Shias in the view of Imam Musa Kazim (s)

Miracles of Comprehension

Five parts are included in this topic, which come under ‘Shias in the view of Imam Musa Kazim (s)’. As the Rizwan editor has failed to understand the meaning of those traditions, I would first explain each of them and then write some of my remarks.

I take the last part first. Rizwan editor writes:

1

Similarly, it is narrated in Furu al-Kafi[1] that Imam Ali (s) said, “I pity the deeds of the Shias.”

This is an intermediate sentence of a long tradition. Instead of raising an objection over it, I feel it sufficient to narrate the whole tradition. Imam Amirul Momineen (s) said:

“And then, the Almighty God did not end the mighty ones of age but after giving them time and giving them respite. While the pious would get happiness only after further calamities. O people! The incidents occurring in front of you or after you are

[1] Vol. 3, Pg. 31

worth taking a lesson from but every person having a heart need not be intelligent. Every person having ear need not be hearing and neither every possessor of eyes be a looker.

O servants of God! Think about the deeds, which will benefit you in the hereafter. Look at the deserters of those people whose knowledge is bestowed by Allah. They followed the ways of the community of Firon who had orchards, springs, agriculture and excellent palaces. Then, also see why God ended them after this freshness, happiness and sending orders and prohibitions. The patient ones among you will forever be in Paradise in the hereafter. Only God has the return of all the affairs.

It’s a surprise over the errors of those sects, regarding difference of evidences in the religion and why should not it be? They neither follow the footsteps of the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) nor follow the acts of the successor of the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) or believe in Ghaib (Unseen) or forgive the mistake of anyone. Only one whom they like is pious in their view. According to them, a good is that which they consider good and a wrong deed is that, which they consider wrong. Each of them is his own Imam. They have prepared strong proofs regarding their likes, according to their wishes. They will always remain on injustice and only their mistakes shall increase. They would never be near to God, rather become more distant. They have love for each other only because of their hatred of the news that the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) has conveyed from Allah. They are involved in doubts, sin, deviation and suspicion. They are such that Allah has left them to their desires and opinions. So only one who does not know them, considers them reliable and blameless. How similar they are to those cattle whose shepherds are separated from them (because they have left the Imam).”

After narrating the account of the well wishers of Bani Umayyah, he says:

“I pity the deeds of my Shias, that in spite of love and nearness, they should try to dishonor each other after me and kill each other. Tomorrow they would be separate from the root and take support on the branch. They would desire for victory without any effort. All the groups among them (after being separated from root) will catch a branch each. They would also bend wherever that branch does.

But Allah (only He is worthy of Praise) will shortly unite my Shias for the day, which would be the worst day for Bani Umayyah. Just like farmers gather to harvest the autumn crops. God will form their organization through mutual love. Then He would unite them like specks of light. Then He would open the doors for them and they would start spreading everywhere just like the flood of Iram when God sent a mouse (which made a hole in the dam and water began to flow breaking the dam). Thus no secure and safe place shall remain.

He would make them flow on the earth like springs. He would procure the rights of a community from another through them. He would involve an unjust community in chastisement for an oppressed community so that the organization of Bani Umayyah becomes completely dispersed and they do not have any control over what they have usurped. (After some special guidelines, he says) I swear by Him Who split the seed and created living beings, surely these incidents would happen, as if I am hearing the sounds of their cavalry and infantry.

By Allah, whatever mighty empire and control they (Bani Umayyah) have in their hands would melt as fat of ram melts in fire. Among them, whoever dies, will die astray and God only will decide the fate of the dying ones. Whoever repents (in life), God will accept his repentance.

I hope that God unites my Shias after differences and dispersion for the day, which would be the worst day for them (Bani

Umayyah). No one has any control over God while He has control over all things.”

Read this whole text. It is obvious that Amirul Momineen is narrating incidents that are to occur after him. For instance, the rising up and formation of kingdoms of enemies of Ahle Bayt and those having a similar outlook, unison of Shias by the command of God after that, their covering the world like a flood and snatching of power from the enemies of Ahle Bayt is described by him. He has expressed his grief over mutual differences among Shias during early days. However, it does not prove the conclusion drawn by the Rizwan editor. Since this prediction does not prove the fault of our religion or the people of our religion.

It, at the most, censures those who caused sectarian differences among Shias. Because those who created one hypocrisy after another and created rifts between Shias since the time of Imam Zainul Abideen (s) to Imam Reza (s) are blameworthy in our view also. We do not make hypocrites our leaders like the Sunnis do, so that we should need to veil their hypocrisy.

We can summarize this as follows:

1)  Some people considered Muhammad Hanafiyyah as their Imam after Imam Husain (s) instead of Imam Zainul Abideen (s). This sect, known as Kaisaniyyah, became extinct during the lifetime of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (s) itself.

2)  Zaid, the martyr, confronted Bani Umayyah some time after Imam Zainul Abideen (s). A group of people began to consider him as Imam and this sect was called Zaidiyyah.

3) During the time of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (s), Muhammad bin Miqlas bin Abil Khattab who was popularly known as   Abul Khattab invented a belief that even Imams (s) are prophets. He began to spread many deviating claims. His followers were called Khattabiyyah. Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (s) has cursed Abul Khattab on every occasion. These people were extremists (Ghulat) and there were such extremists before them also during the time of other Imams.

4)  After the passing away of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (s), some people began to consider his late son, Ismail as their Imam. They are called Ismailis and are present even today as Bohras and Aga Khanis.

5)  After the passing away of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (s), his another son, Abdullah, claimed to be an Imam. There was a defect in his body and hence, he was called ‘Aftah’ (flat-footed in both feet). According to Shias, an Imam should be free of any physical or spiritual defects. Apart from this, he also was ignorant of the solutions of even common problems. Hence, his Imamate ended very soon. His followers are called Fatheeyah (some of their account will be discussed later on).

6)  After Imam Musa Kazim (s), some of his representatives, who had huge funds of the Imam in their possession, spread this belief wrongly that Imamate has ended, so that they do not have to return those monies to Imam Ali Reza (s). However, the saying of Prophet (s.a.w.s.) that ‘Imams after me are twelve’ is enough to reject this claim. Hence that group ended when the veil of their intention was removed and the excellences of the Imamate of Imam Ali Reza (s) began to be revealed. These people were called Waqfiyyah.

In short, these enemies of Ahle Bayt used to call themselves lovers of Ahle Bayt and create beliefs contradicting actual Shia beliefs. Zaidiyyah and Ismailis have even inflicted a number of atrocities on other groups. (Once the community of Ismailis was famous as Batniyyah). Thus, if Amirul Momineen (s) expresses his unhappiness over the deeds of such people, blaming the Shia Ithna Asharis for it is nothing but a miracle of comprehension of the Rizwan editor.

Also the Rizwan editor says:

Now let us see this narration on page 159 of Usul al-Kafi: Imam Musa Kazim (s) said: “Allah sent wrath upon the Shias.”

The error in translation will be explained later on. First let me say that both the Shia belief and the Shias themselves were in grave danger during the final days of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (s) and initial period of the Imamate of Imam Musa Kazim (s). The dangers to Shia belief are clear from the origin of Khatabiyyah, Ismailis and Fatihis. They were internal enemies. While the danger to the life, property and honor of Shias were external enemies i.e. those from the side of the caliphs of the Rizwan editor.

Mansur al-Dawaniqi, the rightful caliph according to the Rizwan editor buried the Sayyids alive in walls and made cement mixtures in their blood. He martyred them through various atrocities. The spies were present everywhere. If they found anyone following the Shia faith, they beheaded him immediately. Mansur martyred Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (s) through poison. Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (s) regularly advised his Shias to do Taqiyyah in such a dangerous environment and he said: “You follow such a religion that God honors one who conceals it and disgraces one who reveals it.”

“One who does not have Taqiyyah has no faith.”

“Taqiyyah is my religion, the religion of my father and grandfather.”

The Rizwan editor has made fun of these traditions (refer the discussion of Taqiyyah) but if one-tenth of these atrocities, had befallen the Rizwan editor or his leaders they would definitely have taken their hands off their apparent claim of Islam also, and become apostates. The seriousness of the situation can be estimated from the fact that Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (s) could not even announce the name of his real successor clearly. He added the names of four more persons along with Imam Musa Kazim (s) regarding whom Shias could easily make out that they could not be Imams. Their inclusion however saved the life of Imam Musa Kazim (s). The four are as follows:

(1)  Mansur Dawaniqi, the ruler of the time and killer of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (s)

(2)  Mansur’s governor in Medina

(3)  Abdullah Aftah

(4)  Hamida Khatun

Thus when this will of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (s) reached reliable companions, they said, “Thanks be to Allah! The truth has become clear.” When asked for explanation, they said that Mansur and his governor couldn’t be Imams as they were involved in the martyrdom of Imam (s) and were thus obvious oppressors. Hamida Khatun is a woman and hence she could not be an Imam. Abdullah Aftah has a physical defect. So even he is not worthy of Imamate. Thus only Imam Musa Kazim (s) is stationed on the rank of Imamate and he is a true Imam appointed by Allah.”

The benefit of including these people in successorship was that when Mansur wrote to his governor that he search for the person whom Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (s) has appointed as his successor, arrest him and send his head to him, the Governor replied, “He has made you and me also his successors.”

Mansur said that these people could not be killed!

In this way, the life of Imam Musa Kazim (s) was saved at that time.

I shall mention another incident of Rijal Kishi from which the Rizwan editor is very fond to give references. It would bring forth the clear picture of the conditions of that time.

A tradition is narrated from Ja'far bin Muhammad about Hisham bin Salim Jawaliqi in which Hisham discussed about going to Abdullah Aftah along with a believer to ask the solution of some problems to him. When Abdullah gave wrong answers, they both sat in a street of Medina and began to wail, “What should we do now? What will be our consequence?” They were saying, “Should we go to Murjiyyah or to Qadariyah or to Zaidiyyah or Mutazila or to Khwarij?” i.e. which religion should they follow?

Hisham says, “We were in this same state when I saw an elderly person whom I did not recognize, gesturing towards me. I feared that he was a spy of Mansur because there were a number of spies of Mansur in Medina who used to find out the Shias of Imam Ja'far Sadiq (s) and have them executed. I was afraid that he was also one of them. I asked Momin Taq to leave me and move away as I was sensing danger for both of us. I said, ‘This person wants me and not you. Hence, you go away and save your life and do not assist your own destruction.’ He went a little away from me and I began to walk behind that old man according to his direction for I knew that it was difficult to escape his clutches.”

Nevertheless, that elderly person took him to the door of Imam Musa Kazim (s) and the servant permitted them to enter. They went in to find Imam Musa Kazim (s) there. Imam (s) said, “Do not go to Murjiyyah nor to Qadariyah nor to Zaidiyyah nor to Mutazila nor to Khwarij but come to me, come to me, come to me.”

His heart was relieved on seeing this miracle but as a precaution, he required the proof that one who was present was an Imam. He asked for permission to present some questions and said, “May I be sacrificed for you. Could I ask those questions which were posed to your venerable father?” Imam (s) said, “You may ask and you will be informed but do not disclose them else you would be slaughtered.”

Hisham states that when he questioned the Imam (s), he found him an unfathomed ocean. Then he said, “May I be sacrificed for you. Your and your father’s Shias are involved in confusion and deviation today. If you permit, I may tell them about these things and call them towards you because you have commanded confidentiality.” Imam (s) gave the permission and said, “Inform only those on whom you have complete faith and take oath from them to keep it confidential. If they disclose it, slaughter is imminent.” The Imam gestured at his neck while saying this.[1]

After that, Hisham informed the reliable persons and they came in large numbers and reposed faith in the Imamate of Imam Musa Kazim (s). The market of Abdullah Aftah turned cold. When he came to know that Hisham was the first person to visit Imam Musa Kazim (s), he appointed many agents in Medina to assassinate him but they did not succeed in this.

[1] Rijal Kishi Pg. 182, 183, Printed at Egypt

Our purpose of narrating this incident was to inform you of the dangerous circumstances of that time and how Shias were afraid of spies every moment. Imam Musa Kazim (s) himself had to live a life full of risks that a little leak of secret would have become the cause of the Imam’s murder.

However, when numbers increase it is possible that a person considers another worthy of trust and reveals secrets to him but that person instead of being a believer is a hypocrite. Something like this happened and that which Imam Musa Kazim (s) wanted to conceal was revealed. Although after a period of time, but the caliph of the Rizwan editor, at last came to know correctly who the Imam of Shias was. Imam (s) was arrested and imprisoned for life. It is about this Imam Musa Kazim (s) has said:

“The Lord of the worlds became angry with the Shias. So He gave me the choice to either save myself or save them. By Allah! I put myself in calamities to save the Shias.”

Two conclusions can be drawn from this narration.

Firstly, the secret that Imam Musa Kazim (s) was Imam was revealed due to the carelessness of those Shias and they did not reveal this secret out of enmity towards Imam, but they unknowingly revealed this secret to a person who they thought was trustworthy while he was in fact an accomplice of the caliph of the Rizwan editor. If this exposure had been intentional, God would not have commanded Imam Musa Kazim (s) to either save himself or the Shias. He would have indeed sent down His anger on the wrong-doers (just like the Rizwan editor intentionally translated these statements wrongly).

Secondly, Imam Musa Kazim (s) loved those Shias so much and showed such kindness to them that he agreed to bear all calamities in order to save the Shias. This kindness and love of

 Imam (s) themselves prove that although those Shias had indeed committed a deed of carelessness, yet there was no inherent defect in their faith and love of Ahle Bayt (s). Otherwise neither the Imam would have borne difficulties to save them nor Allah would have liked it.

The fact is that, those Shias did not know how to recognize the infidelity of the heart. In addition to this it is also a fact that they

were not infallibles. If they, in their ignorance revealed the secret to an unreliable person at the most, those few people would be considered guilty. How can the basis of religion or other followers could be reproached for it? Although if we had considered those people Imams or leaders, like the Rizwan editor considers ‘chastised’ and ‘misguided’ ones as his caliphs and leaders, it would have been an opportunity to ridicule us.

Let me also tell you that the chain of narrators of this narration is as follows:

“Ali bin Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad bin Isa and he, from another person that Imam Musa Kazim (s) said…and so forth”

The experts of tradition science very well know the value of a narration one of whose narrators is unknown. No one trusts such a narration but I did not intentionally give this reply to the Rizwan editor that this narration is unreliable or weak. I accepted its authenticity supposedly for the time being and clarified the truth behind it that this narration does not put any blame on the Shias or their ideology. The bad intention of Shias indicated in this narration is also not evident from this while the thing explicit from it, is kindness of the Imam (may my soul be sacrificed on him).

I remember an incident of early Islam on this occasion, which I have narrated in the topic of Taqiyyah on the authority of Tarikh Khamis etc. Muslims had to face difficulties due to

opposing the command of Taqiyyah when Abu Bakr incessantly desired to make an open display of Islam against the orders of the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) and finally he (the Prophet) relented helplessly to complete the argument, as a result of which, infidels attacked the Muslims and beat Abu Bakr with an old shoe in such a way that no difference remained between his nose and cheeks. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) did not adopt a style for Abu Bakr as Imam Musa Kazim (s) did and himself faced difficulties to save the Shias. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) left him at the mercy of the infidels. It seems that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) did not even consider Abu Bakr an ordinary Muslim, otherwise, he would have surely tried to save him.

3)  The editor of Rizwan writes:

Not only this, but it is mentioned in the reliable book of Shias, Ihtijaj of Tabarsi:[1]

“All the twelve sects of Shias would go to Hell.”

Let us first read the whole narration, then there would not be any need for objection:

It is narrated from Amirul Momineen (s) that once he asked a Jew scholar, “How many sects have developed among you Jews?” He replied that so and so number of sects are formed. Imam Ali (s) said that he was wrong. Then he addressed the people, “By Allah, if I am made to dispense justice I would judge the Jews with the Torah, the Christians with the Injeel, the people of Psalms with Psalms and the followers of Quran with Quran. The Jews are divided into seventy-one sects. Seventy of them shall go to hell and only one is worthy of salvation. It is the same sect, which followed Yusha bin Noon, the successor of Prophet Musa (s). Christians are divided into

[1] Page 141

 seventy-two sects. Of which, seventy-one shall go to hell and one is worthy of salvation that followed Shamoon bin Safa, the successor of Prophet Isa. This nation (i.e. the Muslims) will be divided into seventy-three sects. Seventy-two of them would go to hell and only one shall go to Paradise. It is the same sect which follows the successor of Muhammad (s.a.w.s.).” He tapped his chest, saying so. (That we are those successors. Only the sect that follows us, shall go to Paradise).

He further said, “Thirteen out of these seventy-three sects would be such that each shall claim my love and devotion. Of them only one (the moderate sect) would receive salvation and the remaining twelve would go to hell.”[1]

Now, who will ask the Rizwan editor how he translated it as, “All the twelve sects of Shias would go to hell?” Apparently, it seems that there are twelve sects of Shias and all of them would go to hell. However, according to the above narration, the real followers of Imam Ali (s) are we Shias. Except we Shia Ithna Asharis, all Muslim sects who claim to be the devotees of Ali (s) would go to hell. Only this sect will get salvation. It seems that the writer heard the word ‘Shia Ithna Ashari’ and began to think that there are twelve sects among Shias. The poor man does not even know that Shias are called ‘Ithna Ashari’ because they are the only ones among the sects of Islam who believe in the twelve Imams about whom the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) had prophesied.

After all, these are also miracles of comprehension.

After reading this tradition, no need remains but I would like to also explain as to which sect is to receive salvation and what are those sects who claim to love Ali (s) so that readers may find it easy to understand the right path.

[1] Ihtijaj, Tabarsi, Pg. 135

Firstly, reflect over the point that Imam Ali (s) has called this ‘worthy-of-salvation-sect’ as ‘Al-Namatul Awsat’ i.e. ‘a moderate group’. It means that this group would neither increase nor decrease the rank of Imam Ali (s). This is the same intermediate way, which is called ‘Siratul Mustaqeem’. (the right path) Thus,

even Ahle Sunnat commentators write in the commentary of, ‘Keep us on the right path.’[1] (Siratul Mustaqeem) as follows:

Muslim bin Hayyan states that he heard Abu Buraidah (r.a.) saying that the ‘right path’ implies the way of the life of Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) and his progeny. Imam Thalabi has quoted this narration in his Tafsir and Allamah Baghavi in his book, Malimut Tanzeel[2]

And praise be to Allah, people who tread the ‘right path’ are only the Shias whom the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) himself has praised and glorified on innumerable occasions. I quote only five traditions (equal to the number of the Holy Five)[3] from the books of Ahle Sunnat.

First tradition

It is narrated from Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari that they were in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) when Imam Ali (s) arrived. On seeing him, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) said, “I swear by Him under Whose control is my life, that surely he (Ali) and his Shias would be successful on the Day of Judgment.” At that moment a verse was revealed that:

“(As for) those who believe and do good, surely they are the best of men.”[4]

[1] Surah Fatiha 1:6

[2] Arjahul Matalib, Maulana Ubaidullah Amritsari Pg. 97 and 38

[3] Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain (a.s.)

[4] Surah Bayyinah 98:7

Thus Khwarizmi, Ibne Asakir and Allamah Suyuti have also quoted this prophetic statement.[1]

Apart from this, Allamah Ibne Marduyah, Hafiz Abu Naeem in Hilyatul Awliya, Dailami in Firdausul Akhbar, Khwarizmi in

Manaqib and Allamah Suyuti in Tafsir Durre Manthur have narrated two similar traditions from Ibne Abbas and Amirul Momineen (s).

Second tradition

It is narrated from Ibne Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) said, “Seventy thousand people from my followers will go to Paradise without being accounted for their deeds.”

Then he addressed Imam Ali (s), “They will be your Shias and you are their Imam.”[2]

This narration is quoted in Arjahul Matalib from the book, Darus Simtain of Hafiz Muhammad bin Yusuf bin Hasan Razandi Al-Ansari.

Third tradition

It is narrated from Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari (r.a.) that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) said, “O Ali! You will be nearest to me tomorrow on the Day of Judgment. You will be my caliph on the cistern of Kauthar. Your Shias will be around me on the pulpits of light (Noor) in such a way that their faces would be luminous. I would intercede for them and they shall be my neighbors in Paradise.”[3]

This tradition is narrated in Arjahul Matalib from Al-Manaqib of Ibne Maghazali, Khwarizmi, Waseelatul Mutabideen of Mulla, Kifayatut Talib of Allamah Muhammad bin Yusuf Kanji Shafei,

[1] Arjahul Matalib, Maulana Ubaidullah Amritsari Pg. 159

[2] Arjahul Matalib, Maulana Ubaidullah Amritsari Pg. 160

[3] Arjahul Matalib, Maulana Ubaidullah Amritsari Pg. 161

Al-Shifa of Al-Usboo’ Andulisi, Al-Ikitfaa of Ibrahim bin Abdullah Yamani Shafei, Abu Saeed and Sharhun Nubuwwah of Abdul Malik bin Muhammad Ibrahim.

Fourth tradition

It is narrated from Abu Rafe that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) told Imam Ali (s), “You and your Shias will be found well-watered at the cistern of Kauthar. Their faces will be illuminated and your enemies would be thirsty and disgraced.”[1]

Fifth tradition

It is narrated from Umme Salma that once Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.) visited the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) along with Imam Ali (s). The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) raised his head towards Fatima and said, “Good news for you, O Ali! You and your Shias would go to Paradise.”[2]

This narration is quoted by Fakhrul Islam Najmuddin Abu Bakr bin Muhammad bin Husain in Manaqib Sahaba.

Maulana Ubaidullah Amritsari, an Ahle Sunnat scholar, has quoted five more narrations about the Shias being worthy of salvation in his book Arjahul Matalib. The Ahle Sunnat scholars are restless since long on learning about these traditions and are trying hard to apply them to themselves. Allamah Ibne Hajar Makki writes in Sawaiqul Mohreqa:

“The Shia of Ahle Bayt implies Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat.”

Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlavi has mentioned such things on numerous occasions in the preface of his Tohfa Ithna Ashariyah that:

[1] Arjahul Matalib, Maulana Ubaidullah Amritsari Pg. 161

[2] Arjahul Matalib, Maulana Ubaidullah Amritsari Pg. 163

“The Ahle Sunnat say, ‘We are the first Shias and traditions recorded in praise of Shias are applicable to us and not the Rawafiz[1].’”

Please refer to pages 4, 6, 11 and 18 of Tohfa Ithna Ashariyah.[2] An amazing discovery is reported in one more place on Pg. 11 of the same book as follows:

“It should be known that the first Shias, i.e. Sunnis and Tafzilis, were previously were called as Shias in the past. When the extremist Rafizis, Zaidiyyah and Ismaili sects started calling themselves Shia and when they became sources of ideological and practical evils, Sunnis and Tafzilis did not like this appellation for themselves out of the fear that truth should becomes similar to falsehood. Hence they assumed the name of ‘Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat’.”

Maulavi Waheeduz Zaman, a great Ahle Sunnat scholar has mentioned in Anwaarul Lughah[3] regarding the tradition of Prophet (s.a.w.s.) that: ‘O Ali! You and your Shias are satisfied with Divine Mercy and the favorites of God’ as follows:

“This tradition is narrated in books of both Shias and Ahle Sunnat and it clearly explains that only the Shias of Ali (s) are worthy of salvation and accepted ones in front of the Almighty. While the enemies of Ali are accursed in view of the Almighty and they would be destroyed…This tradition also shows that the Shias of Ali is an ancient sect as mentioned by the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) himself…The true Ahle Sunnat[4]

[1] A derogatory term coined by Ahle Sunnah for the Shias

[2] Naval Kishor Press, Lucknow

[3] Pg. 21, Pg. 144

[4] Practice of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.)

and Ahle Hadith[1] are the Shias of Ali al-Murtada (s) and not the Shias of Muawiyah.”

If all the points are discussed it would prolong the debate and also it is not my main topic of discussion here. Therefore I would just quote the remarks of Maulana Ubaidullah Amritsari about

the view of Shah Abdul Aziz, which would prove the veracity of his claims. It should however be remembered that Maulana Ubaidullah Amritsari is not the friend of we ‘Rafizis’ (Shias). However, he writes:

“But to say that Ahle Sunnat were famous as Shias in the beginning is a mere claim for which no proof is found. If Ahle Sunnat were really called as Shias in the beginning, someone or the other who lived before the formation of Zaidiyyah sect should have become famous as a Shia. But only those who believed in the superiority of Ali (s) were called Shias. Apart from this, if Ahle Sunnat were in fact originally called Shias, Zaidiyyah and Ismailis would never have called themselves ‘Shias’ out of their enmity. They would have assumed some other name.”[2]

Also, according to Maulana Waheeduz Zaman, Shias have come into existence from the time of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) as discussed above. The ‘Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat’ came into being in 41 A.H. during the time of Muawiyah as mentioned by Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan Bhopali in his famous work Munhijul Wusool,[3] and also Tarikh Khulafa,[4] Tarikh Tabari,[5]

[1] Lit. Followers of the traditions

[2] Arjahul Matalib, Maulana Ubaidullah Amritsari Pg. 164

[3] Pg. 164

[4] Pg. 132

[5] Vol. 6

Hayatul Haiwan,[1] Fathul Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari,[2] Istiab on the margins of Isabah.[3] It is mentioned in all those books with difference in wordings that the majority of the Muslims united on the caliphate of Muawiyah in 41 A.H. Hence this year was called as ‘Sinnatul Jamat’ (i.e. year of cooperation).

It is also a known fact that followers of Muawiyah also came to be known as ‘Ahle Sinnatul Jamat’ (people of the year of cooperation) in this year only. Afterwards they made a slight change and modified it to ‘Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat’, which was construed as ‘People of the Sunnah of Prophet (s.a.w.s.) and organization of Islam’. However, they were never called as ‘Shias’. Then how can traditions in praise of Shias be applied to them?

Conclusively, it is obvious from these traditions and the feigning style of Ahle Sunnat that Shia is the only sect, which deserves salvation and will go to Paradise according to the saying of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.).

Two sects would compete with the Shias. One would commit excess in love and the other would fall deficient or harbor enmity. This excess and deficiency are the causes of going astray and reaching hell. Please refer to the following narration also:

It is narrated from Imam Ali (s) that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) said, “O Ali (s)! Your example is like that of Prophet Isa (s). One group loved him so much that they were ruined and the other was destroyed due to his enmity.”

[1] Vol. 1, Pg. 52

[2] Vol. 2 Pg. 552

[3] Vol. 1, Pg. 372 and Pg. 373 and Vol. 3, Pg. 398 and 433

This narration is quoted in Arjahul Matalib[1] on the authority of Abu Ya’la, Imam Hakim and Naziri etc.

Let us see which are those twelve sects of Islam, that are involved in excess or deficiency.

A)   The sects that fell deficient are those who lowered the rank of Amirul Momineen or his successors or reduced their number. Since the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.), by the command of Allah, had already declared them to be twelve. Syed Ali Hamdani in Mawaddatul Qurba and A) Akhtab Khwarizmi in Manaqib have narrated from Salman al-Farsi:

“I came to the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) and saw that Imam Husain (s) was sitting on his holy lap and the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) was kissing his eyes and mouth and saying, ‘You are the chief, the son of the chief. You are Imam, the son of Imam and Proof son of Proof and you are the father of nine proofs, the ninth among you shall be the Qaem of Aale Muhammad (s.a.w.s.)’.”

On the basis of this criterion, the ‘deficient sects’ who were deprived of salvation, in spite of their claim of love of Ali (s) are as follows:

(1)  Hanafi

(2)  Shafei

(3)  Hanbalis

(4)  Maliki

(5)  Ahle Hadith or Wahabi

(6)  Ahle Quran

[1] Pg. 96

All these sects reduce the rank of Amirul Momineen (s) and bring it down to the fourth level instead of considering him the first caliph immediately after the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.).

(7)  Kaisaniyah

(8)  Zaidiyyah

(9)  Ismailis

(10)  Iftiyah

(11)  Waqifayah

None of these above sects believed in all the successors of Amirul Momineen. Some left the series after three Imams while some took another route after four or six Imams and some stopped after seven Imams.

B)   The extremist sect is only one, which was so ‘obsessed’ by the love of Ali (s) that they gave him the rank of the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) or God. This sect is called Ghali, Nusairi or Khattabiyah.

Thus these are the twelve sects who are involved in either exalting or reducing the actual rank of Ali (s). According to the saying of Imam Ali (s), all of them shall go to hell. Now read once again the translation done by the Rizwan editor: “All the twelve sects of Shias would go to hell”, and ponder over his power of comprehension.

4)  The editor of Rizwan writes:

It is written in Rijal Kishi that the Shia community consists of three parts: First is sinful and unfortunate while the other two are foolish.”

There is o such wording in whole of Rijal Kishi’ whose meaning matches what the Rizwan editor has mentioned. However,

 there is a narration, which I am quoting here. Maybe the Rizwan editor has misunderstood its meaning:

“Aslam (Slave of Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah) said to us that he and Imam Muhammad Baqir (s) were sitting reclining their backs on Zam Zam. Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hasan (s) (Nafs Zakiyyah) passed by us and he was performing the circumambulation of the holy Ka’ba. Imam Muhammad Baqir (s) asked, “O Aslam! Do you recognize this youth?” He replied, “Yes, this is Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hasan (s).” Imam (s) said, “Shortly, he would initiate an uprising and be killed in a horrible manner.” Then he said, “O Aslam! Do not inform anyone about this tradition. It is my trust with you.” Aslam says that he narrated this tradition to Maroof bin Kharbooz and took an oath of secrecy from him as Imam (s) had taken the oath from him. Aslam states that once we four people of Mecca were sitting with the Imam. Maroof requested the Imam, “Please narrate the tradition that you narrated to Aslam because I would love to hear it from you directly.” On hearing this, the Imam looked at Aslam and said, “Aslam?” (He meant to ask why did he not obey his command). Aslam said, “May I be sacrificed on you. I have asked him also to keep this secret as you did to me.” It was then the Imam said, “If all the people would have become our Shias, three-fourth of them would have doubted us and one-fourth would have been foolish.”

A)   I think that in this tradition, by the Arabic term ‘Thalathata Arba’ (three-fourths) the Rizwan editor has taken the meaning of one-third and the term ‘Arba Aakher’ (one-fourth) as ‘two parts’. Also he read ‘Shakak’ (one who doubts) as ‘Shaqaq’, which means miserable or unfortunate one. Maybe he does not even have the proficiency of recognizing the alphabets that he could differentiate between the Arabic letters K (Kaaf) and Q (Qaaf). If this is the condition he would

start pronouncing ‘Abu Bakr’ as ‘Abu Baqar’ and like some of his leaders, consider ‘Istihkak’ (picking quarrels) as ‘Istihqaq’ (merit).

B)  Nevertheless, it was an aspect of comprehension. Now consider another aspect. He did not even think that this statement is conditional. The stated thing cannot come into existence unless the condition is fulfilled. For instance if it is said, “There would be sunlight, if the sun rises,” it would means that there would be no sunlight until the sun rises. Similarly, when a condition is applied here that: “If all the people were claimants of being our Shias, three-fourth of them would have been involved in doubt and one-fourth of them would have been foolish,” so unless the condition is fulfilled i.e. unless all people claim to be Shias, this statement cannot be applied to the Shias. That is, neither all the people of world claim they are Shias nor is there anyone among we Shias, who doubts or is foolish.

Obviously if all the people of the world claim to be Shias, Ahle Sunnat would also be included among them. Since their main patron saint, Umar, was also involved in doubts regarding the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) all his life, that’s why these people would always also be involved in doubts regarding the Ahle Bayt (s).

For example, Umar had such a doubt in the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) at the time of the Peace treaty of Hudaibiyah as he never had such a doubt before. In addition to many other books, the following saying of Umar himself is quoted in Tafsir Durre Manthur[1] by Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti through many chains of narrators. We should know that this

[1] Vol. 6, Pg. 77

 event took place in 7 A.H. and the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) departed from this world three years after this. As if Umar continued to be in doubts in the final days of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.).

It is evident that since the caliph himself was ‘Shakkak’ (one who doubts much), his followers would obviously also be ‘Shakkak’. And the Imam has made this statement keeping only these people in mind i.e. “If all the people would have become our Shias, three-fourth of them would have doubted us and one-fourth would have been foolish.”

Anyhow, till our sect is not adulterated by such doubters and we are small in number as the Quran says: ‘very few from My servants are thankful’, this statement cannot be applied to us. Although when other sects try to merge with us, as the attempt of Ahle Sunnat to become ‘Shia’ is discussed above, the majority of doubters would be from them only. Only they would become the actualization of this statement.

A)   Now examine the third aspect of comprehension.

The conditional article used for this sentence is the Arabic ‘lau’ (if). It is especially used regarding impossible things. That is why experts of Arabic consider a sentence having this article to mean just the opposite. Only then the actual meaning is understood. For example, consider the couplet of Imrul Qays, which the editor of Rizwan would translate as:

“If I strive for a simple life and livelihood it would be sufficient for me; and I never desired small wealth.”

But he would not be able to explain the relation between ‘adequacy of simple earning’ and ‘not desiring small wealth’ because this translation itself is wrong. The correct meaning of this, according to those who know Arabic is

“Neither I tried for a simple life and earning nor was it sufficient for me; and neither did I desire small wealth.”

Now the meaning of this couplet is clear and what the characteristic of the article ‘lau’ (if) is.

Another characteristic of the article ‘lau’ (if) is that whether it be followed by a verb of the present/future tense or the verb of the past tense its meaning would be considered in past tense only. Readers should keep these two characteristics in mind, as they would be needed in the future.

Another such example of this is the following verse of the Holy Quran:

“If there had been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder…”[1]

However, its actual meaning is that neither was there another God except Allah in the heavens and earth nor were they destroyed.

After these examples, look at the actual sense of this statement of the narration. We shall find it to be: “Neither all the people were our Shias nor there-fourths of our Shias were involved in doubts nor one-fourth was foolish.”

As the Arabic knowledge of the Rizwan editor is already clear for us, I have no complain against this interpretation. If the poor editor does not know the difference between the conditional articles like the Arabic ‘an’, (that), ‘ammaa’ (but) and ‘lau’ (if), then it is worth pity and not criticism.

1)  The editor of Rizwan writes a part of a tradition of Imam Musa Kazim (s) as follows:

[1] Surah Anbiya 21:22

“If I select my Shias, I will not find any but talkative ones and if I test them, I will not find them but apostates.”[1]

This verdict is not of Shias but of Imam Musa Kazim, which is present in their books. Now Shias should contemplate on what is the opinion of their Imam about them, because if we say anything they would complain.

First read the whole narration:

That is, the narrator says that Imam Musa Kazim (s) said to me, “If I select my Shias, I will not find any but talkative ones and if I test them, I will not find them but apostates. If I choose among them not even one in a thousand would reach the desired criterion. And if I eliminate (such characters from them) none shall remain except those who are my selected ones. Their condition is such that they sit reclining on the sofa and say that they are Shias of Ali (a.s). Ali’s Shia is only one whose actions match his speech.”

Some of the wonders of comprehension presented by the Rizwan editor in this are as follows:

(1)  Firstly, anyone looking at this tradition with a cursory glance also would realize that this narration is by way of a ‘good exhortation’. It shows that the sign of a true Shia of Ali (s) is similarity between the claim and deed. If one claims to be a follower of Ali (s) he should follow him in all matters. Otherwise his claim would be bereft of proof. As if a high standard of Shiaism is set in which the excellence of the Shia religion and obedience of Divine commandments are emphasized and not that it denounces the Shias. An advice consists of both encouragement as well as warning and it is the method

[1] Furu al-Kafi, Pg. 107

of every reformer and guide. If we consider the intimidating statements of an advisor to be due to his hatred or weariness towards the listeners it is such an exalted rank of comprehension that only the Rizwan editor could achieve.

(2)  Apart from this, some other warning sentences in the beginning are not unconditional and absolute. Rather they are all conditional. And the same article ‘lau’ (if) is repeatedly used for the condition that is mostly used to denote impossibility. The actual meaning of the tradition would be: “Neither are these Shias talkative nor are they apostates or lower than the desired standard.” Although, the Imam stated in his manner in order to clarify their ideal standard to the people as the Lord of the worlds has said about the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.): “O Messenger (s.a.w.s.)! If you become a polytheist your deeds would be wasted.” The article ‘lau’ (if) is present here also, which means that ‘neither can you become a polytheist nor will your deeds be wasted’ but others should understand from this warning how much they have to refrain from polytheism and what a serious evil, polytheism is. Similarly, Imam (s) fixed a standard of guidance for all the people with his saying to Shias as to what the real meaning of being a Shia is. How much emphasis is laid on the co-ordination of speech and action in this religion. How much particular one has to be in religion so that people like Ibne Hajar Makki, Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi and Maulavi Waheeduz Zaman Khan who began to consider other people better than Ali (s), out of their love and yet call themselves ‘Shias of Ali (s)’ should understand that there is no worth of mere verbal claim here. Heart and actions should support it. As a

result, Imam (s) has made it clear in the last condition that only those people can fulfill these conditions that are the followers of Imam Musa Kazim (s) (“None shall remain except those who are my selected ones). Those who follow others, instead of reaching this standard, are ‘apostates, talkative and impure’. They claim to be lovers of Ali (s) and call themselves Shias of Ali (s) only after hearing traditions about the excellence of Shias.

Lastly, I would like to state that since these traditions are narrated conditionally, it clearly proves that they are by way of exhortation. God forbid! It does not aim at any definite and certain evil. Apart from this, we do not consider those persons, with whom these traditions are associated, as our leaders or Imams that we should be in any way affected by their evil deeds.

On the other hand, whatever is mentioned about the faith of Abu Bakr and Umar by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) or what they themselves confessed is neither conditional nor indefinite. Much more than this, they are preceded by oath-taking emphasis, and thus have to be believed. If the Rizwan editor is unaware of such traditions he may sample a few of them mentioned below:

The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) has said, “Polytheism is hidden in you better than the movement of the ant.” So Abu Bakr said, “Is there Polytheism except that one claims there is a god other than Allah?” The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) repeated, “Polytheism is hidden in you better than the movements of the ant.” Hafiz Abu Ya’la, Imam Ahmad Hanbal and Imam Baghavi have narrated this tradition.

This narration is present in the following books of Ahle Sunnat:

1)  Tafsir of Ibne Kathir printed on the margins of Fathul Bayan[1]

1)  Tafsir Durre Manthur by Allamah Suyuti[2]

2)  Kanzul Ummal[3]

It is described more explicitly (having the mention of Abu Bakr’s name) in Kanzul Ummal:[4]

“O Aba Bakr! Polytheism is hidden in you better than the movements of the ant.”

Hakim Tirmidhi, Ibne Rahuyah, Imam Bukhari in Adab-e-Mufrad and Allamah Damiri in Hayatul Haiwan[5] have narrated this tradition on the authority of Ma’qal bin Yasar. Muhaddith Dehlavi has also narrated it from Ibne Jurair in Izalatul Khifa.[6] As if the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) has given a certificate of polytheism to Abu Bakr.

Not only this, it is mentioned in Durre Manthur[7] and Izalatul Khifa[8] to such an extent that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) swore before saying this. He said, “By the One in Whose control is my life, polytheism is hidden in you better than the movements of the ant.”

[1] Egypt, Vol. 5, Pg. 229

[2] Vol. 4, Pg. 54

[3] Vol. 2, Pg. 97

[4] Vol. 2, Pg. 98

[5] Vol. 2, Pg. 320

[6] Vol. 1, Pg. 199

[7] Vol. 4, Pg. 54

[8] Vol. 2, Pg. 24

This was a saying of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.). Now sample the blessed sayings of the great leader of the editor of Rizwan, Abu Hanifah, regarding the faith of Abu Bakr:

“The faith of Abu Bakr and the faith of Satan is one.”[1]

This was a glimpse of the faith of Abu Bakr. Now turn your attention to Umar. You have already read about his living the whole life in doubts. Now read his declaration of hypocrisy. He used to very often ask Huzaifah Yamani, with whom the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) had confided the names of hypocrites, “Did the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) mention my name among the hypocrites?”[2]

This query of Umar is mentioned in the following books also:

1)  Tafsir of Ibne Kathir[3]

2)  Ihya Al-Uloom by Imam Ghazzali[4]

3)  Tafsirut Taiful Bayan, Translation of Fathul Bayan[5]

Firstly, the question itself makes the faith of Umar doubtful. Then finally he himself swore that he was a hypocrite!

It is quoted in Mizanul Etidal,[6] by Allamah Dhahabi:

Umar said, “O Huzaifah! By Allah, I am from the hypocrites.”

Is any explanation required after this sworn confession? The editor of Rizwan should consider what is the condition of their

[1] Tarikh, Khatib Baghdadi

[2] Maarijun Nubuwwah, Vol. 4, Pg. 292

[3] Vol. 5, Pg. 61

[4] Printed at Nawal Kishor Press, Lucknow, Vol. 1, Pg. 75

[5] Pg. 443

[6] Vol. 1, Pg. 365, Egypt

 caliphs as mentioned by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.), Imam Abu Hanifah and Umar himself.

Because if we say anything, they would complain.[1]

The editor of Rizwan should once more note that the narrations presented by him are conditional and their meaning is exactly opposite to what is understood by him. The narrations presented by me are unconditional and definite. Their meaning is same as I have mentioned.

Secondly, his narrations are about such persons that even if these narrations, God forbid, prove their infidelity we would not be affected at all because it does not have any relation with the principles of religion. On the other hand, narrations presented by us are regarding the founders and stalwarts of their faith. The sand castle of ‘Sunnism’ would be demolished due to declaration of hypocrisy and ‘satanism’ of those caliphs.

Hence if possible, the Rizwan editor should try to save it.

[1] A line of Urdu poetry