 11 volume Mawsu‘at Atraf al-Hadith anNabawi, as well as modern day computer software have given no trace of any hadith of this kind in the
Musnad. It seems therefore that Shirazi, beyond breaking his pledge of citing only reliable ahadith, has
even resorted to blatant dishonesty. This would explain why has omitted to supply volume and page
numbers for this particular hadith.
In what remains of this passage he once again makes reference to al-Qanduzi’s Yanabi‘ al-Mawaddah,
but this time he makes it clear that the author of this book uses material from other sources. However, in
one of the names he mentions in this regard, Hafiz ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Abi Shaybah, he once again
reveals his ignorance of history and hadith literature. There never was a person by this name. The Ibn
Abi Shaybah family of Kufah had three scions who made a name for themselves as muhaddithin. One
was Abu Bakr, the other ‘Uthman, and the last one Muhammad. Allah alone knows where Shirazi
unearthed the name ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Abi Shaybah. His blunt insistence upon producing a authoritative
sounding list of references has produced many a ludicrous situation like this.
In the next passage he quotes out of the blue from the writings of a person whom he names as Abu
Salih. This incoherent citation contains a hadith from Sayyiduna ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab radiyallahu
‘anhu, which he ascribes to Hafiz ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn al-Ahkdar, Abu Nu‘aym, at-Tabari, Ibn Hajar alMakki and the suppositious Muhammad ibn Yusuf Ganji. However, he consistently fails to provide
authentication for the ahadith which he adduces as proof. The same is true for the rest of the references
which he provides in the passage. What Shirazi sadly fails to comprehend is that a hadith is not proven
authentic by the amount of books which contain it, but rather by the hadith itself conforming to the
criteria of authenticity.
It is worthy of note here that in this same passage Shirazi makes reference to the marriage of Umm
Kulthum, the daughter of Sayyiduna ‘Ali and Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anhum without denying
its historical occurrence, as many Shi‘i scholars are known to do. He does this in the course of quoting a
hadith which he presents as factual evidence. Does this mean that Shirazi accepts the historicity of this
marriage?
In any event, here we have had our first sampling of Shirazi’s source methodology. In an issue upon
which there really exists no need for protracted debate he felt compelled to brandish as many references
as he could lay hands upon. In the process he unwittingly revealed his unfamiliarity with his supposed
sources. He also gave ample evidence of a stark lack of expertise in the field of hadith. More
importantly, he proved his readiness to resolve to deception for the sake of impressing his reader with
references.
Combining prayers
After having the Nawab ask him the reason for the Shi‘ah combining prayers, Shirazi introduces this
phenomenon into the discussion. The Hafiz is made to offer the explanation that the Nabi sallallahu
‘alayhi wasallam combined prayers only in extraordinary situations, like when he was on a journey, or
due to rain, and that he always offered his prayers separately when he was at home.
In refutation of this explanation, Shirazi cites a hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma in which it is
reported that Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam combined the Zuhr and ‘Asr, and Maghrib and
‘Isha prayers while in residence. Here Shirazi has used a creative method of citation. The hadith he cites
is in reality one single hadith. However, he boldly states that “many ahadith confirm this fact”. Then, in
order to show just how many ahadith confirm this fact, he quotes the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas several times
from a number of different sources. By mentioning the various chains of narration up to Ibn ‘Abbas
radiyallahu ‘anhuma, even going to the extent that “Imam Muslim quotes a number of ahadith on the
issue”, Shirazi deceitfully tries to create the impression that there exists a multitude of ahadith that
prove the combining of prayers in residence. The fact of the matter is that there is only one hadith,
which is that of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma, which happens to be narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas by a
number of his students. The careful reader will not fail to notice that each “separate” hadith cited by
Shirazi ends with Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma, and even the corroboration by Abu Hurayrah
radiyallahu ‘anhu is part of Ibn ‘Abbas’ hadith, and not technically an independent hadith.
Be that as it may, the fact that there is only one hadith on this issue is inconsequential as far as its
authenticity is concerned. Since it conforms to the criteria of authenticity, it has been accepted as
authentic. What now remains to be done is to see how this hadith fits in with the rest of the ahadith on
the times of salah. Shirazi has the Nawab express amazement at how this hadith (which is slyly referred
to as “these ahadith”) was ignored by the Ahl as-Sunnah, and how “learned men have adopted a
different path”. He brushes off the “explanations” of the Sunni scholars as unintelligible, but turns a
conspicuous blind eye to (or is perhaps ignorant of) the proper treatment of this hadith by the ‘ulama of
the Ahl as-Sunnah.
The hadith literature of both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah concur upon the fact that that the times
of salah were given to Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam by Jibril during the Meccan period. They
agree that the time for Zuhr and Maghrib were given as separate and distinct from that of ‘Asr and
‘Isha. This is further corroborated by the model example of the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. The
Shi‘i scholar Ayatullah Musa al-Musawi confirms this where he writes that “the habit of Rasulullah by
which Muslims should abide, was to perform every prayer within its time. Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam used to lead the Muslims in prayer five times every day.” (al-Muta’amirun ‘ala al-Muslimin
ash-Shi‘ah p. 173)
The only case which represents an ostensible departure from this norm is this hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas
radiyallahu ‘anhuma. Shirazi would be well aware of the fact that in the entire hadith literature there is
only this one solitary hadith which apparently departs from the established norm. He knows fully well
that his argument in favour of combining prayers would be crippled by mention of the fact that such
combination is supported by a single isolated hadith. He therefore attempts to make it appear as “several
ahadith”.
In any event, the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma appears to be out of harmony with the
Prophetic norm of performing every prayer within its specified time. This norm is established on the
basis of a substantially large number of ahadith, even in the Shi‘i hadith literature, and also the
continuous practice of the Ummah. The ‘ulama of the Ahl as-Sunnah were thus faced with two possible
approaches: either to harmonise this one irregular hadith with the rest by giving it a suitable
explanation; or to regard it as a normative hadith in its own right, which sets an independent precedent.
The majority of them opted for the former approach.
The reader might at this point get the impression that their opting for this position was based on some
sort of subjective bias. But this impression will soon disappear when he learns that what lead them to
this option was two aspects of the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma which Shirazi, for obvious
reasons, preferred to keep unknown to his readers. The first of the two aspects is the fact that not in a
single version of the hadith is it stated that either of the two combined prayers was perfomed out of its
prescribed time. Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, whose encyclopaedic knowledge of hadith is a matter of
consensus, states in Fath al-Bari that “in all of the versions of this hadith there is nothing which
indicates the exact time when the combining occurred.” (Fath al-Bari vol. 2 p. 30)
The second aspect to consider here is the fact that one of the students of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu
‘anhuma who narrates this hadith from him, explained the hadith in such a way that it is left fully in
accordance with the established norm. This student, Abu ash-Sha‘tha Jabir ibn Zayd, whose version of
the hadith is documented by both al-Bukhari and Muslim, and several of the other well-known books of
hadith, states that what this “combination” of prayers entailed was for Zuhr to be performed during the
last minutes of its prescribed time, with ‘Asr then being performed immediately upon commencement
of its time. In this way the two prayers are combined without the established norm being violated. This
explanation for the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma was given by Ibn ‘Abbas’ own student,
and was accepted by a large majority of scholars, including the Hanafi jurist Abu Ja‘far at-Tahawi, the
Malikis Ibn al-Majishun and Abul ‘Abbas al-Qurtubi, and the Shafi‘is Imam al-Haramayn, Ibn Sayyid
an-Nas al-Ya‘muri and Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, amongst others.
The other approach—of regarding this hadith to be normative in its own right—was adopted by a
minority of scholars of the Ahl as-Sunnah, including Imam Malik’s teacher Rabi‘ah ibn Abi ‘Abd arRahman, the tabi‘i Muhammad ibn Sirin, the Maliki jurist Ashhab ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and the Shafi‘i
jurists Ibn al-Mundhir and al-Qaffal ash-Shashi. These scholars allow the combining of prayers, but
with the proviso that it be for a need, and more importantly, that it does not become a habit.
It is this second point that is the point of divergence between them and the Shi‘ah. The Shi‘ah have
permitted the combination of prayers even without a need. This has given rise to a situation where they
habitually perform Zuhr and ‘Asr together, and Maghrib and ‘Isha together. Although they theoretically
assert the superiority of performing each prayer within its prescribed time according to the Prophetic
norm, in practice they are very rarely seen to uphold this norm. As such the combination of prayers has
become the hallmark of the Shi‘ah.
Shirazi has ventured to pour scorn on some of the explanations given by Sunni commentators in
explaining the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma. If only he had consulted his own hadith
sources before doing so he would have been spared the embarrassment of revealing his ignorance of the
hadith of the Shi‘ah. One of the explanations given by the Ahl as-Sunnah for the combining of prayers
in the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas is that it was done due to rain. Shaykh Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi in his book alIstibsar, which is one of the four major books of hadith for the Shi‘ah, records from Imam Muhammad
al-Baqir that on rainy nights the Nabi sallallahi ‘alayhi wasallam used to delay Maghrib and hasten
‘Isha (exactly as explained by Jabir ibn Zayd) and perform the two prayers jointly; and he used to say:
“Whoever does not show mercy will not be shown mercy.” (al-Istibsar vol. 1 p. 267, no. 966)
This Shi‘i hadith alone should have been reason enough for Shirazi, and indeed the Shi‘ah in general, to
reconsider their habitual joining of prayers for no reason at all. It is therefore very strange to see Shirazi
reverently stating that “the Shia ulema, in obedience to the Holy Imam and the progeny of the Holy
Prophet, have unconditionally pethe offering of prayers together.” What sort of obedience is this which
ignores the words of the Imam when it goes against their own desires? What sort of obedience is this
which abandons the established Prophetic habit of performing every prayer within its prescribed time
for an isolated incident which is subject to interpretation?
Shirazi makes use of the opportunity to strike a blow at the integrity of Imam al-Bukhari. He has the
Hafiz meekly object that the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma is not in Sahih al-Bukhari. He
has no reason for introducing al-Bukhari into the issue, since it is already accepted that hadith is
recorded by Muslim, and its authenticity has thus been established. Even if al-Bukhari did not document
it, its authenticity will not be affected. Therefore, this objection from the Hafiz must be read to serve
another purpose. That purpose is to malign the character of al-Bukhari. This Shirazi does by asserting
that al-Bukhari did in fact document the hadith, but not under the expected chapter heading. He has
“deceitfully put them away from their proper place.” Did it ever occur to Shirazi or his reader that alBukhari was under no compulsion to include the hadith into his book, and that had he wanted to be
deceitful, he would have omitted this hadith from his collection altogether? Did it even occur to them
that mentioning the hadith under the heading “Bab Ta’khir az-Zuhr lil-‘Asr” (meaning “Chapter on the
delaying of Zuhr till ‘Asr”) is in fact its proper place?
Shirazi once again sacrifices his honesty upon the altar of expediency when he asserts that people like
an-Nawawi (misspelt as Nuri), Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, al-Qastalani and az-Zurqani (misspelt as
Zarqani) have “admitted that these ahadith are proofs of the acceptability of combining two prayers.”
Yes, they have done so, and so have numerous commentators and jurists before them. But they have
never allowed the unconditional combining of prayers like the Shi‘ah do. Without exception, they have
made the permissibility of combining prayers subject to certain conditions. However, Shirazi could not
find within himself the honesty to reflect the conditions stipulated by the men whose names he
mentioned.
Lastly, Shirazi has added the name “Zakariyya-e-Razi” to the above list of well known hadith
commentators. There has never been a commentator of Sahih al-Bukhari by the name of “Zakariyya-eRazi”. The only Razi whose name comes close to this is the famous philosopher and physician Abu
Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyya ar-Razi. The last thing a philosopher would contemplate doing is write
a commentary on hadith. Mention of his name in this regard must therefore be seen as evidence of
Shirazi’s penchant for inflating his list of “authorities” so as to impress his gullible reader. This
tendency occurs throughout the book ad nauseam.
How Shirazi’s ancestors migrated from Hijaz to Iran
A story is briefly related here of how Shirazi’s “ancestor” Muhammad al-‘Abid was murdered in Shiraz
on the orders of the “Abbasid King”. The details of the story have been left out by Shirazi, but we will
nevertheless take a closer look at the historicity of this alleged event.
Muhammad al-‘Abid was the son of Musa al-Kazim. Mentioned of him has been made by Shaykh alMufid in his book Kitab al-Irshad (p. 459). However, al-Mufid mentions nothing at all about his
supposed murder in Shiraz. Even Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar mentions nothing about this event. If any
author had to mention an event of this nature, that author would have been Abul Faraj al-Isfahani, who
devoted an entire book, entitled Maqatil at-Talibiyyin, to documenting the killing of the descendants of
Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu and his brothers, by the Umayyads and the Abbasids.
However, Maqatil at-Talibiyyin is conspicuously silent on the murder of Muhammad, Ahmad and
Husayn, the sons of Musa al-Kazim, in Shiraz by the order of the “Abbasid King”. We are justified
therefore to question the historicity of the event.
The story surrounding how Muhammad al-‘Abid came to be buried in Shiraz, as related by Sayyid
Ja‘far Al Bahr al-‘Ulum in his book Tuhfat al-‘Alim, is that he entered Shiraz in Abbasid times and
lived there till he died. He is reported to have made a living by copying the Qur’an, and is said to have
manumitted 1000 slaves. His grave was “discovered” 6 centuries later during the time of the Zangid
dynasty in a garden belonging to a person named as Qutlugh. (Tuhfat al-‘Alim, published as appendix to
Bihar al-Anwar vol. 48 p. 191) This story is supported by Muhammad Madhi al-Kharsan in his
footnotes to Bihar al-Anwar (vol. 48 p. 174) He informs us that a large number of those who trace their
descent from Musa al-Kazim, including himself, claim descent through this Muhammad al-‘Abid.
Neither of these two sources mention anything about Muhammad al-‘Abid being killed. More
importantly, none of them venture any information about the state of the alleged grave for the 6
centuries before its “discovery”.
His brother Ahmad, commonly known in Shiraz as “Shah Chiragh” is reported by Sayyid Ja‘far Bahr
al-‘Ulum to have come to Shiraz during the time of the Abbasid Khalifah al-Ma’mun. The Abbasid
governor of Shiraz, conspicuously named here as Qutlugh Khan, stopped him on his way. A fight
ensued and Ahmad’s followers deserted him. He is reported variously to have been killed in that
skirmish, or to have escaped into the city to where he was followed and killed, and thirdly to have
managed to elude his enemies in Shiraz where he lived an anonymous life until he died a natural death.
His grave too, was discovered during Zangid times, when for the first time a structure was built over it.
As for the third brother, Husayn, known as ‘Ala ad-Din, his story brings a weird twist to the
conspicuous Qutlugh. Sayyid Ja‘far Bahr al-‘Ulum tells us that during Zangid times, several centuries
after Abbasid rule, the governor of Shiraz was a person called Qutlugh Khan. This governor had a
garden, and the gardener noticed a wonderful light emanating from the garden at night. Upon
investigation they discovered a grave, and through some means or the other they discovered that the
person buried in the grave is Husayn ibn Musa al-Kazim. Qutlugh Khan thereupon ordered a building to
be constructed over the grave.
All three graves were discovered in Zangid times, 6 centuries after the death of persons supposedly
buried in them. All three brother came to Shiraz at the same time, but none seem to have known of the
other’s presence. All three became involved with a Qutlugh Khan, but each one in his own unique way.
It wouldn’t take an expert historian to smell a rat here. A complete and rewarding study could be made
of the proclivity of the Iranians, especially in later centuries, to find the graves of sons of the Imams in
Iran. Sites called imamzadahs flourish in Iran. The Persian Da’irat al-Ma‘arif-e
Tashayyu‘ (Encyclopaedia of Shi‘a) lists over 350 such sites in Iran. In several cases the same person is
claimed to be buried at different locations. In the case of Ahmad ibn Musa al-Kazim, for example, there
is a rival grave for him in Kashan. (Da’irat al-Ma‘arif-e Tashayyu‘ vol. 2 p. 433) Muhammad al-‘Abid
too, has an alternate grave in Kakhak. (ibid. p. 432) The rival grave of Husayn ibn Musa al-Kazim is in
Tabas. (ibid. p. 322)
This embarrassing confusion, and these obvious pointers to the fraud of the ones who invented the
graves at Shiraz, help one to understand the reason why Shirazi refused to devote anything more than a
7 line paragraph to the story about how his ancestors originally came to Iran. The actual history of
Shi‘ism in Iran will be dealt with later, under the second session, where Shirazi has spoken of Iran and
Shi‘ism under the heading “Causes of Iranians’ receptivity to Shi‘ism”.
The grave of ‘Ali
Hereafter mention is made of the discovery of the grave of Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu
‘anhu at Najaf 150 years after his death. Shirazi explains the initial secrecy surrounding the location of
the graves in light of fear that the Umayyads would desecrate the grave. However, what he doesnot
explain is why the location of the grave was revealed by Imam Musa al-Kazim to the Khalifah Harun arRashid when the Abbasids, according to the Shi‘ah, were no less cruel to the ‘Alawis than were the
Umayyads.
Hasan al-Amin writes in his Shorter Shi’ite Encyclopaedia: “Then came Abbasid rule. They were more
severe upon the Alawides in their persecution and cruelty as well as upon the Shi’ites as compared to
the Omayyides. Their rule was more troublesome and bitter for them, as a poet has said: ‘By God, the
Omayyids did not do one-tenth in their case, as Banu Abbas did.’ Amir Abul Faras al-Hamadani says:
‘Banu Harab (Omayyids) did not succeed in these crimes even though though they intended to, as
compared to your success.’ (p. 36)”
Harun ar-Rashid is the Khalifah to whom Imam Musa al-Kazim is reported to have revealed the
location of the grave. This same Harun is described by Hasan al-Amin as having “made himself
notorious for his cruelty to the Alawides and their friends and took to extremes in their persecution.” (p.
40) It is interesting that just a few lines earlier Shirazi was recalling how his “ancestors” were
slaughtered by the Abbasids, and now he presents the Abbasids as benevolent enough for Imam Musa
al-Kazim to reveal to them the location of his grandfather’s grave.
He cites the martyrdom of Zayd ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn, and that of his son Yahya ibn Zayd as examples
of Umayyad cruelty. If the cruelty that was visited upon these two great personalities gives one reason
to believe that the Umayyads were given to desecrate graves, why is it that the alleged slaughter of
Shirazi’s ancestors and others gave no one reason to fear that the Abbasids would desecrate the grave of
Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu?
Shirazi appears ignorant of the fact that the exact manner and time of the “discovery” of the grave at
Najaf is a matter of contention in the Shi‘i hadith literature. He cites the story of Harun ar-Rashid and
Musa al-Kazim as the point at which the grave became known, but fails to take note that Mulla Baqir
Majlisi has recorded in Bihar al-Anwar (vol. 97 p. 164) a report according to which the location of the
grave was known to Abu Ja‘far al-Mansur, who was Harun ar-Rashid’s grandfather. Abu Ja‘far is
reported to have actually excavated the site to see if it really contains a grave. He also mentions that
Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq revealed its location in the time of the first Abbasid ruler Abul ‘Abbas as-Saffah,
who died in 130 AH. Shirazi is therefore clearly mistaken to claim that “the grave remained virtually
unknown until the days of Harun ar-Rashid.”
His claim that Harun built a structure over the location shown to him by Imam Musa al-Kazim clashes
headlong with a report documented by Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar (vol. 42 p. 185) in which a person by
the name of Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Duhaym reports visiting the site secretly sometime after the year
260 AH, and found no building. All they found was a few black stones around the grave. Harun arRashid died in the year 193 AH.
Furthermore, the discovery of a tablet in Syriac that bore an inscription declaring this grave to have
been prepared for ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu by the Prophet Nuh ‘alayhis salam 700 years before the
Deluge presents an anomaly in itself. Although Shirazi promised to use only authentic sources, he fails
to provide a source for this fantastic story. There is also no trace of this aspect of the story in Bihar alAnwar, a source which has given considerable attention to the issue of the location of the grave. What
Majlisi does record is that the grave of Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu is in fact the grave of
Sayyiduna Nuh ‘alayhis salam (vol. 97 p. 171) and not only that of Nuh, but also Adam, Hud and Salih
‘alayhimus salam. (vol. 97 p. 173)
But let us turn to another matter now. Shirazi has cited as examples of Umayyad atrocities the
martyrdom of Zayd ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn and his son Yahya. However, there is an element in the
tragedy of Zayd, and even in that of his grandfather Husayn radiyallahu ‘anhuma which the Shi‘ah
always carefully avoid. That element is the role of the Shi‘ah themselves in those lamentable tragedies.
The Umayyads were only half the problem. The other half was the Shi‘ah.
When Zayd ibn ‘Ali declared revolt against the Umayyads, 40 000 of the Shi‘ah pledged allegiance
upon his hand, 15 000 of them from the city of Kufah alone. With a force this mighty, the Umayyad
army would have been easily vanquished, and justice would have been established. What happened that
at the hour of the battle Zayd was left with only 300 men? The story behind the disgraceful desertion of
Zayd by the Shi‘ah is told by virtually every historian who has given a biography of Zayd or recorded
the events of the year 122 AH.
Just before the battle could start they decided upon a whim to ask Zayd’s opinion about Abu Bakr and
‘Umar radiyallahu ‘anhuma. His reply was, “I have never heard any of my family dissociate himself
from them, and I myself have nothing but good to say about them.” Upset with this reply, they deserted
him en masse, and decided that he could not be the Imam, but that the true Imam was his nephew Ja‘far
as-Sadiq. Out of the 40 000 who had pledged loyalty to him Zayd was left with only a few hundred. On
the departure of the defectors Zayd remarked, “I am afraid they have done unto me what they had done
unto Husayn.” It was here too that for the first time in history the Shi‘ah were given the name
“Rafidah”, meaning “the rejectors”. This name was given to them by Zayd when they rejected him after
his refusal to dissociate himself from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyallahu ‘anhuma.
If the Umayyads were guilty on that day of shedding holy blood, then just as guilty as them were the
thousands of Shi‘ah who would rather see a distinguished member of the Ahl al-Bayt and the son of
their Imam perish at the merciless hands of the Umayyads than hear him speak favourably of Abu Bakr
and ‘Umar radiyallahu ‘anhuma. It is perhaps for this reason that Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq is reported in
the Shi‘i hadith literature to have said that “no one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love
us.” (Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 414)
However, Shi‘i rancour against Zayd did not stop at that cowardly act of desertion. To this very day
their hadith literature is filled with sayings attributed to their Imams in which Zayd is denounced as
misguided innovator, and even an unbeliever for falsely claiming to be an Imam. (Tanqih al-Maqal vol.
1 p. 467-471) The Umayyads killed Zayd once, and crucified his body once. The Shi‘ah, on the other
hand, insult the memory of Zayd ibn ‘Ali every time that they assert, in terms of the hadith which they
ascribe to their Imams, that “whoever raises the standard of revolt before the coming of the Mahdi is a
taghut (tyrant)”; and “whoever unrightfully claims Imamah is a kafir” and “a mushrik”, “even if he
be a descendant of ‘Ali and Fatimah” and “whoever revolts and calls people towards
himself, while there is amongst them someone who is better than him, is a deviant
innovator”. (Bihar al-Anwar vol. 25 pp. 325-328)
It was not only Zayd who was maligned by the Shi‘ah. Even his faithful followers, who
courageously kept up the resistance against the Umayyads, were branded as “enemies of
the Ahl al-Bayt” (Rijal al-Kashshi vol. 2 p. 494) despite the fact that they too, follow
Imams from the Ahl al-Bayt. It is a strange philosophy which denounces those who
refused to submit to injustice and humiliation as “enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt” while
lauding those who deserted the Ahl al-Bayt at the hour of need, and whose opposition to
perceived injustice was limited to the ritual cursing of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and ‘Umar
radiyallahu ‘anhuma in the safety of their private gatherings.
Therefore, if Zayd’s martyrdom was a tragic event, then so much more lamentable is the
attitude of the Shi‘ah towards Zayd, both at the hour of his martyrdom and all the way
down history up to the present day. Therefore, it is blatant opportunism for Shirazi to tell
only half of the story, and to conveniently omit any sort of reference to the treachery of
his ancestors, the Sh‘ah, and their disgraceful role in that tragic martyrdom.
The Verse of
Wilayah
“Your Wali is only Allah, His
Messenger, and the believers who
establish prayer and give charity,
and they bow down.” (al-Ma’idah:55)
Meaning and context
This verse is called the “Verse of Wilayah” due to the appearance of the word wali in it.
Linguistically the word wilayah may have one of two meanings.
Wilayah as Authority
The one meaning is authority. The wali would then be the possessor of authority. The
Shi‘ah have arbitrarily latched on to this meaning, seeking thereby to prove the Imamah
of ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu. By coupling this meaning of the term to the narrations which
will come under discussion in due course—the gist of which is that Sayyiduna ‘Ali
radiyallahu ‘anhu once gave his ring to a beggar whilst in the state of ruku‘, and that the
verse was revealed on that occasion—they draw the conclusion that the only legitimate
authority in the Muslim community is that of Allah, His Messenger and the Imam. Any
other kind of authority, like that of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman radiyallahu ‘anhum,
for example, is then illegitimate and contradicts the Qur’an.
Wilayah as Friendship
The other meaning of wilayah, which in this sense might also appear as walayah, is a
relationship of affection, attachment and solidarity in which each individual becomes the
friend and protector of the other. In this sense the wali is then that person or entity whom
you regard as your friend, your ally, the one with whom you associate, who can be
counted upon to protect you and defend your rights. In this sense it stands opposed to
terms such as “enemy”, “foe” and “adversary”.
In order to see which of these two meanings apply to the verse, one needs to look at the
context in which it stands. The Verse of Wilayah is the 55th verse of Surah al-Ma’idah.
In order for us to get the complete picture of the context in which it stands, we need to go
back a few verses. In verse 51 Allah Ta‘ala says:
O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians as your
awliya (plural of wali). They are the awliya of one another. Whoever
amongst you takes them as his awliya is one of them. Verily Allah does
not guide the unjust people.
It can be seen from this verse that Allah Ta‘ala is definitely not speaking of wilayah in the
sense of authority. What is being spoken of here is taking non-Muslims as allies, friends
and protectors.
When Allah then says in verse 55 that “your true wali is only Allah, His Messenger and
the Believers” it is clear that it is wilayah in the sense of mutual solidarity and friendship,
and not wilayah in the sense of authority, that is meant.
This meaning of wilayah is repeated again in verse 57:
O you who believe, do not take as your awliya those who take your
religion for a mockery and fun from amongst those who received the
Scripture before you, and from amongst the disbelievers.
In light of the fact that in the preceding as well as successive verses wilayah is used in the
sense of the relationship we have described earlier, it is unacceptable, and indeed most
incoherent, to claim that in this verse in the middle it has been used in the sense of
authority. The meaning of the verse of Wilayah is therefore that a Muslim’s allegiance
should be only to Allah, His Messenger sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, and the Believers.
Of the exclusive and pre-emptive right to authority which the Shi‘ah seek to read into it,
the verse does not speak at all.
This is further corroborated by an authentic narration documented by Ibn Jarir at-Tabari
and others, which states that verse 51 was revealed in connection with ‘Ubadah ibn Samit
radiyallahu ‘anhu and ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy, both of whom had wilayah relationships
with the Jews of Madinah. ‘Ubadah radiyallahu ‘anhu came to Rasulullah and announced
that he was severing all ties of wilayah with them, while ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy insisted on
keeping ties with them, saying that he feared a turnabout of circumstances. It was then
that the 55th verse of al-Ma’idah was revealed. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 68)
Narrations
The main grounds for forcing the verse out of its context are the narrations which exist,
according to which the verse was revealed when Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu gave
his ring to a beggar whilst in the position of ruku‘. In what follows we will investigate the
authenticity of those narrations.
It must be remembered, as a matter of principle, that untruthfulness in narrating hadith
was a very real phenomenon in the early centuries of Islam, the result of which has been
that a lot of spurious, unauthentic material was brought into circulation. Much of this
material was later included into hadith collections by compilers who were motivated more
by a desire to document a largely oral tradition, than to separate authentic from
unauthentic material.
Whoever thereafter wishes to utilize the material thus compiled will first have to ascertain
the authenticity of the material he wishes to quote. By failing to first prove the
authenticity of one’s quoted material, the entire argument which is based upon that
material is rendered useless.
After this very important introductory remark, we now launch into a study of the available
narrated material. We will first look at what has been narrated from some of the Sahabah,
and thereafter at what has been narrated with chains of narration that go back only as far
as the Tabi‘in.
1. Narrations from Sahabah
The sources at our disposal contain narrations of the supposed incident whose sanads
(chains of narration) go back to four different Sahabah. They are:
1. Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhuma
2. Sayyiduna ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiyallahu ‘anhu
3. Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu himself.
4. Sayyiduna Abu Rafi‘radiyallahu ‘anhu
1.1 ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas t
There are at least three separate isnads from Ibn ‘Abbas in which this story is recounted.
1.1.1 The first isnad from Ibn ‘Abbas
The first is recorded by Abu Bakr ibn Mardawayh in his Tafsir and al-Wahidi in his book
Asbab an-Nuzul. Ibn Mardawayh’s Tafsir has not survived, but al-Wahidi’s book has
been published a number of times, and it is known from as-Suyuti’s ad-Durr al-Manthur
(vol. 2 p. 293) that these two sources have at least the last portion of their isnads in
common. This last portion is as follows:
Muhammad ibn Marwan — Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib — Abu Salih — Ibn‘Abbas
(See al-Wahidi, Asbab an-Nuzul no. 397)
This isnad is one of the most famous chains of forgery. Each one of the three narrators
before Ibn ‘Abbas was a notorious liar. Abu Salih, whose name was Badham or Badhan,
was described as a liar by his own student Isma‘il ibn Abi Khalid. (See Abu Ja‘far
al-‘Uqayli, ad-Du‘afa’ al-Kabir vol. 1 p. 165)
The next narrator, Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib al-Kalbi, was one of the most notorious liars
of Kufah. His biography in al-Mizzi’s Tahdhib al-Kamal is filled with statements of the
‘ulama of his time who denounced him as an extremely unreliable reporter, and even a
blatant liar. (See al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 25 pp. 246-253)
Two of the statements in his biography are of particular interest here. The one is a
statement by his kinsman Abu Janab al-Kalbi who records Abu Salih as saying that he
never narrated any tafsir to Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib. The second is an admission of guilt
by Abu Salih. Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri narrates that al-Kalbi said, “Whatever tafsir I
narrated from Abu Salih is untrue. Do not narrate it from me.”
The third person in this isnad is Muhammad ibn Marwan, who is also known as as-Suddi
as-Saghir (the younger Suddi). In him we have another notorious forger whose mendacity
was exposed by both his contemporaries and the ‘ulama who came after him. (See
Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 pp. 392-394)
This particular chain of narration (as-Suddi as-Saghir, from al-Kalbi, from Abu Salih)
became so infamous amongst the ‘ulama that it was given the epithet Silsilat al-Kadhib,
meaning the Chain of Mendacity. (See as-Suyuti, Tadrib ar-Rawi vol. 1 p. 181)
1.1.2 The second isnad from Ibn ‘Abbas
The second isnad from Ibn ‘Abbas t is also documented in the Tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh.
It runs through ad-Dahhak ibMuzahim from Ibn ‘Abbas. The weak point in this isnad lies
in the fact that ad-Dahhak never met Ibn ‘Abbas, leave alone narrate from him. (See
Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 71)
In the book al-Jarh wat-Ta‘dil by Ibn Abi Hatim ar-Razi there is a narration which throws
some light upon the link “ad-Dahhak—Ibn ‘Abbas”. Ibn Abi Hatim narrates with an
authentic isnad from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Abi Maysarah that he asked ad-Dahhak: “Did you
personally hear anything from Ibn ‘Abbas?” Ad-Dahhak replied in the negative. ‘Abd alMalik then asked him: “So this which you narrate (from him), from whom did you take
it?” Ad-Dahhak replied: “From this one and that one.” (Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wat-Ta‘dil
vol. 4 tarjamah no. 2024)
This shows that ad-Dahhak did not exercise great care about the persons from whom he
received the material he later transmitted from Ibn ‘Abbas. Having been a contemporary
of Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib al-Kalbi, it is not at all improbable that he might have heard
the story of the beggar from him.
1.1.3 The third isnad from Ibn ‘Abbas
The third isnad from Ibn ‘Abbas t runs through the famous mufassir Mujahid ibn Jabr,
from Ibn ‘Abbas. It is narrated by ‘Abd ar-Razzaq as-San‘ani in his Tafsir. He narrates it
from ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn Mujahid, who narrates it from his father Mujahid. ‘Abd alWahhab ibn Mujahid is described by the rijal critics as matruk, which implies that his
unreliability is a matter of consensus amongst them. (Ibn Hajar, Taqrib at-Tahdhib no.
4263) Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri described him as a liar. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 18 p.
517) There is reasonable doubt about whether he ever heard hadith from his father.
(Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 18 p. 517)
An alternative narration from Ibn ‘Abbas t
From the above it can be seen that not one of the various narrations from Ibn ‘Abbas is
authentic. What adds to the baselessness of that report is the fact that they contradict
another more reliable report from Ibn ‘Abbas on the tafsir of this verse. This report is
documented in the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir, who narrates it with his isnad from the Tafsir of
‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah. According to this report Ibn ‘Abbas was of the opinion that the
words “and those who believe, who establish prayer and give charity, and they bow
down” in the verse refer to all Muslims in general. (Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan
vol. 6 p. 186)
This interpretation by Ibn ‘Abbas is not only in harmony with the meaning of wilayah as
outlined above, it also agrees with the use of the plural form (“those who believe”) in the
verse.
1.2 ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiyallahu ‘anhu
The hadith featuring Sayyiduna ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiyallahu ‘anhu as its narrator is
recorded in al-Mu‘jam al-Awsat (vol. 6 p. 294, no. 6232) of at-Tabrani. Its isnad runs as
follows:
Muhammad ibn ‘Ali as-Sa’igh—Khalid ibn Yazid al-‘Umari—Ishaq ibn ‘Abdilllah
ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Husayn—Hasan ibn Zayd—his father Zayd ibn Hasan
—his grandfather—‘Ammar
This isnad suffers from a serious defect. Khalid ibn Yazid al-‘Umari is an extremely
untrustworthy narrator who has been denounced as a liar by Yahya in Ma‘in and Abu
Hatim ar-Razi. Ibn Hibban says that he transmits forgeries on the authority of trustworthy
narrators. Al-‘Uqayli says that he transmits baseless narrations. (See Lisan al-Mizan vol.
2 pp. 740-743)
In this particular case he presents his forgery in the name of a completely unknown
narrator, Ishaq ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Husayn. This name is nowhere
traceable in the biographical dictionaries of hadith transmitters. Hasan ibn Zayd, his
father Zayd ibn Hasan, and his grandfather Sayyiduna Hasan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib
radiyallahu ‘anhum were historical figures, but it is evident that their association with this
hadith is completely fictional, being fabricated as it is by a known forger, Khalid ibn
Yazid al-‘Umari.
1.3 ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu
The hadith with Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib t as its narrator was contained in the
Tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh, a source which is no longer extant.
However, Hafiz Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir has stated that this narration, like that of ‘Ammar
and Abu Rafi‘, is unreliable “due to the weakness of their isnads and the fact that their
narrators are unknown”. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 71)
The fact that amongst all hadith sources it is only in the relatively late Tafsir of Ibn
Mardawayh (who died in the year 410 AH) that this narration appears, is a further
indication of its spuriousness.
1.4 Abu Rafi‘ radiyallahu ‘anhu
This narration too, is recorded by Ibn Mardawayh. Fortunately it is also recorded by atTabrani in his work al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir (vol. 1 pp. 320-321), so unlike the previous case,
we are in a position to conduct a first-hand investigation into its isnad.
Before going into that it must first be noted that this narration differs from all of the above
versions in that it does not recount the story of the beggar. It only speaks of Rasulullah r
waking up from his sleep and reciting this verse. Thereafter he tells Abu Rafi‘ that there
will come a people who will fight ‘Ali t , and that it will be incumbent upon people to
fight them.
In ad-Durr al-Manthur (vol. 2 p. 294), where it is stated as being recorded by Ibn
Mardawayh, at-Tabrani as well as Abu Nu‘aym, there is an addition which goes that after
reciting the verse Rasulullah r said: “Praise be to Allah who completed His favour for
‘Ali.” This addition must be from the book of either Ibn Mardawayh or Abu Nu‘aym,
since it does not appear in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir. It is neither in Hilyat al-Awliya of Abu
Nu‘aym, so it must be from another of his works which is not available to us.
The isnad in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir is not free from serious defects. The second narrator in
the chain, namely Yahya ibn al-Hasan ibn Furat, is totally unknown (Majma‘ az-Zawa’id
vol. 9 p. 134), while its fourth narrator, Muhammad ibn ‘Ubaydillah, is regarded as
unreliable by the vast majority of critics. For example, Abu Hatim describes him as “da‘if
al-hadith, munkar al-hadith jiddan” (weak in hadith, narrates extremely unique and
uncorroborated material), and Ibn Ma‘in says about him “laysa bi-shay’ (as a hadith
transmitter he amounts to nothing)”. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 p. 37) Ibn ‘Adi concurs
with Abu Hatim that he narrates completely uncorroborated material. (al-Kamil vol. 6 p.
114)
Summary of
Narrations from Sahabah
From the above it can be seen that not a single one of the various narrations from Sahabah
that may be adduced as evidence that the Verse of Wilayah refers to Sayyiduna ‘Ali
radiyallahu ‘anhu, is authentic.
Shi‘i writers often quote material of this kind from Sunni sources, seeking to mislead their
uninformed Sunni readership by the amount of sources they are able to produce. A
general principle that must be kept in mind with regard to such attempts at deception is
that any narration is only as good as its chain of narration. Any material quoted must
therefore first be authenticated before it can be used to substantiate any argument.
Hereafter we proceed to look at narrations of the beggar-incident whose chains of
narration go back only as far as the Tabi‘in.
2. Narrations from Tabi‘in
Besides the previously discussed narrations from Sahabah, the sources provide us with
reports from four of the Tabi‘in in which mention is made of the incident of the beggar.
Below we discuss these four reports.
Before actually looking at them we need to take cognisance of the following principle:
Narrations such as these, which terminate at the Tabi‘in, but speak of incidents which
allegedly happened during the time of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam must be
treated with care. The reason for that is that the Tabi‘i who narrates something which he
claims happened during the time of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam did not
actually witness the incident. The only way he could have knowledge of it is by someone
informing him.
The crucial question is: Who is his informant? To some people the logical answer to this
question is that the Tabi‘in were informed by the Sahabah, for the simple reason that the
Tabi‘in were the students of the Sahabah.
However, this an oversimplification. It is a fact that the Tabi‘in were informed of
incidents from the time of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam by their teachers the
Sahabah. But it is equally true that the phenomenon of hadith forgery made its appearance
during that same early stage, when the adherents of the various unorthodox sectarian
groupings, like the Khawarij and the extremist Shi‘ah were seeking to legitimate their
doctrines by bringing into circulation hadith material which they projected back to the
time of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. Traditions of this kind are then later taken
up by unsuspecting orthodox narrators who transmit it, often without naming of their
sources. In this way spurious material finds its way into orthodox literature. Hafiz Ibn
Hajar, in his introduction to Lisan al-Mizan, makes mention of the statement of a member
of one of the early heterodox sects that they used to invent hadith in support of their
doctrines. He then remarks upon it that
this, by Allah, is the most decisive argument against those who regard the mursal
hadith (the kind of hadith in which a Tabi‘i narrates directly from the Prophet
sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, without any mention of his immediate source), since the
innovation of the Khawarij took place early in the history of Islam when there still
many Sahabah alive; and thereafter in the time of the Tabi‘in after them. These
people, when they took a fancy to something, used to make it into a hadith and
publicise it. It might then well happen that a Sunni hears it and then, thinking well
of [the person from whom he hears it,] he goes on to narrate it. This narration will
then be narrated from him by another person. Eventually those will come along who
regard hadith with interrupted chains of narration as authoritative. They will then
accept such hadith as proof, while the origin of it is what I have mentioned. (Lisan alMizan vol. 1 p. 18)
We will now proceed with an investigation into the authenticity of the four reports
narrated from Tabi‘in. The four Tabi‘in from whom the incident of the beggar is narrated
are:
1. ‘Utbah ibn Abi Hakim
2. Salamah ibn Kuhayl
3. Isma‘il ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman as-Suddi
4. Mujahid ibn Jabr
1. ‘Utbah ibn Abi Hakim
The first narration is that of ‘Utbah ibn Abi Hakim which is documented in the Tafsir of
Ibn Kathir from its original source, the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Hatim. (Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 71)
‘Utbah says:
They (those who believe, who establish salah and give zakah, and they bow down) are
the Believers and ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
‘Utbah gives a double meaning to the phrase in italics. He understands it to refer to the
Believers in general, in harmony with the context. At the same time he also understands it
to refer specifically to Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu.
The only reason for him reading that specific meaning into the verse must be the fact that
he had heard of the incident of the beggar. Otherwise the text by itself does not support
that deduction. So now the question is: From whom did he hear it? From a Sahabi, or
from someone else? He himself doesn’t state the identity of his source.
‘Utbah’s source could not have been a Sahabi, since he himself is not a Tabi‘i in the strict
sense of the word. He lived during the time of the younger generation of Tabi‘in, like
Sulayman al-A‘mash, but did not get to meet any of the Sahabah. (See Taqrib at-Tahdhib
no. 4427) All the sources from whom he transmitted hadith were of the Tabi‘in, and some
of them were his own contemporaries. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 19 p. 300) One of his
contemporaries was the notorious forger Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib al-Kalbi whose role in
the forgery of the hadith narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas has already been discussed. It is
therefore not wholly inconceivable that ‘Utbah ibn Abi Hakim received his information
about the incident of the beggar also from al-Kalbi, and if not from him then from some
other equally untrustworthy source.
2. Salamah ibn Kuhayl
Salamah ibn Kuhayl was a Tabi‘i from Kufah who had met none of the Sahabah except
Jundub ibn ‘Abdillah and Abu Juhayfah. (‘Ali ibn al-Madini, Kitab al-‘Ilal, cited by Dr.
Bashshar ‘Awwad Ma‘ruf in a footnote to Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 11 p. 317) The vast
majority of his teachers were of the elder and middle generation of the Tabi‘in. His saying
was also recorded in the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Hatim from where it was reproduced and
preserved by Ibn Kathir. (vol. 2 p. 71) He mentions the incident of the beggar as the cause
of revelation for this verse.
Since this is once again a report by a person who did not actually witness the incident, a
similar line of reasoning is applicable to it as to the previous case.
However, aside from asking questions about who Salamah’s source for this information
could have been, it is of particular interest to us to note that according to the Shi‘i rijal
critics, Salamah ibn Kuhayl was persona non grata. Abu ‘Amr al-Kashshi, the prime rijal
critic of the Shi‘ah, narrates from the 5th Imam Muhammad al-Baqir that Salamah ibn
Kuhayl, amongst others, was responsible for misleading alot of people, and that he is of
those about whom Allah has said in the Qur’an: There are some people who say: “We
believe in Allah and the Last Day,” but (in reality) they do not believe. (Rijal al-Kashshi,
cited in al-Ardabili, Jami‘ ar-Ruwat vol. 1 p. 373)
With their Imam himself having condemned Salamah ibn Kuhayl as a hypocrite who is
guilty of leading people away from the truth, we fail to understand how the Shi‘ah can
venture to make an argument out of his statement.
3. Isma‘il ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman as-Suddi
The third report which recalls the incident of the beggar comes from Isma‘il ibn ‘Abd arRahman as-Suddi, a contemporary of Salamah ibn Kuhayl who also lived in Kufah. His
statement is recorded in the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir at-Tabari (vol. 6 p. 186). He says:
Thereafter [i.e. after the preceding ayat] Allah informs them [the Believers] with
whom they should have wilayah, saying: “Your wali is only Allah, His Messenger and
the Believers who establish salah and give zakah, and they bow down.” This refers to
all Believers, but a beggar passed by ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu while he
was in ruku‘ in the masjid, so he gave him his ring.”
This shows that as-Suddi is of the opinion that the verse is not specific, and that it applies
to all Believers in general. However, he does mention the incident of the beggar, and
states it here almost as an afterthought. It is obvious that he is influenced by two things.
Firstly he is influenced by the context in which the ayah appears. The context definitely
provides no grounds for restricting the meaning of the verse to any particular incident or
person, and that is what causes him to say that the scope of the verse is general so as to
include all Believers.
On the other hand he is also influenced by a report which reached him about the incident
of the beggar. Our quest is to investigate with what degree of authenticity that report was
handed down to him.
We know that at the time when as-Suddi lived many reliable hadith narrators from
amongst the elder and middle generations of the Tabi‘in were alive. But we also know
that there were also numerous notorious forgers and liars, who for the sake of propagating
their heresies, resorted to forgery and invented history. For the critic it is thus not simply
as easy as to accept whatever is narrated, but to investigate.
As-Suddi did not personally witness the incident, nor was he ever in contact with anyone
who could have witnessed it. His informant therefore had to be another person. He
himself does not state the name of his informant, nor of the eye witness from who the
informant received the report.
The general failure of all of these persons— ‘Utbah ibn Abi Hakim, Salamah ibn Kuhayl
and as-Suddi— to mention the names of their sources points strongly to the fact that the
whole incident was nothing more than hearsay, more of a rumour than an authenticated
report. It was brought into circulation by an unscrupulous person whose identity has
remained a mystery. Thereafter it was circulated by word of mouth, with some
commentatormentioning the incident but refraining from naming their sources, and other
less scrupulous persons projecting it right back to the Sahabah. Not a single one of the
various chains of narrations fulifil the requirements of authenticity.
4. Mujahid ibn Jabr
We earlier discussed the narration transmitted from Mujahid by his son ‘Abd al-Wahhab.
That narration was on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas.
In the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir at-Tabari there is another narration from Mujahid in which
mention of the story of the beggar is made (vol. 6 p. 186). The statement appears there as
Mujahid’s own, and not as his narration from Ibn ‘Abbas.
However, the person who narrates from him, namely Ghalib ibn ‘Ubaydillah, is regarded
as extremely unreliable by the rijal critics. His unreliability, like that of ‘Abd al-Wahhab
ibn Mujahid, is a matter of consensus amongst the ‘ulama. Abu Hatim describes him as
“matruk al-hadith, munkar al-hadith”(one upon whose extreme unreliability there is
consensus, an unreliable narrator of uncorroborated reports); ad-Daraqutni says simply
“matruk”(technically meaning that he is extremely unreliable by consensus); and Ibn
Ma‘in says “laysa bi-thiqah” (he is not reliable). (Lisan al-Mizan vol. 5 p. 404)
At this some point some readers might get the impression that the rijal critics condemned
these narrators as unreliable only because they narrate material which is unpalatable to
them. To this we might reply by saying that this kind of response might be expected from
someone who has no knowledge of the methodology of the Muhaddithin in criticising
narrators. Having here seen quotations from the rijal critics on a few narrators who all
happen to narrate the same hadith, the mind of the non-adept could be expected to jump to
the generalisation that “it is only because these narrators narrate material favourable to
Shi‘ism that they have been censured.” The tendency to generalise in this way would be
even stronger if considered that in this critical examination the person might be seeing the
destruction of something which he had once thought to be an incontrovertible argument.
Such persons would be well-advised to read up on the methodology of hadith criticism.
That is only the first part of our reply. The second part is that this particular person,
Ghalib ibn ‘Ubaydillah, does not only narrate this one saying from Mujahid. He is known
to have transmitted other material as well. In Ibn Hajar’s work Lisan al-Mizan there is a
hadith which he narrates, the text of which is that Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam
gave Mu‘awiyah an arrow and told him: “Keep this until you meet me in Jannah.” The
hadith is squarely denounced as a forgery by this very same Ghalib ibn ‘Ubaydillah.
This condemnation of his hadith is definitely not result of prejudice based on the type of
hadith which he transmits. That much even the Shi‘ah will agree to. It was simply on
account of the person’s unreliability and untrustworthiness, which is, as we have already
said, a matter of consensus amongst the Muhaddithin.
If anyone feels that Ghalib ibn ‘Ubaydillah has been unfairly dealt with by the rijal critics
merely because he narrated something in support of Sayyiduna ‘Ali’s pre-emptive right to
the Khilafah, let him ask himself if he would would feel the same about the fact that that
same Ghalib narrates this hadith about Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam telling
Mu‘awiyah to keep the arrow until he meets him again in Jannah. An honest response to
this question is sure to reveal exactly where the real prejudice lies.
Alternative narrations from the Tabi‘in
The above four narrations are not the only ones that have come down to us from the
Tabi‘in. They are contradicted by another, much better known narration that has reached
us from a person no less in status that Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, who is regarded by the
Shi‘ah as their 5th Imam. This narration is documented in at-Tabari’s Tafsir (vol. 6 p.
186). It runs as follows:
Hannad [ibn Sari]— ‘Abdah [ibn Sulayman]— ‘Abd al-Malik [ibn Abi
Sulayman]— Abu Ja‘far [i.e. Imam Muhammad al-Baqir]:
‘Abd al-Malik says: I asked Abu Ja‘far about the verse, “Your wali is only Allah,
His Messenger and those who believe, who establish salah and give zakah, and they
bow down.” We asked: “Who is meant by those who believe?” He said: “Those who
believe.” We said: “A report reached us that that this verse was revealed in
connection with ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.” He said: “Ali is one of those who believe.”
This narration shows that the incident of the beggar had become quite popular, despite the
fact that none of its narrators is able to produce a chain of narrators that is free from
serious defects. It had become so popular, in fact, that ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Abi Sulayman—
who is recognised by the Shi‘ah as a Tabi‘i who narrates from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir
(see al-Ardabili, Jami‘ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 519 no. 4187)— thought to refer the matter to
the Imam himself. The Imam made it clear to him that the verse refers to all Believers in
general. When told about the claim that it refers specifically to Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi
Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu, the Imam makes is clear that Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu
is neither the specific subject of the verse, nor is he excluded from it, since he too, is a
believer amongst the Believers. He mentions nothing at all in confirmation of the incident
of the beggar.
To the Shi‘i mind, so used to thinking of the illustrious members of the Ahl al-Bayt in the
despicable terms of taqiyyah, the Imam might well have been “covering up the truth”. But
to any person who truly loves and respects the Family of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi waalihi wasallam this is an honest and straightforward answer. Only an anxious and
prejudiced mind would care to read meaning into it that is not there.
CONCLUSION
From this discussion the following conclusions may be drawn:
Firstly,
the context of the verse is general, and gives no cause for believing it to refer to any
specific person.
Secondly,
the incident of the beggar is recorded in reports narrated from four different Sahabah.
Not a single one of those four reports is free from serious defects in the chains of
narration. They are further contradicted by other narrations which are more reliable.
Thirdly,
narrations from the Tabi‘in suffer from a common defect, in that the names of the
sources who relate the incident are not disclosed. Some of them suffer from the further
defect of untrustworthy narrators. They are contradicted by a report in which Imam
Muhammad al-Baqir himself attests to the fact that the verse is general and
unrestricted in meaning.
With this being the state of the historicity of the incident of the
beggar, there is no way in which it could ever be claimed, with
confidence and in full honesty, that the 55th verse of Surah alMa’idah was revealed in respect of Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib
radiyallahu ‘anhu.
Bibliography
The editions of the sources quoted in this article are stated below.
1. al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir
Wizarat al-Awqaf, Iraq, 2nd edition, edited by Hamdi ‘Abd al-Majid as-Salafi
2. al-Mu‘jam al-Awsat
Dar al-Hadith, Cairo, 1417/1996, edited by Ayman Salih Sha‘ban & Sayyid Ahmad Isma‘il
3. Lisan al-Mizan
Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, Beirut, 1416/1995, edited by Muhammad ‘Abd ar-Rahman alMar‘ashli
4. Majma‘ az-Zawa’id
Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, no date
5. Tahdhib al-Kamal
Mu’assasat ar-Risalah, Beirut 1413/1992, edited by Dr. Bashshar ‘Awwad Ma‘ruf
6. Taqrib at-Tahdhib
Dar ar-Rashid, Halab 1412/1992, edited by Muhammad ‘Awwamah,
7. Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Maktabah Dar at-Turath, Cairo, no date
8. Tafsir at-Tabari = Jami‘ al-Bayan
Dar al-Ma‘rifah, Beirut 1400/1980
9. Asbab an-Nuzul
Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1411/1991, edited by Kamal Basyuni Zaghlul,
10. al-Kamil fi Du‘afa ar-Rijal
Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 3rd edition, 1405/1985, edited by Yahya Muhammad ‘Azzawi
11. ad-Durr al-Manthur
Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar‘ashi an-Najafi, Qum, 1404
12. al-Jarh wat-Ta‘dil
Da’irat al-Ma‘arif al-‘Uthmaniyyah, Hyderabad, Deccan 1371/1952
13. Tadrib ar-Rawi
al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah, Madinah 2nd edition, 1392/1972, edited by ‘Abd al-Wahhab ‘Abd alLatif,
14. ad-Du‘afa al-Kabir
Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1404/1984 edited by Dr. ‘Abd al-Mu‘ti Qal‘aji
15. Jami‘ ar-Ruwat
Dar al-Adwa’, Beirut, 1403/1983
The Verse of
Tabligh
O Messenger! Convey that which was
revealed to you from your Lord. If you
will not do so, you would not have
conveyed His message. And Allah
protects you from the people. Verily
Allah does not guide the people who
transgress. (al-Ma’idah:67)
This verse is called Ayat at-Tabligh (the Verse of Conveyance) on account of the
word balligh (the imperative form of the verb ballagha i.e. to convey) in it.
The ahadith which have come down to us, which state the circumstances of its
revelation, may be divided into four categories:
(1) ahadith which state that the verse was revealed during a military
expedition, when a bedouin Arab crept up on Rasulullah sallallahu
‘alayhi wasallam and tried to kill him with his own sword
(2) ahadith which speak of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam
dispensing with the services of guards after the revelation of the verse
(3) a hadith which states that his uncle ‘Abbas used to be amongst those
who guarded him until the revelation of the verse
(4) ahadith which state that his uncle Abu Talib used to send someone
with him to guard him wherever he went, until the revelation of the verse
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 pp. 77-79)
The first three categories do not contradict one another. They may all be speaking of
the same thing, the only difference between them being that each of the three of
them deals with a specific aspect of the revelation of the verse. The ahadith of the
first category speak of the place and the incident of the bedouin; those of the second
category inform us what steps Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam took after the
revelation of the verse; while the solitary narration in the third category informs us
that his uncle ‘Abbas used to be amongst those who used to guard him.
It is only with the fourth category that a problem is encountered. The ahadith of first
three categories all concur on the fact that the verse was revealed after the Hijrah.
However, the introduction of the name of Abu Talib into the circumstances of
revelation places it well before the Hijrah. So here we have a contradiction.
Closer inspection of the isnads of the two narrations in question reveals problems
with the reliability of some of their narrators. We may thus conclude that this
version is unacceptable, firstly on account of the fact that it contradicts more
authentic material, and secondly because it has been handed down to us through
unreliable chains of transmission.
²²²
The above is a very brief synopsis of the narrated material surrounding the 67th
verse of Surah al-Ma’idah which is to be found in the well-known works on tafsir.
Our intention in presenting this synopsis is to give the reader a general overview of
the narrations contained in the major sources of tafsir, and especially narrated tafsir
(at-tafsir bil-ma’thur). This has the advantage of demonstrating to the objective
observer the incongruity of narrations Shi‘i propagandists have been known to latch
on to in their mission to convince the Ahl as-Sunnah that the Qur’an does in fact
speak of the Imamah of Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Talib, and that this claim is borne out by
the mufassirin of the Ahl as-Sunnah themselves.
In Shi‘i propagandist works we encounter another category of narrated material,
other than the four we have mentioned here. In this fifth category of narrated
material we find the revelation of the verse being linked to the stopover at Ghadir
Khumm on the return journey to Madinah after the Farewell Hajj. The claim they
make in this regard is quite simple and straightforward: They claim that this verse
was revealed on the day of Ghadir Khumm in connection with ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
The Shi‘i propagandist is ingenious. Being an expert in the art of misrepresentation,
he presents this narration to the unsuspecting Sunni public as if it is the only
material which exists on the revelation of the verse. He knows that most— if not all—
of his listeners or readers are laymen who first of all do not know any Arabic; and
even if they do, they do not have access to the books on tafsir.
Being thus assured that they will never discover his dishonesty in concealing the
existence of alternative material on the issue, he goes ahead to convince his listener
or reader that the quotation which he has supplied him with is the unadulterated
truth. He emphasises the fact that he has taken this quotation not from a Shi‘i
source, but from a Sunni one. The Sunni reader/listener is thus left with the
impression that what he is getting is the truth, since it comes, in a manner of
speaking, from the horse’s mouth.
The source given for the above claim is the book Asbab an-Nuzul by Abul Hasan alWahidi. (Asbab Nuzul al-Qur’an, p. 204) Al-Wahidi narrates most of the material in
his book with their complete isnads. Therefore, quoting material from al-Wahidi
without stating the nature of the isnad on the authority of which he has quoted is
basically an act of deception. It is relatively easy to deceive the public with such
quotations, since they lack a proper understanding of the nature of quotation by
isnad. The lay person looks only to the author of the book, and not to the chain of
narrators on whose authority the author narrates. To deceive him is therefore quite
simple.
To understand exactly how illogical this approach is we need to compare it with a
parallel case. Let us assume we have a book on science. This book quotes the theory
of an earlier scientist about the invalidity of whose theories there exists consensus
amongst the experts in the field. Note that the author of the book merely quotes that
theory; he does not lend his own weight to it by defending or supporting it. The
question now is: can we take this particular theory and ascribe it to the author of
the book, and omit any reference to the fact that he is merely quoting, and not
supporting it? We very obviously cannot do so, and if we do so we will be dishonest.
Similarly, quoting from al-Wahidi without mentioning that he narrates it on the
authority of a chain of narrators, and without proving the authenticity of the chain
of narrators is also dishonest. When we encounter a quotation from al-Wahidi the
first question we need to ask ourselves is: Is it narrated with an authentic chain of
narration? This question can only be answered by referring back to the original
book.
In the book Asbab Nuzul al-Qur’an we find that this statement, which ascribed to
Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri radiyallahu ‘anhu, is narrated via a chain of narration which
runs as follows:
al-Wahidi— Muhammad ibn ‘Ali as-Saffar— Hasan ibn Ahmad alMakhladi— Muhammad ibn Hamdun ibn Khalid— Muhammad ibn Ibrahim
al-Hulwani— Hasan ibn Hammad, Sajjadah— ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis— al-A‘mash and
Abu’l-Jahhaf— ‘Atiyyah (ibn Sa‘d al‘Awfi)— Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri...
Thus, the statement “al-Wahidi narrates from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri” is extremely
elliptical, since it completely omits any reference to the fact that what al-Wahidi
narrates is narrated on the authority of the nine persons who stand between himself
and Abu Sa‘id. Only when the reliability of these nine persons is proven may we with
confidence say that “al-Wahidi narrates from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri”.
Critical scrutiny of the isnad reveals the following flaws:
1. ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis: This narrator lived in Kufah during the latter half of the
second century AH. There is consensus amongst the rijal critics that he
was an unreliable transmitter. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 20 p. 502-504) His
unreliability stems from the fact that the material transmitted by him
was for the greater part uncorroborated or contradictory to more reliable
versions. In the case of this particular narration he has transmitted a
hadith of which no trace can be found anywhere else. Since his own
reliability is already seriously questionable, we cannot by any objective
standards place confidence in the lone narration of one such as he. Ibn
Hibban sums up the reason for dismissing him as a hadith transmitter
in the following words: “Mistakes of his in transmitting hadith were so
serious that he deserved to be abandoned (as a narrator).” Abu Zur‘ah arRazi states: “He is munkar al-hadith (meaning that he uncorroborated
material, or material which contradicts more reliable versions); he
transmits uncorroborated ahadith on the authority of reliable
narrators.” (Kitab al-Majruhin vol. 2 p. 176)
2. ‘Atiyyah al-‘Awfi: ‘Atiyyah al-‘Awfi appears in the isnad as the person
who narrates from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri radiyallahu ‘anhu. He lived and
was active as a hadith transmitter in Kufah, where he died in 111AH or
127 AH. He transmitted hadith from figures amongst the Sahabah such
as Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbas, Zayd ibn Arqam and Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri
radiyallahu ‘anhum. The muhaddithin have called his reliability as a
narrator into question, especially when he narrates from Abu Sa‘id. This
is on account of the habit termed tadlis ash-shuyukh by the
muhaddithin. His practise of this habit is explained by Ibn Hibban in his
Kitab al-Majruhin in the following words:
He heard some ahadith from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri. When
Abu Sa‘id died he sat with (the Shi‘i mufassir) al-Kalbi
and listened to his stories. Thus when al-Kalbi used to
say “Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam said...” he
used to memorise it. He now gave al-Kalbi the kunyah
“Abu Sa‘id” and started narrating from him. When it was
asked “Who narrated this to you?” he used to say, “Abu
Sa‘id”. The people would think that he meant Abu Sa‘id
al-Khudri, when in reality it was al-Kalbi. It is therefore
not allowed to use him as an authority or to write his
ahadith, except if it is in the sense of amazement. (Kitab
al-Majruhin vol. 2 p. 176)
This is then the state of the narration which Shi‘i propagandists so brazenly thrust
in the faces of their Sunni readers or listeners.
There is another narration which holds connection with this one. It was originally
documented in the tafsir of Abu Bakr Ibn Mardawayh (died 410 AH), but his tafsir is
no longer extant. It has been preserved, albeit without isnad, by as-Suyuti in his
book ad-Durr al-Manthur. (vol. 2 p. 298) The text of this narration runs as follows:
Ibn Mardawayh recorded from Ibn Mas‘ud that he said: In the time of
Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam we used to read: “O messenger,
convey what has been revealed to you from your Lord that ‘Ali is the
Master of the Believers; If you do not do so, you would not have conveyed
His message. And Allah protects you from the people...
This narration, as can be clearly seen, has come down to us stripped of its chain of
narration. The chain of narration is usually regarded as the chief indicator of
authenticity.
However, it is not the only indicator. In the absence of the isnad, which would have
pinpointed the exact person responsible for this blatant forgery, we still have the
significant fact that this narration assails the sanctity of the Qur’an.
This narration contains an addition to the wording of the verse which is not to be
found amongst any of the qira’at (variant readings) of the Qur’an, neither the
mutawatir readings nor the shadhdh ones. In fact, it can be found nowhere except in
a single, lone narration preserved without isnad in a work of the fifth century. The
work of Ibn Mardawayh is in no way free from narrations by the extremists of the
Shi‘ah. We have earlier seen, in the case of ‘Atiyyah al-‘Awfi, how Shi‘i narrations
crept into Sunni compilations as early as in the days of the Tabi‘in.
Classical Shi‘i works like the tafsirs of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi and Furat ibn
Ibrahim al-Kufi, the Kitab al-Qira’at of Ahmad ibn Muhammad as-Sayyari, al-Ihtijaj
by Ahmad ibn ‘Ali at-Tabarsi, the book al-Manaqib by Ibn Shahrashub and the book
Kashf al-Yaqin by Ibn Tawus all contain narrations which state that the name of ‘Ali
radiyallahu ‘anhu was mentioned in this verse, but “they” (meaning the Sahabah
radiyallahu ‘anhum) removed it from there. (Mulla Husayn Nuri Tabarsi, Fasl alKhitab fi Ithbat Tahrif Kitab Rabb al-Arbab, cited by Ihsan Ilahi Zahir, ash-Shi‘ah walQur’an pp. 215-217)
It is therefore not at all inconceivable that this narration found its way into the tafsir
of Ibn Mardawayh through an isnad going back to its Shi‘i originator.
SHI‘ISM AND SIRAH
But let us now look at the issue from a different angle. Let us for a moment assume
that the name of Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu was in fact mentioned in this
verse, and the matter which Allah ordered Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam to
convey to the Ummah was Sayyiduna ‘Ali’s imamah, an issue so important that
failure to convey it would be tantamount to complete failure. This scenario fits
snugly into the Shi‘i picture of the Sirah of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam.
There is a stark difference between the Shi‘ah and the Ahl as-Sunnah in the way
either of them conceives of the Sirah, or life history, of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam. It is the contrast between failure and sucess.
To the Ahl as-Sunnah, the mission of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam was a
successful one, the most successful mission of any messenger of Allah. And nowhere
is his success reflected more clearly than in his followers. He succeeded in
establishing Islam upon earth, and Iman in the hearts of his followers. His followers
were of such a caliber that they earned praise from Allah Himself, in the Qur’an, the
Tawrat as well as the Injil. Therefore, when Allah says to His Messenger, “Convey,
and I will protect you against the people,” it is impossible that those “people” could
be the same people who stand so highly praised in the Holy Scriptures. The people
against whom Allah promised to protect him could therefore have been none but the
unbelievers.
To the Shi‘ah, on the other hand, the Sirah of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam
is incessantly clouded by fear, doubt and suspicion. Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam is constantly having to cajole and blandish his followers in fear that they
might openly turn against him. With the exception of a minute group of persons
consisting of his daughter, her husband, their two infant sons and three or four
others, he cannot trust anyone. His wives, their fathers, the husbands of his other
daughters, his closest friends, his scribes, his military commanders— all of them are
tainted with hypocrisy, and eagerly await the moment of his death to usurp power.
In short, two decades of tireless effort has brought him nothing but a handful of
sincere followers; the rest are all hypocrites. He is under continuous pressure from
this sea of hypocrisy which surrounds him, and he is forced to take recourse to
taqiyyah (meaning to act or speak falsely for the sake of convenience).
In the case of this verse he is hesitant to announce that Allah has decreed ‘Ali to be
his successor; so hesitant that he has to be sounded a severe warning about it and
given the assurance that he will be protected from harm. A contemporary Shi‘i
scholar, Muhammad Rida al-Mamaqani, writes:
He, may my soul be his ransom, [meaning Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam] practiced the greatest taqiyyah. This is clear to anyone
who studies his life. Sufficient proof thereof is the Verse of Tabligh
and the Verse of Wilayah. On the whole, regarding the status of
taqiyyah there is no difference whatsoever between the Rasul
sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, the Infallible Imam and the common
people. (footnotes to ‘Abdullah al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah fi ‘Ilm
ad-Dirayah vol. 1 p. 78 footnote no. 5)
To the Shi‘ah, therefore, the “people” against whom Allah would protect him were
none other than his own companions. The people with whom he lived and who stood
by his side, who shared his happiness and grief, who assisted him in times of
hardship, who were ever ready to sacrifice their lives and their posessions for him
and for his cause — these same people were in reality his enemies whom he was
afraid to offend. In the Shi‘i view of Sirah, and in their opinion about the
circumstances under which the verse was revealed, these were the people against
whom Allah had to protect His Messenger.
But ultimately, even though his person was protected against them, his mission was
thwarted by those very same “enemies”, and a struggle of twenty three years ended
in disgraceful failure (na‘udhu billah) when this entire commwhich he had given
twenty three years of his life to build, reverts back into kufr, with the exception of a
mere handful.
It is for this reason that we will conclude here by saying that acceptance of this kind
of narrations is tantamount to subscribing to a view of Sirah wherein Muhammad
sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam is reduced to one of the most unsuccessful leaders who
ever lived. That view of Sirah, as much as it might be camouflaged and paraphrased,
lies at the very heart of Shi‘ism.
_______________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Maktabah Dar at-Turath, Cairo, nodate
2. al-Wahidi, Asbab Nuzul al-Qur’an
ed. Kamal Basyuni Zaghlul, Dar al-Kutub al‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1411/1991
3. al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal
ed. Dr. B.A. Ma‘ruf, Mu’ssasat ar-Risalah, Beirut, 1413/1992
4. Ibn Hibban, Kitab al-Majruhin
ed. Mahmud Ibrahim Zayid, Dar al-Wa‘y, Halab (Aleppo), 2nd edition, 1402
5. as-Suyuti, ad-Durr al-Manthur
repr. Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar‘ashi, Qum, 1404 AH
6. Ihsan Ilahi Zahir, ash-Shi‘ah wal-Qur’an
Idarah Tarjuman as-Sunnah, Lahore, no date
7. al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah fi ‘Ilm ad-Dirayah
ed. Muhammad Rida al-Mamaqani, Mu’assasat Al al-Bayt, Beirut 1411/1991
The Tat'heer ( purification ) verse
&
Hadeeth of Kisa'a (veil)
A Scientific Dialogue
By Muhammad Al-khider
Allah Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an :
“And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former times
of ignorance: and establish regular prayer, and give regular charity, and obey Allah and His
Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the
family, and to make you pure and spotless.” Quran 33 : 33
It was narrated by ‘Aisha ( May Allah be pleased with her) that the Messenger of Allah sala allahu
alaihi wa aalihi wasallam once went out in the morning suspending a cloth over his hair; When he saw
Al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali appearing, he hid it ,then came Hussein and entered with him.When ‘Ali and his
spouse Fatima came, he hid it and said:
“ And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the family, and to make
you pure and spotless.” Quran 33 : 33
The Shi’ite adherents claim that all members of the household of the Prophet and their posterity are
infallible. And thus, it is a must to obey them.; For they deserve to be Imams. They do support their
claim categorically with the above mentioned Qur’anic verse and the Prophetic Tradition. How true is
their claim?
Commentary:
Indeed the purification verse was revealed in favor of the Prophet’s wives, as God Almighty stated in
the Holy Qur’an:
“ O consorts of the Prophet! You are not like any of the (other) women. If you do fear
(Allah), be not too complaisant of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be
moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.”
“ And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former
times of ignorance: and establish regular prayer, and give regular charity,and obey
Allah and His Messenger. Ang Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye
members of the family and to make you pure and spotless.”
“ And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes of the signs of Allah and His
wisdom: For allah understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them) “
Quran 33:32-34
So, whoever ponders these verses with a clear and objective mind, without prejudice will come to a
conclusion that they were revealed exclusively in favor of the Prophet’s Consorts. Moreover, if one
fathoms the verse: “ Stay quietly in your house…… will find out that, it is only one verse and the
Messenger’s wives are the only ones addressed therein.
This might lead us to quesion ourselves: If the verse addressed only the wives of the Prophet sala
allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam, why didn’t it contain a feminine pronoun of (Meem) instead of using
an article implying plural of men? It should be clear that the Messenger of Allah sala allahu alaihi wa
aalihi wasallam was the head of his household. So, in order to include him, it was incumbent to use the
article “ Meem” that denotes talking about a group of men. For he was a man and a leader of his
household. For more explanation of this, we should refer to the verse wherein Allah talks about Prophet
Ibraahim (Pbuh).
“ They said: Do you wonder of Allah’s decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on
you, oh ye people of the house ! For He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of glory.”
Quran 11 : 73
Since Abraham was also included in his family, the Holy Qur’an addressed his wife using musculine
plural of men with the article ”Meem” as it is customary in the Arabic grammar. For the plural of men
is applied even though there is only one man in the group of females according to the classical Arabic.
Moreover, in Arabic, a wife is addressed as ”Ahl”, which also means ” People” as revealed in the verse
wherein Allah almighty was talking about Prophet Moses salahu alihi wasallam.
Allah Almighty says : ” Now when Moses had fulfilled the term, and was travelling with
his family…” Quran 28 : 29
So, what do you find strange if this verse was addressed solely to the wives of the Prophet (Pbuh),
though the article of musculine plural was applied ?!
2. What proves that this verse was revealed solely for the wives of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa
aalihi wasallam ,is the Prophetic Tradition itself. In this regard, Prophet Muhammad sala allahu alaihi
wa aalihi wasallam prayed for his close relatives, including his in-laws and said: ( O Allah! Those are
also members of my family, O Allah purify them. )
Suppose the verse was addressed to them, confirming that Allah had purified them, why could the
Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam need to invoke Allah Almighty to include this kith and
kin in the purification promise ?!!
3. The household of the Messenger of Allah salahu alihi wa aalihi wasallam includes his wives, Imam
Ali, Lady Fatima, the two Imams Al-Hasan and Al-Hussein, and Zaid ibn Al-Arqam who was asked
about the household of the Prophet and said in the Hadith: ( His spouses are a fibre of his household ).
He went further to explain that his household includes also the people who were not allowed to receive
any charity namely: the relatives of Ali, the kindred of Ja’afar, the family of Aqeel, and the kinsfolk of
Al-Abbas. Therefore, the concept of the Prophet’s household encompasses also Al-Abbas- the son
Abdul Muttalib, the kith and kin of ‘ Aqeel bin abi Talib, and the family of Ja’afar bin Abi Talib, as
stated in the Tradition (Hadith) of Zaid bin Al-Arqaam. It also includes the family of Al-Harith bin
Abdul Muttalib, due to what the Messenger salahu alihi wa aalihi wasallam told Rabbea bin Al-Harith
and Al-Abbas bin Abdil Muttalib: ( Verily , the family of Muhammad does not deserve any charity , for
it is people’s filth ) Sahih Muslim
Even though, we accept the infallibility of the Shi’ite Imams, we will come to a conclusion that it is not
logical or Substantial for a non-prophet to be infallible whatsoever he may be.
4. Referring to the above mentioned verse, and deducting therefrom that Allah’s purification from
abomination was meant also for the in-laws and the entire kith and kin of the Messenger of Allah sala
allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam ,prompts a person to wonder and get surprised. The reason for that is
self-evident and palpable for everybody.
The aforementioned Hadeeth mentions Fatima ( the daughter of the prophet May Allah be pleased with
her ) as part and percel of the people who were meant for purification among the family members of the
Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam.
The Imamite Shi’ah claim that Allah Almighty granted the Shi’ite Imams infalliblity because the task
they were to be assigned to undertake required of them to be so. The task they were to undertake was to
lead people and to apply the Divine Laws of Allah Almighty in Judging among mankind. Now the
question casts itself, suppose what they claim is correct, is Lady Fatima ( May Allah be pleased with
her ) a prophet or an Imam to be infallible?! Why she should be infallible if she is not a prophet or an
Imam ( like how shia believe ) ?!!
Allah Almighty bestowed the attribute of infallibility on the Prophets and Messengers because they had
a task ahead of them that was to convey the message revealed to them to their respective peoples and to
safeguard the supernatural message they were entrusted with by Allah Almighty.
5. Since the purification verse was revealed in regard to the wives of the Allah’s Messenger and Allah
Almighty affirmed to make them pure and spotless, the Messenger of Allah sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi
wasallam gathered his closest kith and kin and invoked Allah Almighty to purify them as promised his
wives (Prophet’s).
He thus said in his supplication: ( O Allah ! those are my kith and kin, remove all abomination from
them and make them pure and spotless ). So after Umm Salama saw that the Messenger of Allah sala
allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam had included Ali, Fatima, Al-Hasan and Al-Hussein in the members of
his household, she requested him earnestly to include her among the people he supplicated for. The
Messenger of Allah informed her undoubtedly that there was no need for himto include her among his
kith and kin since she was one of his wives, and the verse was revin their regard. This is a sound
evidence that states categorically the fact that the verse was not revealed in regard of the Prophet’s kith
and kin but rather it was addressing his wives.Had it been addressing also his kith and kin there would
be no need for him to gather his daughter, son -in-law and his grandsons to invoke Allah to include
them among his spouses who were promised to be purified.
6. In the verse: ” And Allah wishes only to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the family,
and to make you pure and spotless.” Allah’s statement was not to assure them that they had already
been purified, but rather to stipulate a condition that if they obeyed Him, He would remove all
abomination from them and thus purify them. He only wished to purify them if they met this Condition.
If you analyze the context, you will find that Allah Almighty was giving the prophet’s wives some
divine directions to do all what He commanded them and to abstain from what He forbade. He thus
informed them that if they Conformed to his commands and abstained from what he forbade, He would
reward them by removing all abomination from them and make them pure and stainless.
It should be noted that God Almighty has used this pattern of speech to address our predecessors.
Consider the following verse:
“ Allah does not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete his
favor upon you , that ye may be grateful.” Quran 5 : 6
In another verse, He thus says: “Allah does wish to make clear to you and to show you the
ordinances of those before you.” Quran 4 : 26
He also says: “ Allah does wish to lighten your (difficulties): For man was created weak (in
flesh ). “ Quran 4 : 28
The wish of Allah expressed in the above mentioned verses comes as a condition of being loyal to His
commands, to love Him and make Him pleased with you. Otherwise, without fulfilling this condition,
His wish cannot come into reality, i.e the purification cannot occur.
7. The main aim of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam in his aforementioned Hadeeth
was to pray for his kith and kin to get all their abomination removed from them by Allah, and to be
purified as well. This implies that he prayed for them to be among the pious believers who were
purified by Allah Almighty. Hence, avoiding abomination is a must for all the believers. For Allah
Almighty wishes to purify all the believers who subscribe only to Him in their acts of devotion and not
only the family of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam. Although the Prophet’s kith and
kin are more entitled to get the purification of Allah Almighty, the verse does not restrict Allah’s
purification to them only, to be regarded as impeccable. Allah Almighty says:
“ Allah does not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean and to complete His
favour to you, that ye may be grateful.” Quran 5 : 6
In another verse, God Almighty says: “ For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly in
repentance and loves also those who keep themselves pure and clean.” Quran 2 : 222
So, as Allah Almighty told us of His wish to purify members of the prophet’s family, He so informed us
of His wish to purify the believers as well. Therefore, if we suppose that the wish of Allah to purify the
believers was meant to make them impeccable, then all sincere pious believers are infallible.
8. The purification mentioned in the aforementioned verse was not meant to make the kith and kin of
the Messenger of Allah infallible, but rather to remove all abomination and mischief from them. This
style is widely used in the Holy Qur’an. We read in the Holy Qur’an:
“ Of their goods take alms, so that ye might purify them and sanctify them………” Quran
9 : 103
You will never find anybody say that the purification mentioned in the afore-mentioned verses was
meant to make the Prophet’s family members infallible. We also read in the Holy Qur’an:
“ And thy garments keep thee from stain…… “ Quran 74 : 4
This is mentioned in many verses of the holy Qur’an. The stain here implies filth and dirt. By this Allah
Almighty alludes to polytheism (Shirk). To substantiate this explanation and interpretation, Allah
Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an:
“……. But shun the abomination of idols …” Quran 22:30
Also the word stain may mean , the forbidden foods and drinks as Allah has plainly stated:
“ Say: I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meal) forbidden to be eaten
by one who wishes to eat it unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,
for it is an abomination or what is impious, (meat) “ Quran 6 : 145
Another example is the following verse;
“ O ye who believe! Most certainly, intoxicants and gambling, (dedication) of stones and
(divination by ) arrows, are an abomination of Satans handiwork, eschew such (abomination),
that ye may prosper.” Quran 5 : 90
There is no verse however, in the Holy Qur’an that refers to “stain” as to mean sins. For if it means sins,
then the verse of purification came to confirm that those of the prophetic family were infallible from
committing sins.
9. The verse does not whatsoever mean that purification has already taken place, but it rather asserts
explicitly the will of Allah Almighty to purify the Staunch and sincere wives of the prophet sala allahu
alaihi wa aalihi wasallam. From the previous argument, we also deduct that the Messenger of Allah
sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam was eager to pray for his immediate and other relatives to be
included in the verse of purification, in order to achieve the same as his spouses were promised.
Worthy of mention, is that whenever the Messenger Of Allah went to perform the daily obligatory
prayer, he used to pass by the house of his cousin and son-in-law, Ali and his spouse Fatima, reminding
them of the obligation of prayer by saying:
( Stick to the mandatory prayers, O members of the family! )
After this exhortation, he used to recite to them the following verse:
“ Allah so wills to remove all abomination from you O members of the family, and to
make you pure and stainless.”
As stated before in the same verse. By this, he was reminding them, especially Ali, of performing
Obligatory prayers in congregation in the mosque. For if one observes all obligatory acts of worship and
obey Allah fully, then his reward will be to purify him from all abomination and stains.
10. If we presume that the purification verse was revealed only to address the relatives of the Prophet
sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam and not his spouses, so the purification stated in the verse does
not suit them, due to following Qur’anic text in which Allah Almighty says: “ But He so will to purify
you and complete His favors on you.” He so addresses His servants in so many other Qur’anic verses.
So, if the aim of Allah Almighty in purifying the spouses of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi
wasallam was to make them infallible, it would necessitate us to say that all the believers are infallible,
following the Qur’anic verse which states that Allah Almighty so Wills to purify them. I am pretty sure
that neither the Sunnis nor the Shi’as can allege that analogy. So how can the purification theory be
executed in respect of some sects of people and leave others out of bound? Can’t you see that in this
preposition, there is some whimsical and temperamental inclination? There is no any scientific
methodology in it.
It is surprising that the Shi’ite Scholars cling to the purification verse and allege that is was revealed
with regard to the relatives of the Prophet sala alahu alihi wa aalihi wasallam, leaving out anything that
deals with the purification. By this, they claim that only the relatives of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi
wa aalihi wasallam are infallible. They thus intend to forget other verses that Allah Almighty revealed
to purify the companions the Holy Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam from all abomination.
We read for example.” But He so wishes to purify you and complete His favor on you.” They besides,
slander the rightly guided Companions of the Holy Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi was and allege
that they will be caused to turn upside down as a punishment for them. They claim this, inspite of the
fact that Allah Almighty confirmed His Will to purify the sincere Companions of the Holy Prophet.
You find many parities in the assumptions of the Shi’ite Scholars, that cause you to shake your head
incessantly and come to a conclusion that, it is not but bigotry towards their Sect and utter hatred of the
rightly guided Companions of the Holy Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam.
11. To remove abomination from the kith and kin of the Prophet sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam
does not entitle them to be Imams. Now we are on the outset of looking for an evidence either from the
Holy Qur’an or from the Hadith that confirms the religious leadership of the Prophet’s relatives. If it is
said that among the pre-requisites of the Imamite is to be infallible, then the following question casts
itself; What do you say regarding Fatima bin Muhammad , who was among his daughters and among
the relatives who included in the purification verse? Can we enforce the same principle on her and
regard her as one of the Imam? If they say no, then we should cast the following question; which is
matter of factly a quotation from a lengthy Qur’anic verse “ Do you only believe in some portions of the
book ( i.e. Qur’an) and disbelieve in the others? ” You should either implement what you claim totally
or admit its futility. But tampering with the Qur’anic verses and trying to fix them in some places to suit
your desires without objectivity, is in fact, playing about with the Holy Book of Allah! May Allah
forbid!
However, I don’t think that whoever follows the path of claiming the infallibility of the kith and kin of
the Messenger of Allah sala allahu alaihi wa aalihi wasallam, is committing less than bigotry and
sticks to the wrong notions and assumptions, and wrongly or intentionally misunderstands the Holy
Book of Allah. May Allah Almighty help us and save us from such dissimulators and hypocrites.
The Roots of
Sunni-Shi‘i
Differences in Fiqh
by
Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi
It is often alleged by the protagonists of Sunni-Shi‘i unity that differences between the
two schools are not more grave or serious than the differences that exist within the four
Sunni schools of jurisprudence. Sunni-Shi‘i differences should therefore be treated with
the same tolerance and acceptance as Hanafi-Shafi‘i differences, and it is in the spirit of
this proposed "mutual tolerance" that the advocates of unity speak of the Shi‘i Ja‘fari
school of jurisprudence as nothing more than a "fifth madhhab".
It is therefore only normal for the average Sunni lay person who has come into contact
with advocates of Sunni-Shi‘i unity to wonder about, or even be taken in, by such a claim.
How serious are the differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah really? Could
they ever be reconciled? If not, could there at least be an amicable agreement to disagree,
just like the Hanafis disagree with the Shafi‘is, or the Malikis with the Hanbalis? It is
these questions that this article sets out to answer.
Full reconciliation between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Ithna ‘Ashari Ja‘fari Shi‘ah is not
merely elusive, it is simply an impossibility. Anyone who knows the reality of the issues
that separate the Shi`ah from the Ahl as-Sunnah is bound to agree. Nothing sums up the
truth of the situation better than the words of Hamid Algar—an ardent admirer of
Khomeini and the revolution—, who describes Sunnism and Shi‘ism as "two parallel
lines that cannot meet".1 The endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the Ahl as-
Sunnah and the Shi‘ah is therefore a wasted effort. The next best option is thus mutual
tolerance and acceptance.
In order to test the viability of tolerance and acceptance between the Ahl as-Sunnah and
the Shi‘ah we will have to look more closely at the issues that separate the one from the
other. These issues can be categorised into two groups:
1. fundamental differences,
which include articles of faith, and all such issues that could be
termed "differences in principle", that by their nature give rise to
differences in secondary matters;
2. secondary differences,
i.e. difference in matters of jurisprudence, like the way salah is
performed, or that marriage and divorce take place, etc..
Each of the fundamental issues of difference would require a separate study to see how
they affect compatibility between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah. In this article it is
our intention to look more closely at the type of difference that is usually dismissed as
"secondary", and thus "unimportant". Are differences in fiqh between the Ahl as-Sunnah
and the Shi‘ah really so insignificant that we can jusitifiably turn a blind eye when we
encounter them?
There can be no doubt that this question is anathema to the propagators of Shi‘ism
amongst the Ahl as-Sunnah, as well as to those who have fallen prey to their propaganda.
Yet, if it is truth we seek, we cannot allow the preferences of such obviously biased
persons to deter us. The "unity" such people strive to achieve, and which they accuse
others of trying to destroy, is a unity forged in ignorance. How much do we really know
about the Shi‘ah? We have taken them on face value, and on grounds of what we have
thus learnt about them we proceed to create unity. The naivety of such a position in a
matter of far reaching religious implications is far too obvious. A unity founded upon
ignorance is a very precarious unity indeed. Like a mirage, it seems very real when seen
from afar, but as soon as you approach it, it slips out of existence.
There are two levels at which one can look at the differences in jurisprudence between the
Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah. The first is the level of external appearance. When the
differences in fiqh are inspected at this level they do not seem any more alien than the
differences that exist between the various schools of Sunni jurisprudence. In fact, in
many, or even most cases one will find the Shi‘i position to be conformity with at least
one of the four Sunni madhahib. This is illustrated in the following three examples:
1. In the salah, the jalsat al-istirahah is held to be sunnah by
the Shi‘ah. In this they concur with the view of the Shafi‘i
madhhab.2
2. In marriage the majority of Shi‘i jurists hold the view that
khalwah, i.e. valid seclusion, has no effect on the mahr
(dowry) nor upon any other aspect of the marital contract. In
this they are once again agreement with the Shafi‘is, but
differ from the other three schools.3
3. If the husband is unable to pay the mahr the wife is not
entitled to divorce according to the Shi‘i and the Hanafi
schools. The Malikis, the Shafi‘is and the Hanbalis all have
different views.4
It is on this level that most people view the differences that exist between the Ahl asSunnah and the Shi‘ah. Even certain `ulama of the Ahl as-Sunnah, looking at the matter
on this level, have been known to express the view that "differences between the Ahl asSunnah and the Shi‘ah are no more serious than the differences that exist between the
various schools of Sunni jurisprudence".
However, when we confine ourselves to viewing the problem of Sunni-Shi‘i differences
on this level we are in effect closing our eyes to the most important aspect of those
differences: THE ROOT. The true nature of Sunni-Shi‘i differences can never be
appreciated or understood in full without comprehending the reasons for their existence. It
is only when the problem has been viewed and grasped on the level of the reasons for
difference, and not merely the external appearance of difference, that one is justified to
take further steps.
When the Shi‘ah differ from the Ahl as-Sunnah, it is not the same as when one Sunni
school differs from the other. This is because the various Sunni schools all trace their
roots back to the same legacy. They share a common heritage in the Sunnah of the
Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. When differences do occur, they occur not because
one madhhab bases itself on a legacy other than the legacy of the other. Both believe in
and hold on to the same legacy. Their differences are caused by secondary factors, like
whether certain categories of hadith possess binding authority or not, or the divergence in
the methods they regard as valid to interpret the legacy and extrapolate from it. The
following two examples illustrate how such differences occur:
1. The mursal hadith (a hadith with an
interruption in its chain of narrators between
the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam and
the Tabi‘i), for example, is deemed to possess
binding authority by the Hanafis, while the
Shafi‘is do not accept it except if it is
supported by any one of a number of external
factors. If we imagine a mursal hadith that is
not supported by any of the factors the Shafi‘is
stipulate, it is only logical to expect that the
Shafi‘i ruling on the issue the hadith pertains
to will differ from the Hanafi ruling.
2. Spoken words are sometimes accompanied
by implied meanings. For example, when it is
said, "Stay awake," this also means "Don't
sleep". This unspoken opposite meaning is
termed mafhum al-mukhalafah. The Shafi‘is
accept it as a valid means of extracting
meaning from a text, while the Hanafis do not.
If the former extract such meaning from a text
and base a ruling upon the meaning inferred by
this method, and the latter base their ruling
upon some other grounds, there is bound to be
a measure of difference in the outcome of their
respective views.
Sunni-Shi‘i differences, on the other hand, are fundamentally distinct from inter-Sunni
differences. While it may rightly be claimed that the Shi‘ah, too, have their particular
principles of extrapolation, it would be incorrect to describe those principles as the root
cause of difference between them and the Ahl as-Sunnah, the reason for that being that
while the Sunni schools each have methods of extrapolation particular to themselves, they
all apply their respective methods to the same legacy. The Shi‘ah, on the other hand,
have not only their own set of principles, but also a legacy distinct from the legacy of the
Ahl as-Sunnah. When there are differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah,
they arise not on account of differences in interpretation or methods of extrapolation, but
because the source from which the Shi‘ah draw their law is a source other than the
source of the Ahl as-Sunnah.
What is this "legacy", the reader may well ask. It is embodied in the Sunnah of the
Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. As far as the Qur’an is concerned, although history
is witness to alot of Shi‘ite calumny against the inviolability of the Qur’ain, most
contemporary Shi‘i scholars, and even many of their classical ‘ulama who staunchly
believe in its interpolation, will admit the Qur’an's status as the prime source of
legislation. (A Shi‘i scholar of the present century, Muhammad ‘Ali Tabataba’i,
reconciles belief in the interpolation of the Qur’an with acceptance of the Qur’an as a
source of legislation by saying that "interpolation occured specifically in those verses
relating to Imamah."5 Verses with a legal purport are thus left uncorrupted.) Since the
Qur’an is thus "agreed upon" between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah, there remains
only the other part of the legacy we inherited from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu
‘alayhi wasallam: the Sunnah.
Essentially, the difference lies in the concepts each have of what constitutes the Sunnah.
According to the Ahl as-Sunnah the Sunnah is everything narrated from the Prophet
sallallahu `alayhi wasallam, as long as the transmitters are trustworthy. The Shi‘ah, on
the other hand, will only accept as the Sunnah that which is transmitted by ‘Ali ibn Abi
Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu and the rest of the twelve Imams, and that which is narrated from
these Imams by their Shi‘ah followers. Forget what the rest of the Sahabah narrate, not
even the narrations of other members of the household of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam, his daughters besides Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha, his wives, his cousins or
uncles, are considered part of the Sunnah by the Shi‘ah. That is the first observation.
The second is the way the Shi‘ah regard the legacy upon which the foundations of Sunni
fiqh rests. Since the days of the Sahabah radiyallahu ‘anhum the Sunnah of the Prophet
was handed down from generation to generation. The Sahabah narrated it to the Tabi‘in,
they to the generation after them, and so on, until it came to be compiled in what we
know today as the hadith literature. To the Shi‘ah, when this legacy is found to be in
contradiction to what is supposedly narrated from their Imams, the reason behind it is that
the Sahabah radiyallahu ‘anhum were guilty of wilfully distorting and corrupting the
Din of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. Thus, where inter-Sunni differences
amount to nothing more than technicalities, Sunni-Shi‘i differences are differences in
historical perspective.
To use an example: In salah, the Malikis let their hands hang by their sides, while the
Hanafis, Shafi‘is and Hanbalis fold their hands. The Shi‘ah too, let their hands hang by
their sides. In this single issue of fiqh we thus have an inter-Sunni difference as well as a
Sunni-Shi‘i difference. Between the Malikis and the other three madhahib the difference
is a mere technicality. The Malikis accept the validity of folding the hands in salah (after
all, Imam Malik himself in the Muwatta’ narrates a hadith that supports the folding of the
hands), but prefer letting the hands hang for the reason that in Imam Malik's day this was
the practice of the community in Madinah. The other madhahib take into consideration
that the Companions of the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam who narrate his Sunnah
were not exclusively settled in Madinah. Many of them resided in the Makkah, ‘Iraq,
Syria and Egypt. Ahadith to the effect that it is sunnah to fold the hands have been
authentically narrated from a number of Sahabah (amongst whom ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib
radiyallahu ‘anhu), and therefore this, and not the practice of the people of one particular
city, takes precedence. Between the Sunni schools this difference is a technical one, one
that amounts to giving preference to one view over another. But between the Shi‘ah and
the Ahl as-Sunnah the issue assumes much more serious proportions. From a question of
mere technical preference it turns into an acrimonious indictment of the Sahabah
radiyallahu ‘anhum. Traditions in the book Tahdhib al-Ahkam, one of the four major
collections of Shi‘i hadith, describe the folding of the hands in salah as "an act of kufr"
and "something that is only done by the fire-worshippers". Here one would have to ask:
How could an alien practice like this creep into Islam? The answer is given by Àyatullah
Khomeini himself, in his treatise at-Ta‘adul wat-Tarjih, wherein he quotes the following
tradition from the book ‘Ilal ash-Shara’i‘ by Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi:
Abu Ishaq al-Arjani says: Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) asked: Do
you know why you are commanded to act contrary to the `Àmmah (the Ahl
as-Sunnah)?
I replied: I do not know.
He said: Verily, the Ummah contradicted ‘Ali in each and every aspect of
his religion, intending thereby to destroy his cause. They used to ask him
about things they did not know, and when he gave a ruling they would
invent an opposite verdict from their own side to mislead the people.6
In the Shi‘i perspective of Islamic legislative history the fact that the Sahabah deliberately
corrupted and distorted the teachings of the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam is such a
fundamental truth, that is came to be looked upon as a criterion of truth in itself. This
position is reflected in the way they deal with the phenomenon of Shi`i narrations that
contradict one another. Abu Ja‘far al-Kulayni, in the introduction to al-Kafi, the most
important of their four canonical hadith collections, expresses it in the following terms:
Know... that no one can distinguish narrations of the Possessors of
Knowledge (the Imams) by his opinion; except according to the words of
the Possessor of Knowledge: 'Compare them to the Qur’an. Accept that
which is in accordance with it, and reject that which contradicts it,' and his
words: 'Abandon that which is in accordance with the people (the Ahl asSunnah), for truly, guidance lies in being different to them'.7
This particular perspective has persisted in the Shi‘i psyche over the centuries since
Kulayni and his teacher Qummi, until it became, in the opinion of Khomeini and all other
Shi‘i jurists, one of the two principal methods of juridical preference in cases of
conflicting narrations. In light of the alarming frequency with which contradictions occur
in the ahadith of the Shi‘ah (one of their four major hadith sources, al-Istibsar, is devoted
to the phenomenon of contradiction) the importance of a principle of this nature is
evident. We reproduce here from Khomeini's works various Shi‘i narrations in which he
and other Shi‘i mujtahids find justification for their view:
1. Hasan ibn Abil Jahm asked: If something is narrated from Abu ‘Abdillah
(Imam Ja‘far), and something contrary to it is also narrated from him,
which should we accept?
The Imam answered: Accept that which is in contradiction to the people,
and avoid that which is accordance with them.8
2. Abu ‘Abdillah said: Our Shi‘ah are those who submit to our command,
who accept our words, and who act contrary to our enemies. Whoever is
not like that is not of us.9
3. ‘Ali ibn Asbat narrates that he asked Imam Rida: (What should I do in
case) an incident occurs for which I am need of a juridical opinion, but
nowhere in the city do I find anyone of your partisans (the Shi‘ah) whom I
can ask?
He replied: Go to the (Sunni) faqih of the city and refer your case to him.
Then take the opposite of whatever answer he gives you, for verily, therein
lies the truth.10
It is on account of these and other similar narrations which the Shi‘ah claim to emanate
from their infallible Imams that the mujtahids of the Ja‘fari madhhab were led to
formulate the principle Khomeini expresses in these terms:
In cases of conflicting reports, contradiction of the Ahl as-Sunnah is a
factor of preference ... In fact, it is the most common and widespread factor
of preference in all chapters of fiqh and upon the tongues of the fuqaha.11
There is no ambiguity with regard to the issue of contradicting the Ahl asSunnah being a factor of preference in the case of conflicting narrations.11
The factors of tarjih (preference) are limited to two: conforming to the
Qur’an and the Sunnah, and contradicting the Ahl as-Sunnah.12
All of these quotations show a definite obsession with being different from the Ahl asSunnah. We therefore ask: If so much importance is attached to being different, to the
point of it being regarded as the criterion of truth, why should there be such a noise and
clamour for unity? Why should the Shi‘ah seek unity with people whose version of Islam
they regard as the corruption of the Din of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam
wrought by the hands of his Companions? And even if the Shi‘ah do manage to create a
semblance of such unity, how much goodwill and sincerity can be expected of them if one
considers their particular perspective of the legacy which forms the basis of our faith and
practice?
We have chosen Khomeini's views as representative of Shi‘i opinion for a very special
reason, and that is the fact that in the contemporary world it is he and his successors who
are the most vociferous proponents of Sunni-Shi‘i unity, and who dismiss Sunni-Shi‘i
differences as negligible. In more than one of his public addresses he takes to task those
who attempt to create mischief amongst the Muslims by "misleading" them into believing
that there are substantial differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah. However,
closer scrutiny of his jurisprudential works reveal that such condemnations are nothing
but political rhetoric. When we remove the image he projects as Leader of the Revolution,
we are left with merely another Shi‘i scholar imprisoned by the fundamentals of his faith.
In his eyes, and likewise in the eyes of generations of Shi‘i scholars before him, the
legacy of the Sunnah upon which their Sunni "brothers" base their practice of Islam is the
product of the envious mischief and the disbelief of the Sahabah, who in the hope of
destroying the cause of the Ahl al-Bayt distorted every teaching of the Nabi sallallahu
‘alayhi wasallam they could lay their hands upon. If this is how they regard the very basis
upon which the foundations of our Din rests, what remains to be said for unity?
______________________________________
REFERENCES
1. Shi‘ism p. ed. by Seyyed Hossein Nasr et al.
2. Yahya ibn Sa‘id al-Hilli: al-Jami‘ lish-Sharai’ p.75 (Mu’assasat Sayyid ash-Shuhada’,
Qum 1405)
3. Muhammad Jawad Maghniyyah: The Five Schools of Islamic Law p. 319 (Ansariyan
Publications, Qum 1995)
4. ibid. p. 317
5. Tafsir al-Qummi, editor's foreword
6. at-Ta‘adul wat-Tarjih by Àyatullah Khomeini, p. 82, cited in Dr. Zayd al-‘Is: alKhomeini wal-Wajh al-Àkhar p. 131
7. al-Kafi vol. 1 pp. 55-56 (Dar al-Adwa’, Beirut 1992)
8. at-Ta‘adul wat-Tarjih p.80
9. Tahrir al-Wasilah p. 83, from al-Fusul al-Muhimmah by al-Hurr al-‘Àmili p. 225
10. at-Ta‘adul wat-Tarjih p.82, from ‘Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida by Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi,
vol. 1 p. 275
11. at-Ta‘adul wat-Tarjih p. 83
12. at-Ta‘adul wat-Tarjih p. 84
[This article was published in the 24th issue of Nida'ul Islam
magazine (http://www.islam.org.au), July - August 1998]
Chairman of the Ahlus Sunnah Association in Iran,
Dr. Abdul Rahman Albaloushy Uncovers
The Dismal Reality of Ahlus Sunnah in Iran
Translate this page from: English to Spanish
Translate
Brief introduction of the Sheikh
Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Baluchy completed his secondary
education in Iran, after which he was admitted to the Islamic
University of al-Madinah al-Munawarah in 1979 where he studied
Arabic before joining the Usuluddin (Principles of Faith) and Da'wah
college. He reached his second year of studies before the policy to
expel Iranian students was implemented. He went to Syria to
complete his Shari'ah studies at Damascus universi, where he
graduated in 1984. He also studied under the scholars of Damascus,
such as Sheikh Abdul Qadir al-Arna`out and others. Upon
graduation, he enrolled for his Masters degree at al-Awza'y college in
Beirut where he graduated in 1989. His thesis was on the Baluchi
people and Baluchistan. He enrolled for his Ph.D. at the same
college and graduated in 1995. His Ph.D. thesis was on "The
Transformation of Islamic Thought in Iran from Sunni to Shi'ah during
the Safawi Rule". This same topic was not accepted for his Masters
Degree owing to certain political reasons.
He currently directs the Ahlus Sunnah Association in Iran, London
Office.
Is there a single capital city
in the world without a Sunni
mosque, with the exception
to Tehran -the capital of the
Shi'ah-, which has forty
Christian churches and a
cemetery for the Baha'is
There is no Sunni director in any of
the government authorities,
ministries, embassies, or local and
provincial governments, hospitals or
principalities; not even in the lowest
government posts anywhere in Iran.
Whilst we are living in the
twentieth century, we find a
third of the population of a
nation deprived of their most
basic rights. Is there any
other country on the face of
the earth which prevents its
people from choosing names
like Umar, A'ishah, Hafsah,
Abu Bakr, Zubair...
The double-faced regime was able,
through raising the banner of Islamic
unity, to fool many Muslims outside
Iran as they ask them to attend their
conferences, and transform their way
of thinking within a short period of
time.
Would you kindly give us a glimpse of the history of Ahlus Sunnah in Iran,
the main areas where they are concentrated and their numbers?
It is an established fact that Iran was a Sunni nation until the Tenth Century of
the Hijri calendar. During this period, Iran produced thousands of scholars in
every discipline; the most salient of these facts is that the six most authentic
Hadith books (ie. Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, etc.) were written by scholars
from Iran, or scholars who received their education in Iran. However, when the
Safawid Shi'ites took control, they established their government on the skulls of
the Sunni scholars and jurists. This was one of the reasons for the evacuation of
the largest cities that were at the foremost centers of religious sciences, such as
Tibriz, Isfahan, Ray, and Tus. There were many Sunni Muslims who were killed,
forced into Shi'ism, or compelled to flee to the mountains, leaving Iran as a
center for conspiracies against Islam and the Muslims. Fredinand, the
ambassador to the Austrian King, remarked: "Had it not been for the Safawids in
Iran, we would have been reading the Qur'an this day like the Algerians,"
meaning that his nation would have been conquered by the Ottoman Muslims.
However, the Safawids conspired with the crusaders and the imperialists to halt
the Islamic expansion into France and Vienna.
The Sunni Muslims in Iran number about 15 to 20 million, living mainly in the
mountainous and border regions. They are mainly Kurds, Turks, Baluchis, and
Arabs. There is also a good number living in the cities.
How was the condition of Ahlus Sunnah before the revolution, did they
participate in it, and how and what was their reward from this
participation?
Ahlus Sunnah hail from non-Persian people. They were regarded as second
class citizens under the Shah regime, since they mostly resided in rural areas,
as well as the fact that their creed differed from that of the Shi'ah. As the Arabs,
Kurds, Baluchis and others of Ahlus Sunnah did not have any role in the
idolatrous Persian nationalism, they did not have equal rights socially nor
economically with Persians, "The Chosen People"! The Shah regime was
secular, non-religious, so it dealt with religions and sects in a similar way. Some
of the Ahlus Sunnah scholars have opposed the Shah and his secular regime,
and some of these scholars initially sympathised with the Khomeini revolution
such as Sheikh Ahmad Mufti Zadah as well as a few others, may Allah forgive
them. Sheikh Ahmad Mufti Zadah opposed Khomeini shortly after the revolution.
He was arrested and imprisoned for 10 years, even though his sentence was
only for five years. He was only released when the authorities felt that he was on
the brink of death. I was a witness to the words of Ahmad Mufti Zadah to
Khomeini in the latter's house where he said: "Khomeini, you promised me an
Islamic republic, however you established a Safawi-Shi'ite republic. Although I
believe that I am not permitted to raise arms against you [such was his belief,
unfortunately], however, I will fight you politically."
This occurred during the same meeting where my brother Mawlawi Abdul Aziz,
may Allah have mercy on him, the representative for Baluchistan in the
Authoritative Council, opposed clause 13 of the Iranian constitution, and then
resigned from the Council. He later formed, along with Sheikh Zadah, the
centralised Consultative Council of Ahlus Sunnah, and held two annual
meetings, one in Tehran and one in Baluchistan. Mawlawi Abdul Aziz was also
able to obtain a promised allocation of 10,000 square meters of land in Tehran
to build a mosque and a centre for Ahlus Sunnah. This promise was given due
to internal and external pressures, when the regime was still weak and
developing.
This promise, however, was blatantly dishonoured as soon as the regime
became stronger. The land allocated for constructing the mosque was
confiscated, as well as the offices and bank accounts of the Consultative
Council, whose scholars, members and supporters -both men and women- were
detained.
The regime continued in its efforts to destroy the infrastructure of Ahlus Sunnah,
spreading between their ranks deviations, innovations and acts of Shirk. They
unashamedly told the imprisoned students of Sheikh Zadah: "We hoped that you
would have taken up arms against us, so we could have had an excuse to
uproot you, as we did with the other parties."
The regime then persecuted any person who dared to call for their rights, and
punished them with imprisonment or execut, or degrading their character, as
was the case with the martyr Bahman Shakoury. Many Sheikhs were
imprisoned, exiled, tortured and humiliated, such as the Baluchistan
parliamentarian member Mawlawi Nathar Mohammad who was subjected to
sever torture and made false confessions under duress, until he escaped and
was able to flee to Pakistan. He was not able to get a visa to enter any of the
Gulf countries, not even as a labourer. Sheikh Mawlawi Muhyiddin and Sheikh
Dost Mohammed Sirawani were also imprisoned, then exiled to the city of Najaf
Abad, as well as many other Sheikhs. There is also Sheikh Ibrahim Dammini
who continues to be imprisoned and put to torture for more than five years.
Ahlus Sunnah were rewarded under the current sectarian government with a life
of dishonor and subjugation, and their situation is far worse -as I have
experienced myself- than that of the Muslims in occupied Palestine. Is there a
single capital city in the world without a Sunni mosque, with the exception to
Tehran -the capital of the Shi'ah-, which has forty Christian churches and a
cemetery for the Baha'is. In all, even the infidel minorities have their temples
and places of worship and their freedom of worship, yet Ahlus Sunnah are not
allowed to build any mosque or cemetery. Khameni stated after the revolution:
"all the Persians in the world can look at Iran as their nation", they are, therefore,
first class citizens of Iran, even if they were Magians from India. As for us, we
must be exiled from our land because neither us nor our parents accepted
Shi'ism or Magianism!
The regime planted the seeds of conflict amongst the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah,
and strove to deride the character of the notable scholars, replacing them with
government servants.
It then instigated internal conflicts between the scholars, the leaders of the
community, and the intellectuals to create an environment filled with distrust and
insecurity. They also used some of the ignorant people who adhere to
supposedly Sunni Tariqats (orders), to attack the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah,
especially Sheikh Ahmad Mufti Zadah, labeling him as a Wahhabi, although the
Sheikh did not adhere to the Salafi creed.
The regime then aimed at Ahlus Sunnah schools, and tried to influence their
curriculums to incorporate Shi'ateachings, labeling anyone who refuses to do so
as a Wahhabi, a "crime" punishable by death in Iran! Add to this that many
school principles were initially anti-Salafi, which resulted with many pupils being
suspended, expelled, and beaten for merely raising their hands in their prayer,
or for defending Sheikhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, or Abul 'Ala al-Maududi.
However, the double-faced regime was able, through raising the banner of
Islamic unity, to fool many Muslims outside Iran as they ask them to attend their
conferences, and transform their way of thinking within a short period of time.
They became false witnesses within their own people, beguiling them with what
they have been taught about the greatness of Islamic unity, without knowing
anything about the plight of Ahlus Sunnah inside Iran. They repeat in all
simplicity: "we are brothers, there is no difference between us." Despite the
imprisonment of the scholars and the demolished Islamic schools, they go to the
grave of Khomeini, which has become a worshipped idol, offering their worship,
and placing flowers at this grave. Their stance has misled many young minds
and opened the way for them to accept or tolerate Shi'ism. A person is further
baffled when he realises the superficiality of these people, their oblivion to the
reality and their inability to comprehend the situation. They keep on defending
the Rawafidh Shi'ah who are weaving conspiracy after conspiracy against Ahlus
Sunnah.
Can you elaborate on the current condition of Ahlus Sunnah in Iran?
Currently, after two decades of the Shiite revolution and the fortification of their
rule, they have not secured the rights of the Sunni minority, nor their covenants
with them. They began by imprisoning the scholars and the Muslim activists,
exiling some, and executing others. They also started to expel Sunni Muslims
from government, commerce, and manufacturing posts, and to destroy their
infrastructure. I still recall what the Iranian secret service said vengefully to some
of the imprisoned Muslim activists: "You are like the large room with large
spotlights (the more eminent scholars) and smaller lights (the general scholars),
and candles (the general activists); we will first extinguish the large spotlights."
This stage has been accomplished as they have killed most of the prominent
scholars. "Then we will extinguish the smaller lights"; in this respect many
activists have been killed and many others exiled. "Then we will turn the fan to
put out the candles." This is an indication of the final stage of forcing people into
Shi'ism against their will.
As you can see, the tragedy of Ahlus Sunnah in Iran is unlike any tragedy in the
world, considering the nature of the race problem, the falsification of news by the
Iranian official press, Government cronies, and the positions of many Muslim
movements and activists on the outside who are siding with Iran. Although
Muslim minorities everywhere are facing calamities and catastrophes on a large
scale, the situation in Iran is further exacerbated under the government of
Taqiyya (deceit), lies and hypocrisy, in the name "'unifying' the different sects".
Yet it simultaneously slaughters the Sunni scholars and casts their dissected
and mutilated corpses into the streets and the garbage dumps. Whereas the
plight of Muslims is broadcasted internationally, no TV station or newspaper
dares to highlight the case of Sunnis in Iran. Ahlus Sunnah are deprived of their
basic civil, social, and human rights, not to mention the right of political
participation and equality with the Shi'ah. The erection of a Sunni school or
mosque in Iran is regarded as an unpardonable crime. Many Sunni Muslims,
who supported such projects (even if it were in the past), were imprisoned,
killed, or had their beard shaved for merely contributing to the building of a
mosque or to any simple activity relating to Ahlus Sunnah. There are also
hundreds of periodical prisoners and many killed purely on suspicion. The
following are only some of the names of the prominent scholars who have been
kidnapped, poisoned, or killed:
1. Bahman Shakoury was amongst the prominent scholars of his area,
Tonalis, and was active in Da'wah within intellectuals. He was arrested
and convicted with Wahhabism and executed in 1986.
2. Sheikh Mawlawi Abdul Aziz was one of the elite leaders of Ahlus Sunnah
who played a prominent role in opposing the Constitution in matters
relating to Ahlus Sunnah rights. He was the director of the religious
school of Zahdan and the chief of Baluchi armed tribes. He was poisoned
in 1987.
3. Sheikh Abdul Wahhab Khafi played a notable role in exposing the
calamities of Ahlus Sunnah outside Iran, especially in Pakistan. He was
killed in 1990 under torture after being accused with Wahhabism.
4. Sheikh Nasser Sabhani was one of the leaders of Sunnah in Kurdistan
who conducted many educational courses. He was arrested after refuting
the false accusations of kufr directed at Umar (r.a.a) by Khomeini in his
famous book 'al-Hukumah al-Islamiah' (The Islamic Government). He
was killed in 1992 in prison and his relatives were denied from witnessing
his funeral and the prayer.
5. Dr. Ali Muzhaffaryan was amongst the eminent intellectual Shi'ites who
was a cardiac surgeon and the head of Shiraaz Committee of Physicians.
He embraced the school of Ahlus Sunnah wa al-Jamma'ah and then
converted his house to a mosque because the government of Shiraaz did
not permit the establishment of mosques. He was arrested and convicted
with Wahhabism and American treachery and tortured severely when
many Shi'ite youth followed him into Sunnism. He was later released only
to be assassinated in 1992.
Moreover, the following are some of Ahlus Sunnah's mosques and
Islamic schools that were destroyed:
6. Al-Sunnah mosque in Ahwaz. The first Sunni mosque to be confiscated
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
before twar with Iraq. It was transformed to a security police centre.
South of Tehran. The second Sunni mosque to be confiscated was in
1982.
Tareeth Ham mosque. This mosque is in the state of Kharasan. It was
transformed to a centre for the revolutionary guard.
School and mosque of Lakour. It is situated near the city of Jabahar in
Baluchistan state. The government demolished the mosque and the
school in 1987 under the accusation that it was a center for Wahhabis.
Al-Sunnah mosque in Shiraz. Confiscated after the murder of Dr.
Muzaffar Ban who founded it, and transformed to a centre for selling
video and audio tapes produced by the revolutionary guard.
Sheikh Faydh mosque. This is an ancient Sunnah mosque in Mashhad,
one of the main Shi'ah centres of the world. The government could not
tolerate the continued existence of this mosque in the city, so it
demolished it in 1993, under the supervision of the revolutionary guard,
who also demolished adjoining centres which were used as guest houses
and Qur'an memorisation centres. The demolition orders came from
Khameni personally, the present spiritual leader of Iran. What is amazing
is the fact that the demolition of this mosque occurred immediately after
the government- sponsored demonstrations against the demolition of the
Babary Mosque in India by the Hindus.
Ahlus Sunnah School, Talish. The government confiscated the Ahlus
Sunnah school at Talish -North-West of Iran. Sheikh Quraishy, the
principal of the school was also arrested and alleged confessions were
obtained from him under torture.
Aaban mosque Mashhad city. They confiscated the land, demolished the
walls, and expelled the trustee.
Repair of roads. They also repair the roads from time to time, eg. in the
city of Zahdan, in order to demolish Sunnah houses, mosques and
schools in the name of alleged reconstruction.
What in reality is the representation of Ahlus Sunnah in the various
government posts in Iran such as parliament, ministries, etc?
This is an important question. Ahlus Sunnah, who compose approximately one
third of the Iranian population, have in all honesty no representation at all. In
fact, the situation has reached a stage of oppression and deprivation where
Ahlus Sunnah no longer contest these posts and are satisfied with looking to
satiate their food needs withoubeing prosecuted. There is no Sunni director in
any of the government authorities, ministries, embassies, or local and provincial
governments, hospitals or principalities; not even in the lowest government
posts anywhere in Iran. There are some Sunni parliamentarians just like in most
Middle Eastern countries, however, these are token positions so that the
common people can be fooled. Before a person's political nomination is
accepted in Iran, he must be approved, by law, by the security agencies which
naturally reject any Sunni activist, even if this person was to somehow attempt
to appease them. These agencies employ the lowest form of people, and the
most vile. This means that even if someone was elected by the people, the
council has the right to ostracise him from Government. So of what use is such a
parliament, especially with respect to the Sunni parliamentarian who does not
have a party to protect him? Even if he obtained such a post, what could he
possibly offer his people? The whole council therefore has no practical value.
This is supported by Khomeini's address to Mawlawi Abdul Aziz after the Iranian
revolution: "We do not have a shura process, the principle with us is that the
Imam rules, and imitators follow suit. We took the idea of a council from your
creed, for this reason, you will not find any value placed on a council." This is a
great shame. Whilst we are living in the twentieth century, we find a third of the
population of a nation deprived of their most basic rights. Is there any other
country on the face of the earth which prevents its people from choosing names
like Umar, A'ishah, Hafsah, Abu Bakr, Zubair, or most of the names of the
companions amongst the ten foretold of Paradise?
Do Ahlus Sunnah have an organised movement? What is the extent of its
popularity? And how are Ahlus Sunnah facing the present situation?
Ahlus Sunnah had organised movements at the outset of the revolution, when
parties were still present. However, when the government became stronger,
they prohibited all the Salafi groups. The danger of the Sunni groups was
obvious, amongst these was the central shura council for Ahlus Sunnah, the
Kurdistan movement for equal rights, the Union of Muslims in Baluchistan, the
Majdia. movement in Zahran, and others. The funds of these groups were
confiscated and presently, there are no openly organised Sunni groups. In fact,
the Sunnis in Iran are deprived of rights which are freely given even to the
disbelievers, such as charities to care for the orphans and the widows and
others.
As for dealing with the present situation, we are currently only able to offer
patience and to take one blow after another. They are like the orphans - they do
not have a government to defend them or to dare to mention their plight except
on special occasions. They do not have a Sunni group outside of Iran to sponsor
them apart from what we initiated a few years ago here (in London).
Do you expect any change in the policies of the present government
towards Ahlus Sunnah after the election of Khatemy?
There is a minor change in the policy of the government towards us. Khatemy is
not blood thirsty and does not like the shedding of blood nor the stealing of our
money as did Khameni and Rafsanjany. Khatemy has changed many of the
blood thirsty officials in the Sunni areas with other Shi'ah who are not as blood
thirsty. However, he was not brave enough to appoint one Sunni official. Had
Khatemy taken this opportunity, the tyranny and oppression would be reduced
dramatically, however, I do not think that he intends or is able to bring equality
between Sunni and the others. I have sent an open letter to him in this respect.
What is the policy of Ahlus Sunnah for their future dealings with this
situation? Does the declaration of the Afghan Islamic Emirate have any
effect on the internal situation?
Our policy with this bitter reality is to be patient and abstain from armed conflict.
We do not wish to repeat the experiment in Hama, Halab, Tripoli and others
which were very bitter experiments. Particularly as we know that there is no
government, or even an organisation which dares to or intends to support or
sponsor us.
Yes, the existence of a Sunni Muslim government in Afghanistan will have a
definite effect on us. This is why we are witnessing every effort from Iran to halt
the establishment of an Islamic government in Afghanistan. The minister for
Iranian foreign affairs declared a number of years before: "We will never permit
the establishment of a Wahhabi government in Afghanistan". In the view of
these devils, any Sunni government is a Wahhabi government. In summary, the
existence of any Sunni government is in our interest. It is notable to bear in mind
that the Shi'ah/Safawi State which existed during the Ottoman rule fell at the
hands of the Afghan Sunnis.
Is there a message to other Sunni Muslims throughout the world from their
brothers in Iran?
We see ourselves as creedal and intellectual extensions of our brothers. What
we are facing today is a direct result of our affiliation to the Ahlus Sunnah creed
and for no other reason. It is the responsibility of the Muslims in every
organisation as groups and as individuals to be concerned over their religion
and their faith. We know the reason for the backdown of the authorities and the
governments, however, what excuse could there be for the charities, wealthy
Muslims, Islamic organisations, and groups? They do not have an excuse before
Allah.
I have hope that our Muslim brothers will not just look at us through the policies
of their groups and parties, but to look at us through Islam as the martyr Sheikh
Abdullah Azzam looked at the Afghani cause.
I also have a parting word for those who share our creed who visit Iran regularly.
We hardly fin any of them any concern towards their religion and the people of
their creed. I advise these people to be conscious of Allah and have some
concern for their creed and those who subscribe to the same creed. Their visits
are proof against us and cause us harm and lead to the murder of many of our
members. They are like puppets in the hands of the political regime, they say to
us: "Here are your Imams, your scholars and Sheikhs, they are praying behind
us, visiting the grave of the Imam, and do not ask for a separate mosque for
themselves in Tehran, they say we pray all together in one mosque, so why do
you differ with your scholars? You must be Wahhabi!"
Finally we thank Nida'ul Islam magazine for their attention and concern with our
plight, we pray for their success.