LAST SESSION (Sunday, 4th Sha'ban, 1345 A.H.) BIRTHDAY OF IMAM HUSAIN

A large celebration was held to commemorate the birthday of Imam Husain. The author, Seyyed Muhammad Sultanu'l-Wa'izin Shirazi, addressed the gathering. It was his final speech, and as he promised on the previous night, he answered the question about the imamate, the number and names of the Imams in the Holy Qur'an and the hadith. He began his speech with the following ayat: "O You who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is better and very good in the end." (4:59)

GENUINE LIBERTY

Well-Wisher: The idea of liberty, that people should be free, has long been a popular idea. The superficial notion about freedom is that it means doing as one likes, a notion which has resulted in the rejection of divine law. But of course real freedom is submission to Allah, the Creator of all things. 

The Holy Qur'an frequently commands the believers to obey Allah and those fit to be followed from among ourselves. The holy verse which I have recited as the theme of my discourse is one such verse which indicates whom we should obey. It commands us to obey Allah, the Holy Prophet, and those vested with authority. There is no difference of opinion among Muslims concerning the obedience due to the Holy Prophet. However, there is difference of opinion about the meaning of the words "those vested with authority among you."

SUNNIS BELIEF CONCERNING THE MEANING OF

"THOSE VESTED WITH AUTHORITY" 

Our brothers, the Sunnis, believe that in the above verse the words 'those vested with authority' (uli'l-amr) refer to state officials. Accordingly, they consider obedience to kings and governors compulsory even though these officials may be evil. In fact this belief is wrong. Shortage of time does not permit me to make a lengthy argument in support of my point, so I will trouble you with only a short discussion.

THREE WAYS OF APPOINTMENT OF 'ULI'L-AMR'

(THOSE VESTED WITH AUTHORITY)

Obviously rulers obtain their authority in one of these ways: 

1. They are appointed by ijma (consensus)

2. They gain power by force.

3. They are divinely commissioned.

If a leader gains authority by consensus of the community, it is not compulsory to obey him as one obeys Allah or the Prophet. It is not possible for all Muslims to appoint a just ruler since, however wise or conscientious they may be, they can only judge a man by appearance. They cannot read his heart or know the degree of his faith.

LEADERS OF ISRAEL SELECTED BY MOSES

WERE CONSIDERED WORTHLESS

Obviously Muslims cannot claim to possess better understanding than the Prophet Moses. He selected seventy men out of several thousand for their apparent integrity and took them with him to Mount Sinai. But all of them, on examination, proved worthless because their faith was not firm. This fact has been referred to in the Holy Qur'an, verse 154 of sura 7.

If those selected by Moses proved to be unbelievers at heart, it is obvious that common people would be less competent to choose able rulers for themselves. It is quite possible that those selected for their apparent piety may eventually turn out to be unbelievers. Surely obedience to such rulers would weaken religion.

THE WORDS 'ULI'L-AMR' DO NOT REFER TO RULERS

Certainly Allah would not require his servants to obey a sinner as they would obey Him or His Prophet. Moreover, if the appointment of the 'uli'l-amr' were made through a true consensus, an election would have to be held for each new appointment. All citizens of all Muslim nations would have to agree on the choice in every election.

During 1300 years of Islam we find that, after the Holy Prophet, no such consensus ever occurred. At present it is impossible to secure such a consensus because the Muslim world has been split up into numerous countries, each with a ruler of its own.

Moreover, if every country should elect an 'uli'l-amr' for itself, there would be numerous 'uli'l-amr,' each to be obeyed within his own country, and the people of one country would not obey the uli'l-amr' of other countries. Of course then there is the question of allegiance when differences arise - as they often have in the last 1300 years - between two 'authorities.' We then have Muslims killing other Muslims in the name of Islam. 

But true Islam does not require such absurd behavior which would lead to mutual strife among Muslims. It follows, therefore, that the 'uli'l-amr' whom we are commanded to obey has gained his authority by consensus. 

A RULER WHO TAKES POWER BY FORCE

CANNOT BE CALLED ULI'L-AMR'

It is equally absurd to suggest that obedience to a tyrant is compulsory. If it were, why do the Sunni ulema condemn the oppressive rulers and caliphs, like Mu'awiya, Yazid, the wicked Ziyad Ibn Abib, Ubaidullah, Hajjaj, Abu Salma, and Muslim.

If anyone claims that obedience to wicked rulers is compulsory (and some ulema have really said that), it would be quite contrary to the Qur'anic injunctions. Allah has frequently cursed sinners in the Holy Qur'an and has forbidden Muslims to obey them. So how is it possible that in this verse He would order us to obey sinners? Obviously, we cannot attribute two divergent orders to Allah Almighty. Hence, Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi clearly says regarding this holy verse that the 'uli'l-amr' must possess perfect integrity. Otherwise, Allah would not have linked our duty to obey them with our duty to obey Allah Himself and the Holy Prophet.

'ULI'L-AMR' MUST BE ORDAINED

AND APPOINTED BY ALLAH

According to the Shias, the 'uli'l-amr' must be free from sin and infallible. And since no one except Allah can know the deep reality of the heart, the 'uli'l-amr' must be appointed by Allah. Thus Allah, Who ordains the prophets, also ordains the 'uli'l-amr:' An 'uli'l-amr' obviously must have the same attributes the Holy Prophet had.

In this holy verse the word ati'u (obey) has been used twice: He says, "Obey Allah and obey the Apostle." When He speaks of 'uli'l-amr,' He does not use the word 'ati'u' again but uses the conjunction 'and' with 'uli'l-amr.' Linking the words in this way it means that 'uli'l-amr' possess the same merit as the Holy Prophet possesses, except those which are peculiar to the Prophet alone, e.g. 'Wahi' (revelation), prophethood, etc. In short, the qualities of the Holy Prophet should be possessed by the 'uli'l-amr' except of course the rank of prophethood.

Accordingly, Shias believe that the words 'uli'l-amr' refer to the twelve Imams, that is Amiru'l-Mu'minin and his eleven descendants, the progeny of the Holy Prophet. This verse is one of the proofs of the Imamate of the twelve Imams.

Apart from this, there are many other verses supporting our point of view. 

(1) For instance, the Holy Qur'an says: "He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men." Abraham said: And of my offspring? My covenant includes not the unjust, said He." (2:124)

(2) "The Prophet has a greater claim on the believers than they have on themselves and his wives are (as) their mothers; and blood relations have the better claim in respect of one to the other, according to the book of Allah than (other) believers or the emigrants." (33:6)

(3) "O you who believe! Fear Allah and be (always) with the truthful ones." (9:119)

(4) "You are only a warner and (there is) a guide for every people." (13:7)

(5) "And (know) that this is My path, the right one. Therefore follow it, and follow not (other) ways, for they will lead you away from His way. (6:153)

(6) "And of those whom we have created are a people who guide with the truth and thereby they do justice." (7:181)

(7) "And hold fast by the covenant of Allah all together and be not disunited." (3:103)

(8) "So ask the followers of the Reminder if you do not know." (16:43)

(9) "Allah only desires to keep away uncleanness from you, O people of the House! And to purify you with a complete purification." (33:33)

(10) "Surely Allah chose Adam and Noah and the descendants of Abraham and the descendants of Imran above the nations. Offspring, one of the other."(3:33)

(11) "Then We gave the Book for an inheritance to those whom We chose from among Our servants." (35:32) 

(12) "Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche in which is a lamp, the lamp in a glass, (and) the glass is, as it were, a brightly shining star, lit from a blessed olive tree, of neither the east or the West, the oil whereof nearly gives light, though fire touch it not." (24:35)

There are many other verses which could be quoted. Many of your prominent ulema have reported that the Holy Prophet said, "One fourth of the Holy Qur'an is in praise of the Ahle Bait." 

Ibn Abbas is reported to have said, "More than 300 verses were revealed in praise of Ali."

Now, I come to my original point that the 'uli'l-amr' must be infallible because obedience to them is linked with obedience to Allah and the Holy Prophet.

Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir admits that if we do not regard the 'uli'l-amr' as infallible, it would be, in effect, affirming two contradictions as being true. Your own ulema have confirmed that these qualities were possessed exclusively by the twelve Imams. The Holy verse of Purification (33:33) also confirms this fact.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE HOLY IMAMS

GENERALLY REPORTED

Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch.77, p.445 and Hamwaini in Fara'idu's-Simtain report that Ibn Abbas said: "I heard the Holy Prophet saying: ' I and Ali, Hasan, Husain and nine of the descendants of Husain are completely pure and infallible.'"

Salman Farsi says that the Holy Prophet, putting his hand on the shoulder of Husain, said: "He is the Imam and the son of the Imam, and of his descendants there will be nine Imams who will all be virtuous trustees of Allah."

Zaid Ibn Thabit reports that the Holy Prophet said: "Verily, of Husain's descendants will be born Imams who will be virtuous trustees, infallible judges."

Imran Ibn Hasin reports that the Holy Prophet said to Ali: "You are heir to my knowledge. You are the Imam and Caliph after me. You will tell the people what they do not know. You are the father of my grandson and husband of my daughter. Of your descendants there will be infallible Imams."

KNOWLEDGE OF THE AHLE BAIT

Abu Ishaq Hamwaini in Fara'idu's-Simtain, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in Hilyatu'l-Auliya, and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharh-e-Nahju'l-Balagha report from Ibn Abbas that the Holy Prophet said: "My progeny have been created from the same seed from which I have been created. Allah Almighty has bestowed upon them knowledge and wisdom. Woe be to him who rejects them."

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharh-e-Nahju'l-Balagha, and the author of Siratu's-Sahaba, report from Hudhaifa Bin Asaid that the Holy Prophet said: "I leave behind for you two weighty things: the book of Allah and my 'Ahle Bait.' If you attach yourselves to these two you will be rescued." Tabrani reports an addition: "Do not reject their authority; otherwise you shall be ruined. Do not show any disrespect toward them or ignore them, or else you shall be destroyed. Do not try to teach them because verily they know better than you do."

In other reports Hudhaifa Bin Asaid quotes the Holy Prophet as saying: "After me there will be Imams from my progeny. Their number will be equal to the number of Bani Isra'il's heralds, that is, twelve, of whom nine will be Husain's descendants. Allah has bestowed upon all of them my knowledge and wisdom. So do not teach them because surely they know better than you do. Follow them since they are definitely with truth, and truth is with them." 

WHY THE NAMES OF THE IMAMS DO

NOT APPEAR IN THE HOLY QUR'AN

First, this divine book is concise. It contains many general principles but few details, which have been left for the chief commentator, the Holy Prophet, to explain. Allah says: "And whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it; and from whatever he forbids you, keep back." (59:7)

Because the names and numbers of the twelve Imams are not mentioned in the Holy Qur'an, some people do not accept them. But on that basis they should reject their own caliphs since no verse of the Holy Qur'an makes any mention of their caliphs, except Ali Bin Abi Talib, or of the Umayyad or Abbasid caliphs, or of the authority vested in the Community to elect a caliph by consensus.

Second, if it is necessary to reject anything which is not clearly stated in the Holy Qur'an, then you should reject many of the methods of our worship since there is no mention of their details in the Holy Qur'an.

THERE IS NO MENTION OF UNITS (RAK'ATS)

OF PRAYERS IN THE HOLY QUR'AN

The ritual prayer is perhaps the central act of worship in a Muslim's life. The Holy Prophet emphasized its performance. He said: "The ritual prayer is the pillar and protector of religion. If the ritual prayer is accepted, all other religious performances will be accepted. If it is rejected, all other religious performances will also be rejected."

Of course, there is no mention in the Holy Qur'an of the number of units (rak'ats) to be performed for each prayer or any of the other specific details regarding how the prayers are to be performed. Does this mean that we should abandon the prayers? The Holy Qur'an simply says: "Establish salat (prayer). There are no details distinguishing required from optional acts. These were explained by the Holy Prophet. 

In the same way other commands have been stated in the Holy Qur'an in principle only. Their details, conditions and relevant instructions were explained by the Holy Prophet. Similarly, concerning the Imamate and caliphate, the Holy Qur'an says only: "Obey Allah and obey the Prophet and those in authority among you." And we are bound to follow the Holy Prophet's order in this regard in the same way we follow his instructions with regard to the details of the ritual prayers.

Muslim commentators, whether Sunni or Shia, cannot make their own interpretations of the Holy Qur'an. The Holy Prophet said: "If someone gives his own interpretation of the Holy Qur'an, his place is Hell."

Accordingly, every sensible Muslim turns to the real interpreter of the Holy Qur'an, the Holy Prophet. For many years I have studied both Sunni and Shia Qur'anic commentary and hadith but have never come across a single hadith in which the Holy Prophet said that 'uli'l-amr' refers to political rulers. On the other hand, the books of both the Sunnis and Shias contain numerous reports that the Holy Prophet was asked to indicate the meaning of 'uli'l-amr' and he replied that 'uli'l-amr' referred to Ali and his eleven descendants. I will present only a few of these numerous hadith which have been narrated through sources accepted by Sunnis.

ULI'L-AMR REFERS TO ALI AND

THE IMAMS OF THE AHLE BAIT

(1) Abu Ishaq Sheikhu'l-Islam Hamwaini Ibrahim Bin Muhammad writes in his Fara'idu's-Simtain: "The Prophet told us that 'uli'l-amr' refers to Ali Bin Abi Talib and the Ahle Bait of the Holy Prophet." 

(2) 'Isa Bin Yusuf Hamadani reports from Abu'l-Hasan and Salim Bin Qais, who report from Amiru'l-Mu'minin Ali that the Holy Prophet said: "My associates are those whose obedience has been linked by Almighty Allah with His own obedience. It is they to whom He refers when He says 'Those in authority from among you.' It is necessary that you not oppose what they say. You should obey them and follow their orders." Amiru'l-Mu'minin goes on to say, "When I heard this, I said: "O Prophet, let me know who the 'uli'l-amr' are." The Prophet said: "O Ali! You are the first of them."

(3) Muhammad Bin Mu'min Shirazi, one of the most eminent Sunni religious scholars, writes in his Risala-e-I'tiqadat that when the Holy Prophet appointed Amiru'l-Mu'minin his representative in Medina, the verse "uli'l-amr-e-Minkum" (And those in authority from among you) was revealed in reference to Ali Bin Abi Talib.

(4) Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Ch.38, reports from Manaqib that it is stated in Tafsir-e-Mujahid that this verse was revealed in reference to Amiru'l-Mu'minin when the Prophet appointed him as his representative in Medina. The Holy Imam said: "O Holy Prophet of Allah! Have you appointed me Caliph over women and children?" Then the Holy Prophet said: "Are you not content that you have the same relation to me as Aaron had to Moses?"

(5) Sheikhu'l-Islam Hamwaini reports Salim Bin Qais Hilali as saying the following: During Uthman's caliphate, I saw some Muhajirs and Ansars sitting together praising themselves. Ali was silent among them. The people asked Ali to speak. He said: "Do you not know that the Holy Prophet said: 'I and my Ahle Bait were one light, which existed in His creation 14,000 years before the creation of Adam? When He created Adam, He placed that light in his spine when he came down to the earth. Then He placed it in Noah in his ark; then in Abraham's spine while he was in the fire; similarly in the pure spines of fathers and in the pure wombs of mothers, none of whom were born unlawfully." Those in the group who were foremost in the battles of Badr and Hunain said: "Yes, we have heard these words." Then Ali said, "Tell me on oath whether you know that in the Holy Qur'an Allah has given preference to the foremost ones,

and that in Islam no one equals me in merit." They said, "Yes, we acknowledge this."

Then Ali recited from the Holy Qur'an: "And the foremost are the foremost; these are they who are drawn nigh (to Allah)." (56:10-11) He said: "When this verse was revealed, the people asked the Holy Prophet who were the foremost ones, and about whom the verse was revealed. Now tell me on oath if you know that the Holy Prophet told them that Allah Almighty revealed this verse about the prophets and their vicegerents. I am foremost among all the prophets and Ali, my wasi (vicegerent) is foremost among all the vicegerents?"

Then Ali said: "The Holy Qur'an tells us, 'Obey Allah and obey the Prophet and those vested with authority from among you' (4:59) and the verse 'Verily, verily your guardian is (none else but) Allah and His Prophet (Muhammad) and those who believe, those who establish prayer and pay the poor-rate, while bowing down (in prayer).' (5:55) and the verse 'have not taken anyone as an adherent besides Allah and His Apostle and the believers.' (9:16) Allah subsequently ordered His Holy Prophet to identify who was meant by the words 'uli'l-amr' (those vested with authority) in the same way as the ritual prayer, fasting and the Hajj had been clarified. Accordingly, at Ghadir-e-Khum the Holy Prophet appointed me over the people and declared: 'O people when Almighty Allah commissioned me to prophethood I felt apprehension that people would oppose me.'

Then the Holy Prophet continued: 'O people, do you know that Allah Most High is my Master? I enjoy more mastery over the selves of the believers than they have over themselves?' 

When all confirmed that it was so, the Holy Prophet announced: 'Of whomsoever I am the master, Ali is his master; O Allah be a friend of him who is a friend of Ali and be an enemy of him who is an enemy of Ali.'

Then Salman stood up and asked: 'O Holy Prophet what is the significance of Ali's mastery?' The Holy Prophet replied: 'Ali's mastery is like my own mastery. Of whomsoever I am the master Ali is also his master.'

Then the verse was revealed: 'This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion.' (5:3) Thereupon the Holy Prophet said: 'Allah is Great, Who has perfected the religion, completed His favor upon me, and is satisfied with my prophethood and is satisfied with Ali being the vicegerent after me.'"

This hadith confirms those hadith which I related during past nights to show that 'master' connotes complete mastery over more than one's own.

"The people then said: 'O Holy Prophet tell us the names of your vicegerents.' The Holy Prophet said: 'They are Ali, who is my brother, my successor, and my vicegerent and the master of every believer after me; then his son, Hasan, then Husain, then nine successive sons of Husain. The Holy Qur'an is with them and they are with the Holy Qur'an. They will not separate from it, and it will not separate from them until they reach me at the Pool of Kauthar.'"

After recording the full report, he has recorded three other reports from Manaqib narrated by Salim Bin Qais, Isa Bin Sirri, and Ibn Mu'awiya showing that the words 'uli'l-amr' refer to the twelve Imams of the 'Ahle Bait.'

I believe that the above reports are enough to clarify the real meaning of 'uli'l-amr.' As for the number and names of the Holy Imams, I will relate hadith narrated by eminent Sunni scholars, without referring, as has been my practice, to the many reports by Shia scholars.

NAMES OF THE TWELVE IMAMS AND THEIR NUMBER 

(1) Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch.76, reports from Fara'idu's-Simtain of Hamwaini, who reports from Mujahid, who reports from Ibn Abbas, that a Jew named Na'thal came to the Holy Prophet and asked him questions about Tawhid (Unity of Allah). The Holy Prophet answered his questions and the Jew embraced Islam. Then he said: "O Holy Prophet, every prophet had a wasi (vicegerent). Our Prophet, Moses Bin Imran, made a will for Yusha Bin Nun. Please tell me who is your wasi?" The Holy Prophet said: "My vicegerent is Ali Bin Abi Talib; after him are Hasan, and Husain and after them are nine Imams, who are the successive descendants of Husain."

Na'thal asked the Holy Prophet the names of those Imams. The Holy Prophet said: "After Husain, his son, Ali, will be the Imam; after him his son, Muhammad; after him his son, Ja'far; after him his son Musa; after him his son, Ali; after him his son, Muhammad; after him his son, Hasan; after him his son, Muhammad Mahdi will be the last Imam. There will be twelve Imams." 

In addition to the names of the nine Imams, this hadith further states that each would succeed as Imam after his father. Na'thal made further inquiries, and the Holy Prophet described the manner of death of each Imam.

Then Na'thal said, "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that you are His Holy Prophet. I bear witness that these twelve holy Imams are your vicegerents after you. What you have said is exactly what is recorded in our books and in the will of Moses."

Then the Holy Prophet said: "Paradise is for him who loves them and obeys them, and Hell is for him who is hostile to them and opposes them."

Na'thal then recited some couplets to the effect that "May Allah, the Exalted, shower His blessings upon you, chosen Prophet and pride of the Bani Hashim. Allah has guided us by means of you and the twelve holy men whom you have named. Certainly Allah has purified them and preserved them from impurity. He who loves them is successful. He who hates them is the loser. The last of the Imams will quench the thirst of the thirsty. He is the one the people will wait for. Prophet of Allah, your progeny is a blessing for me and for all the believers. Those who turn away from them will soon be thrown into Hell."

(2) The great scholar, Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi, in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch. 76 reports from Manaqib of Khawarizmi, who reports from Wathila Bin Asqa' Bin Qarkhab, who reports Jabir Bin Abdullah Ansari; and also Abu'l-Fazl Shaibani and he from Muhammad Bin Abdullah Bin Ibrahim Shafi'i, who reports Jabir Ansari (one of the chief companions of the Prophet) as saying: "Jundal Bin Junadab Bin Jubair, a Jew, came to the Holy Prophet and asked him about Tawhid. After hearing his reply, the man became a Muslim. He said that on the previous night he had seen Moses in a dream telling him: 'Embrace Islam at the hands of the last of the prophets, Muhammad, and attach yourself to the vicegerents after him.' He thanked Allah for the blessing of Islam. He then asked the Holy Prophet to tell him the names of his vicegerents. The Holy Prophet began by saying: 'My vicegerents are twelve in number.' 

The man said that he had seen this fact in the Torah. He asked the Prophet to tell him their names, and the Prophet said: 'The first of them is the chief of the vicegerents, the father of the Imams, Ali. Then follow his two sons - Hasan and Husain. You shall see these three. When you reach the last stage of your life, Imam Zainu'l-Abidin will be born, and the last thing that you have of this world shall be milk. So cling to them so that ignorance may not mislead you.'

The man said that he had seen in the Torah and in other scriptures the names of Ali, Hasan, and Husain as Elias, Shabbar, and Shabbir. He asked the Holy Prophet to tell him the names of the other Imams. 

Then the Holy Prophet named the remaining nine Imams with their epithets and added: 'The last of them, Muhammad Mahdi, will live, but disappear. He will appear later and will fill the world with justice and equity, since it will have degenerated into injustice and tyranny. Verily, Paradise is for those who show patience during the time of his occultation. Paradise is for those who are firm in their love for him. These are they whom Allah Almighty has praised in the Holy Qur'an and for whom the Holy Qur'an is a 'guide for those who guard (against evil). Those who believe in the unseen.' Also He says 'These are Allah's party: now surely the party of Allah are the successful ones.'" (58:22)

THE NUMBER OF CALIPHS AFTER

THE HOLY PROPHET IS TWELVE 

Mir Seyyed Ali Shafi'i Hamadani in his Mawaddatu'l Qurba, (Mawadda XIII), reports that Umar Bin Qais said: "We were sitting in a group in which Abdullah Bin Mas'ud was also present. Suddenly an Arab came and said: "Who among you is Abdullah? Abdullah said: "I am." He said: "Abdullah! Did the Holy Prophet tell you about the caliphs after him?" 

Abdullah Bin Mas'ud said, "Yes, the Prophet said: 'After me there will be twelve caliphs, corresponding to the number of the Imams of the Bani Isra'il.'"

The same hadith has also been reported from Sha'bi, who reported it from Masruq, who reported it from Abdullah Shiba. 

Also Jurair, Ash'ath, Abdullah Bin Mas'ud, Abdullah Bin Umar, and Jubair Bin Samra all report the Holy Prophet as saying: "There will be twelve caliphs after me. Their number will correspond to the number of the caliphs of the Bani Isra'il." According to Abdu'l-Malik's report, the Holy Prophet added: "And all of them will be from the Bani Hashim."

Most Sunni ulema, including Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Muslim, Sha'bi have reported the same thing. 

Yahya Bin Hasan, a great scholar of jurisprudence, has reported in his Kitab-e-Umda from twenty different sources, that "Verily, there are twelve caliphs after the Holy Prophet, and all of them belong to the Quraish." Bukhari has reported from three sources, Muslim from nine sources, Ali Dawud from three sources, Tirmidhi from one source, and Hamid from three sources that the Holy Prophet said: "The caliphs and Imams after me are twelve, and all of them are from the Quraish." According to some reports, the Holy Prophet said: "All of them are from the Bani Hashim." 

On page 446 Yahya Bin Hasan says: "Some of the scholars have said that hadith in support of the view that the number of the caliphs and Imams after the Holy Prophet is twelve are commonly known. Everyone knows that when the Holy Prophet specified the number of his caliphs to be twelve, he meant that they would belong to his 'Ahle Bait,' To say that he meant the caliphs who were his companions would be incompatible with the facts (since there were only four).

Nor can it be said that he meant the Umayyad kings, of whom there were thirteen. Moreover, they were all tyrants except Umar Bin Abdu'l-Aziz, (although even he usurped the caliphate and forced the Imam of the time to remain confined in his house). Since the Holy Prophet had said: "They are all from the Bani Hashim," the Bani Umayyads are not to be included.

So it is clear that the rightful caliphs of the Holy Prophet were the twelve Imams who were descendants of the Holy Prophet and who excelled all others in knowledge and piety. This fact is confirmed by this consecutively narrated hadith of the Holy Prophet. "I leave behind me two great things, the Holy Book of Allah (the Holy Qur'an) and my 'Ahle Bait.' If you are attached to these two, never, never, shall you go astray after me. Verily, these two shall never be separated from one another until they meet me at the Pool of Kauthar. If you are attached to these two, you will never be misled."

The Holy Prophet said: "Seek knowledge even in China." We have spent ten long nights discussing issues concerning a precious knowledge - the way of Islam. We have seen many differences between the Sunni and Shia sects, and we hope that historical fact and reason have clarified the nature of the differences. If Allah wills, these discussions will convince sincere seekers of knowledge that "Whom Allah guides, no one can lead astray."

TENTH SESSION (Saturday night, 3rd Sha'ban 1345 A.H. ) ASSESSMENT OF UMAR'S KNOWLEDGE OF ISLAMIC LAW

Nawab: This morning my son, Abdu'l-Aziz, who is a student at the Islamiyya College, reported to us that his teacher told the class that Caliph Umar Bin Khattab was the greatest jurist of his time in Medina. He had complete knowledge of the Qur'anic verses and their meanings. He was superior to all other prominent jurists, like Ali Bin Abi Talib, Abdullah Bin Mas'ud, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Akrama, and Zaid Bin Thabit. Even Ali Bin Abi Talib, whose understanding of fiqh (jurisprudence) was extensive, when he was faced with a difficult problem, consulted Umar concerning the rights of Muslims. The caliph always solved the difficult problems of Ali. All of us acknowledged this fact because our ulema say that Caliph Umar held a unique position in learning and knowledge. I ask you to explain this point so that all of us, including my son, may understand the facts.

Well-Wisher: It is strange that the teacher said those things. Even your ulema have never claimed that. If some fanatical people, like Ibn Hazm Zahiri, said that, they were bitterly opposed by your ulema. Moreover, this attribute was not claimed by Caliph Umar himself. None of your ulema has recorded this fact in any of their books.

The traditionists or historians who have written anything of the life of Caliph Umar Bin Khattab have remarked upon his cunning nature, his hard-heartedness, and political contrivances, but they have not dwelt upon his learning.

UMAR'S KNOWLEDGE OF

ISLAMIC LAW WAS WEAK 

In fact, the books of both sects are replete with instances which clearly show that Umar was not well versed in problems of learning and jurisprudence. Whenever he was faced with such issues he used to consult with Amiru'l-Mu'minin Ali, Abdullah Bin Mas'ud, and other jurists of Medina.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid mentions the name of Abdullah Bin Mas'ud in particular, among the jurists of Medina, and says that Umar insisted that Abdullah should always remain with him so that whenever an occasion arose, he could be consulted on matters of jurisprudence.

Sheikh: (In anger) Where is it written that Umar was ignorant of religious problems and the knowledge of jurisprudence? 

Well-Wisher: I did not say that Caliph Umar was completely ignorant. I said that he was not well versed in problems of jurisprudence and learning. I can prove what I say.

Sheikh: How would you prove that Caliph Umar had weak knowledge in matters relating to jurisprudence and religious ordinances?

Well-Wisher: There are many hadith in your authentic books. Apart from this, there is Umar's own admission, which he made on several occasions.

A WOMAN SILENCES UMAR

ON A POINT OF LAW 

Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in his Tafsir-e-Durru'l-Mansur, vol. II, p.133; Ibn Kathir in his Commentary, vol.I, p.468; Jarullah Zamakhshari in his Tafsir-e-Kashshaf, vol.I, p.357; Fazil Nishapuri in his Tafsir-Gharibu'l Qur'an, vol.I, in connection with the sura Nisa (The Women) of the Holy Qur'an; Qartabi in his Tafsir, vol.V, p.99; Ibn Maja' Qazwini in his Sunan, vol.I; Asadi in Hashiyya-e-Sunan, vol.I, p.583; Baihaqi in his Sunan, vol.VII, p.233; Qastalani in his Irshadu's-Sari-Sharh-e-Sahih Bukhari, vol.VIII, p.57; Muttaqi Hindi in his Kanzu'l-'Ummal, vol.VIII, p. 298; Hakim Nishapuri in his Mustadrak, vol.II, p.177; Abu Bakr Baglani in his Tamhid, p.199; Ajluni in his Kashfu'l-Khufa', vol.I, p.270; Qazi Shukani in Futuhu'l-Qadir, vol.I,P.407; Dhahabi in his Takhlis-e-Mustadrak; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh-e-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.I, p.61 and vol.VII, p.96; Hamidi in his Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain; Faqih Wasiti Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i in his Manaqib; Ibn Athir in his Nihaya, and others have authentically narrated with slight difference in wording that one day Caliph Umar during the course of his sermon to the people, said: "If any one marries and fixes a mehr (dowry) for more than 400 dirhams for his wife, I will inflict the prescribed punishment on him and will deposit the excess amount in the Baitu'l-Mal (Public Treasury)."

A woman from the audience called out: "Umar! Is what you say more acceptable or Allah's ordinance? Does not Allah Almighty say: 'And if you wish to have (one) wife in place of another and you have given one of them a heap of gold, then take not from it anything.'" (4:20)

Having heard this verse and the retort of the woman, Umar said: "You have better knowledge of fiqh and problems than Umar, all of you, including even the women observing purdah sitting in their homes."

Then Umar again mounted the pulpit and said: "Although I have forbidden you to give more than 400 dirhams as dowry to your wives, I now permit you to give as much as you like beyond the appointed limit. There is no harm in it."

This hadith shows that Caliph Umar was not well versed in the Qur'an and jurisprudence. Otherwise, he would not have said something so obviously incorrect that he could be silenced by an informed woman.

Sheikh: No, it is not so. The fact is that the Caliph wanted to force people to decrease the amount of dowry in compliance with the sunna. Although Islam allows us to give a large amount, it is better if we refrain from it so that the poor may not have to suffer. It is for this reason that he said that the amount of mehr should not exceed the amount fixed for the wives of the Holy Prophet. 

CONFISCATION OF ANY PORTION

OF MEHR IS UNLAWFUL 

Well-Wisher: This is such a lame excuse that even Umar had no idea of it. Otherwise he would not have admitted his own fault and would not have said: "You are better jurists than Umar, all of you, including the housewives." Otherwise he also would have said what you are saying.

Besides this, everybody knows that an unlawful act cannot be condoned as a means to accomplish a desirable and lawful result. Obviously the property of the woman, which she has owned, according to the Qur'anic injunction, could not lawfully be snatched away from her and deposited in the Baitu'l-Mal!

Apart from all these considerations, it is unlawful to inflict corporal punishment on a person who has not committed a sin. At least I have not seen any such decision made according to any penal code. Let me know if you can cite such an example. If there is no such ordinance in the penal laws, you will have to admit that the claim of the teacher was false.

UMAR DENYING THE PROPHET'S DEATH

PROVES THAT HE WAS IGNORANT OF

SEVERAL VERSES OF THE HOLY QUR'AN

Unfortunately, Umar had developed the habit of losing his temper, and in order to frighten others he said: "I will punish you!" 

Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad; Hamidi in his Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain; Tabari in his Ta'rikh, and other ulema have reported that when the Holy Prophet died, Umar went to Abu Bakr and told him that he feared that it was possible Muhammad had not died. Perhaps he had only pretended to be dead so that he might recognize his friends and foes, or perhaps he had disappeared, like Moses and would come again and punish those, who were disloyal and disobedient to him. 

Umar continued to say: "So if anyone says that the Holy Prophet is dead, I will punish him." When Abu Bakr heard this, he was also uncertain about it, and the people also were confused and differences arose among them. When Ali learned of it, he appeared before the crowd of people and said: "People! Why are you making such a foolish commotion? Have you forgotten the holy verse, in which Allah said to the Holy Prophet: 'Verily you shall die and so also the people of your community'? (39:30) So according to this verse the Holy Prophet has left this world." This argument of Ali convinced the people and they believed that the Holy Prophet had really died. Then Umar said: "It was as if I had never heard this verse."

Ibn Athir in his Kamil and Nihaya; Zamakhshari in Asasu'l-Balagha; Shahrastani in Milal wa'n-Nihal, (Muqaddama IV), and many others of your ulema have written that Umar was shouting: "The Holy Prophet has not died," when Abu Bakr reached him and said: "Does Allah Almighty not say: 'Verily you shall die and so also the people of your community." Also He says: "If then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels?'" (3:144) Umar then became silent and said: "It was as though I had never heard this verse. Now I believe that the Holy Prophet is dead."

UMAR'S ORDER TO STONE FIVE PEOPLE

AND ALI'S INTERVENTION

Hamidi reports in his Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain that during the caliphate of Umar, five people were arrested on the charge of fornication and brought before Umar. It was proved that the five men had committed fornication with a certain woman. Umar at once ordered them to be stoned to death. At that time Ali entered the mosque and having heard what Umar had ordered said to him: "Here your order is contrary to Allah's ordinance." 

Umar said: "Ali! Fornication has been proved. Death by stoning is the prescribed punishment for this sin." 

Ali said: "In the matter of fornication, there are different orders in different cases. Accordingly, in the present cases different orders should be passed."

Umar asked him to detail what the orders of Allah and His Holy Prophet were in those cases, for Umar had heard the Holy Prophet say on a number of occasions: "Ali is the most learned man and the best judge."

Ali ordered the five men to be brought to him. He ordered the first man to be beheaded. He ordered the second man to be stoned to death. He ordered the third man be given 100 lashes. The fourth man was given 50 lashes. The fifth man was given 25 lashes.

Umar, surprised and puzzled, said: "Abu'l-Hasan, how did you decide these cases in five different ways?"

The Holy Imam said: "The first man was an infidel under the protection of Islam. He committed fornication with a Muslim woman. Since he lost the protection of Islam he was liable to be killed. The second man had a wife, so he was stoned to death. The third man was unmarried; hence, he was ordered to be given 100 lashes. The fourth man was a slave who deserves a sentence half that of a free man, that is, 50 lashes. And the fifth man was an imbecile, so he was given a mild punishment, that is, 25 lashes."

Then Umar said: "If Ali had not been there, Umar would have been ruined O Abu'l-Hasan,! I hope I am not alive when you are not among us."

UMAR'S ORDERING A PREGNANT

WOMAN TO BE STONED TO DEATH

AND ALI'S INTERVENTION

Muhammad Bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his Kifayatu't-Talib Fi Manaqib-e-Amiru'l-Mu'minin Ali Bin Abi Talib; Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad; Bukhari in his Sahih; Hamidi in Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain; Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, chapter IV, p.75, from Khawarizmi's Manaqib; Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in Arba'in, p.466; Muhibu'd-din Tabari in Riyazu'n-Nazara, vol.II, p.196; Khatib Khawarizmi in Manaqib, p.48; Muhammad Bin Talha Shafi'i in Matalibu's-Su'ul, p.113; and Imamu'l-Haram in Dhakha'iru'l-Uqba, p.80, quote the following report.

A pregnant woman was brought before Umar Bin Khattab. On being questioned, she admitted that she was guilty of illicit sexual intercourse, and so the Caliph ordered her to be stoned. Then Ali said: "Your order is applicable to this woman, but you have no authority over her child."

Umar acquitted the woman and said: "Women are incapable of giving birth to a man like Ali: If Ali had not been there, Umar would have been ruined." He continued, saying: "May Allah not let me live so long as to face a difficult problem which Ali is not present to solve."

UMAR ORDERING AN INSANE WOMAN

TO BE STONED AND ALI'S INTERVENTION 

Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad; Imamu'l-Haram Ahmad Bin Abdullah Shafi'i in Dhakha'iru'l-Mawadda, chapter II, p.75, from Hasan Basri; Ibn Hajar in Fathu'l-Bari, vol.XII, P.101; Abu Dawud in Sunan, vol. II, p.227; Munadi in Faizu'l-Qadir, vol. IV, p. 257; Hakim Nishapuri in Mustadrak, vol.II, p.59; Qastalani in Irshadu's-Sari, vol.X, p. 9; Baihaqi in Sunan, vol.VIII, p. 164; Muhibu'd-din Tabari in Riyazu'n-Nazara, v.II, p.196; Khatib Khawarizmi in his Munaqab, p.48; Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in Matalibu's-Su'ul; Imamu'l-Haram in Dhakha'iru'l-'Uqba, p.80; Ibn Maja in his Sunan, v.II, p.227; Bukhari in his Sahih, chapter la yarjumu'l-majnun wa'l-majnuna and most of your other ulema have reported the following incident:

One day an insane woman was brought before Caliph Umar Bin Khattab. She had committed fornication and admitted her fault. Umar ordered her to be stoned. Amiru'l-Mu'minin was there. He said to Umar: "What are you doing? I have heard the Holy Prophet saying that three kinds of people are free from the hold of law: a sleeping man until he wakes; a lunatic until he recovers himself and regains consciousness; and the child until he comes of age." Hearing this, Umar acquitted the woman. 

Ibnu's-Saman in his Kitabu'l-Muwafiqa has recorded many such cases. There are some accounts which record about 100 erroneous and fallacious findings of Umar. 

ALI'S KNOWLEDGE AND MERIT 

Nuru'd-din Bin Sabbagh Malaki in his Fusulu'l-Muhimma, chapter 3, p. 17, writing about Ali said: " This chapter contains matter relating to the knowledge of Ali. One of those aspects is the knowledge of fiqh (jurisprudence) on which is based the lawful and unlawful acts of man. Ali understood the intricacies of law. Its complex problems were easy for him, and he fully understood their interpretations. It was for this reason that the Holy Prophet said that Ali was the most worthy man of the community to interpret questions of law."

Imam Abu Muhammad Husain Bin Mas'ud Baghawi in his Masabih reports from Anas that when the Holy Prophet appointed each one of the Companions to a particular position, he appointed Ali to the rank of judge and said: "Ali is the best judge among all of you (companions and community)."

Surely when you compare the words of this ignorant college teacher with the hadith of your own eminent scholars, you will confirm that his assertion is baseless. This teacher is claiming more than his leader did. Umar himself always expressed his inferiority to Ali.

Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, Imamu'l-Haram Ahmad Makki Shafi'i in Dhakha'iru'l-Uqba, Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, chapter 56, and Muhibu'd-din Tabari in his Riyazu'n-Nazara, vol.II, p.195, quote Mu'awiya as saying: "Whenever Umar Bin Khattab faced a difficult problem, he sought the assistance of Ali." Abu'l-Hajjaj Balawi in his Alif-Ba, vol.I, p.222, writes that when Mu'awiya heard the news of Ali's martyrdom, he said: "With the death of Ali, jurisprudence and knowledge have collapsed."

He also quotes Sa'id Bin Musayyab as saying that Mu'awiya said: "Umar always sought shelter from difficulties for which Ali was not there to help him."

Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Ali al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi in his commentary on Risalat-e-Fathu'l-Mubin writes: "The companions of the Holy Prophet consulted Ali in matters relating to ordinances of the Holy Qur'an and accepted his verdicts. Umar Bin Khattab has said on various occasions: "If Ali had not been there, Umar would have been ruined." The Holy Prophet of Allah also said: "The most highly learned man among my community is Ali Bin Abi Talib."

What is recorded in hadith and historical accounts proves that Umar was so devoid of common knowledge and knowledge of jurisprudence that he was mistaken even regarding ordinary problems. Companions who were his contemporaries warned him about this weakness.

Sheikh: You are very unkind to impute such things to Umar. Is it possible for the caliph to be mistaken in religious matters?

Well-Wisher: This unkindness is not from my side. Your own ulema have revealed the truth about it.

Sheikh: If you can, please let us know these things with proper sources so that truth may be clearly revealed. 

Well-Wisher: There are many such instances. About 100 of them are in your books, but I will submit one of them by way of example.

UMAR'S IGNORANCE CONCERNING

TAYAMMUM (SUBSTITUTE FOR ABLUTION) 

Muslim Ibn Hajjaj in his Sahih, chapter Tayammum; Hamidi in Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain, Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in Musnad, vol.IV, p.265,319; Baihaqi in Sunan, vol.I, p.209; Abi Dawud in Sunan , vol.I, p.53; Ibn Maja in Sunan, vol.I, p.200; Imam Nisa'i in his Sunan, vol.I, pp. 59-61, and others of your eminent ulema have in different ways and words, reported that during the caliphate of Umar a man came to him and said: "It is necessary for me to perform ghusl (the bath of ritual purification) but no water is available. What should I do in this circumstance?"

Umar said: "Unless you can obtain water and perform ghusl, you should not offer prayers."

At that time Ammar-e-Yasir, a companion of the Holy Prophet was present. He said: "Umar! Have you forgotten that on one of the journeys you and I happened to be in need of performing ghusl. Since water was not available you did not offer prayers, but I thought the method of tayammum in place of ghusl was that dust should be rubbed on my whole body. So I rubbed dust on my body and offered prayers. When we went to the Holy Prophet, he said, smiling: 'For tayammum this much is sufficient that the palms of both hands be tapped on the ground simultaneously and the palms be rubbed on the forehead; then the back of the right hand be rubbed with the left palm and then the back of the left hand be rubbed with the right palm.' Now why are you telling the man not to offer prayers?"

When Umar could make no reply he said: "Ammar, fear Allah." 

Then Ammar said: "Do you permit me to narrate this hadith?" Umar said: "I leave it to you to do what you like." 

In light of this reliable hadith which your own ulema have narrated, you will surely acknowledge that the teacher's claim was utterly false. Could a man well versed in jurisprudence and who had frequently been in the company of the Holy Prophet and had heard from the Prophet how 'tayammum' should be performed when water was not available tell a Muslim that if he does not find water he should abstain from offering his prayers? This is particularly strange since the Holy Qur'an tells us that in such a case we should perform 'tayammum.' 

The practice of tayammum among the Muslims is so commonly known that even an illiterate Muslim knows that, under certain conditions it takes the place of ritual ablution and the ritual bath. Now what should we say about a companion of the Holy Prophet and caliph? Shouldn't he be knowledgeable about this matter? 

I do not claim in this case that Caliph Umar deliberately changed Allah's ordinances. But this much is certainly possible: he was weak in his ability to retain information and it was difficult for him to remember ordinances. And this was the reason, as your ulema have written, he used to say to an accomplished jurist Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud: "You should always remain with me so that whenever somebody asks me a question, you may answer him."

Now, gentlemen! You should decide what a difference there is between a man whose knowledge is so meager that he is unable to understand simple problems and one who immediately understands difficult problems.

Sheikh: Who else can that man be except the Holy Prophet?

Well-Wisher: Obviously, after the Holy Prophet no one among the Companions had such knowledge except the Holy Prophet's "gate of knowledge", Ali, about whom the Holy Prophet himself said: "Ali is the most learned of all of you." 

NINTH SESSION (Friday night, 2nd Sha'ban 1345 A.H.)

Sheikh: You always fault the actions of the Sunnis but do not care about the ways of the Shias. You unjustly defend them although their actions are depraved. 

Well-Wisher: I am accustomed to defending the truth. Our Imam, Amiru'l-Mu'minin, exhorted his sons, particularly Hasan and Husain, in these words: "Always speak the truth and perform your deeds in light of the hereafter. Be hostile to the oppressor and help the oppressed. "

If I have found fault with the opponents or defended the Shias, I have done so in support of the truth. What I complained of was based on logical reasoning. I will listen to your charges concerning wrongdoing of the Shias.

'SHIAS' ACCUSING A'YESHA OF

ADULTERY' AND ITS REPLY

Sheikh: The worst thing that the Shias are guilty of is that they accuse Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha of adultery. It is an acknowledged fact that she had the honor of sexual intercourse with the Holy Prophet of Allah and that she was his loving wife. They do not realize what this slanderous accusation leads to. Have they not read sura an-Nur (Light) of the Holy Qur'an? Allah says: "Bad women are for bad men and bad men are for bad women. Good women are for good men and good men are for good women." (24:26)

Well-Wisher: First the charge that the Shias accuse Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha of immoral actions and adultery is absolutely false. Never has such a thing been said by Shias. This assertion is a blatant calumny circulated centuries ago by the Nawasib and Khawarij in order to instigate confusion. They attributed to the Shias what they themselves said. Subsequently others, without making inquiries, attacked the Shias as you are now doing. If you would study Shia books, you would not find anywhere that Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha has been accused of adultery.

A'YESHA'S EXONERATION FROM

THE CHARGE OF ADULTERY

If you read the Shia histories and commentaries, you will see how they have defended Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha from the charges of adultery. The fact is that such reports were made by a group of hypocrites during the time of the Holy Prophet. Some of those involved were Mista Bin Uthatha, Hasan Bin Thabit and Abdullah Bin Ubayy. Concerning A'yesha's exoneration from the false charges of the hypocrites, seven verses were revealed in the Holy Qur'an. Shias believe that to make a false charge of adultery or immoral action against any Muslim is unlawful, not to mention a wife of the Holy Prophet, whether she is A'yesha or Hafsa.

A HUSBAND AND WIFE DO NOT NECESSARILY

SHARE THE SAME LEVEL OF ATTAINMENT

Second, the holy verse you have recited does not mean what you have said. It is not necessarily so that if a husband is a virtuous believer and worthy of Paradise that his wife will be the same. There are many instances which prove that spouses may attain different levels of virtue.

Allah says in the Sura Tahrim (The Prohibition): "Allah sets forth an example to those who disbelieve, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot: they were both under two of Our righteous servants, but they were unfaithful to them, so they availed them nothing against Allah, and it was said: 'Enter the fire with those who enter.' And Allah sets forth an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh when she said: 'My Lord! build for me a house with Thee in the Garden and deliver me from Pharaoh and his doing, and deliver me from the unjust people.'" (66:10-11)

Sheikh: It is strange that during this short period there appears to be a clear inconsistency in your statements. 

Well-Wisher: Please tell me what you see as inconsistent. 

Sheikh: At one point you say that accusing anybody of adultery is unlawful but at another you say that Noah's and Lot's wives were unfaithful to their husbands. Are these two sentences not inconsistent with each other? Is it not unbecoming of you to accuse the wives of the prophets of adultery and faithlessness? 

Well-Wisher: I am sure you know you are adopting a deceptive manner. You know very well what "faithlessness" means in the holy verse referred to earlier. 

MEANING OF FAITHLESSNESS OF

NOAH'S AND LOT'S WIVES

It is strange of you that you mistake faithlessness to mean adultery though there is a vast difference between the two. The wives of the prophets were absolutely free from adultery. Here the discussion is about their faithlessness. First, if a wife of a prophet acts against the instructions of her husband, she is certainly faithless. Second, I am not the one who says that they proved faithless. The Qur'an itself states it: "They were unfaithful to their husbands," and unfaithfulness was not adultery. As I have said earlier, the wives of the prophets were free from this kind of unfaithfulness. So the meaning of their unfaithfulness was disobedience.

The Prophet Noah's wife was opposed to her husband and used to insult him in public. She said: "My husband is mad. Since I am associated with him all day and night, I know his true state. Do not be deceived by him." The Prophet Lot's wife used to inform the people of every guest that came to his house. She used to create mischief by disclosing the secrets of the house to his enemies.

FAITHLESSNESS OF WIVES

DOES NOT IMPLY IMPURITY

According to Qur'anic commentators and also according to the statements of the infallible ones, the meaning of the verse of the sura an-Nur (Light) from which you make your point is that impure women deserve impure men and impure men are inclined towards them. Pure women deserve pure men and pure men are inclined towards them. In the same chapter in the preceding verse Allah says: "The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater." (24:3)

In short, the holy verse "impure women are for impure men..." in no way proves your point.

REFERENCE TO A'YESHA'S CONDUCT

The criticism of A'yesha is not due to prejudice. It is because of her wrong conduct. She committed misdeeds which no other wife of the Holy Prophet, including Hafsa, daughter of Umar, did. Moreover, the Shias' criticism is strictly within the bounds of the comments made by your owns ulema, who have reported that this anxious woman committed serious wrongs.

Sheikh: Is it proper for a noble man like you to make such charges against Ummu'l-Mu'minin? 

Well-Wisher: All the wives of the Holy Prophet except Ummu'l-Mu'minin Khadija, are of equal rank. Umme Salma, Suda, A'yesha, Hafsa, Maimuna, and the others in our view all are Ummu'l-Mu'minin. But A'yesha's conduct and her words were certainly different from those of the other women. Again, this is not merely my version, but your own prominent ulema have written that her life was blemished. The good and bad actions of people cannot remain hidden forever. Eventually truth reveals itself.

Sheikh: Assuredly, because she opposed Ali, you find fault with her regarding insignificant matters. 

Well-Wisher: We do not find fault regarding insignificant matters. A'yesha's opposition to Amiru'l-Mu'minin, Imam Hasan, Imam Husain, and the Ahle Bait is a separate issue. But the foundation of the ugly history of her life had been laid during the period of the Holy Prophet himself. She used to vex and torment him. 

Sheikh: It is strange that you consider Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha, the beloved wife of the Holy Prophet, so morally debased that you dare to say that she vexed the Holy Prophet. How can we accept your assertion when Ummu'l-Mu'minin had definitely read the Holy Qur'an and the following verse: " Surely (as for) those who speak evil things of Allah and His Apostle, Allah has cursed them in this world and the hereafter, and he has prepared for them a chastisement bringing disgrace." (33:57) 

So it is possible for her to vex the Holy Prophet so that she could be cursed by Allah? This is definitely one of the slanders of the Shias. 

Well-Wisher: No it is not a lie! Regarding these holy verses, I admit that not only Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha must have read them, but her father Abu Bakr and other eminent companions must have also read them. In the light of those reports and hadith which I have mentioned in previous nights, many truths may be revealed to us provided that we are just.

A'YESHA GRIEVED THE HOLY PROPHET

The fact that A'yesha grieved the Holy Prophet is not only related by Shia ulema, but by your own eminent ulema. Imam Ghazali in his 'Ihya'u'l-Ulum, vol. II, ch. 3, Kitab-e-Adabu'n-Nika, p. 135, has reported many hadith condemning A'yesha's conduct. Among them is her quarreling with the Holy Prophet and Abu Bakr's intervention. This event is also narrated by Mulla Ali Muttaqi in Kanzu'l-Ummal, vol. VII, p. 116; Abu Yala in his Musnad and Abu'sh-Sheikh in his Kitab-e-Amthal. They write that when Abu Bakr went to see his daughter, he found that there was a grievance between A'yesha and the Holy Prophet. The decision was left in Abu Bakr's hands. A'yesha used insulting language in her remarks. In the course of her conversation, she asked the Holy Prophet to be fair in his attitude. This insolent remark made Abu Bakr so indignant that he slapped her so severely in her face that blood flowed down her clothes. 

Also Imam Ghazali in the same Chapter on Marriage and others, too, have narrated that once, when Abu Bakr reached his daughter's house, he found that the Holy Prophet was displeased with A'yesha. He asked them to tell him what was the cause of their grievance so that he might bring about reconciliation. The Holy Prophet asked A'yesha if she should begin telling it. She replied, 'You may begin but you should speak the truth.' In her next sentence she added, 'You are a man who really thinks himself to be a Prophet!' 

These remarks show that A'yesha did not believe that the Holy Prophet was the divinely appointed Prophet. Such degrading remarks are reported in your books in large numbers. They were the cause of great anguish to the Holy Prophet.

NO SUCH REPORTS ABOUT OTHER

WIVES OF THE HOLY PROPHET

You will note that the ulema and historians of both the sects have not recorded such things about the other wives of the Holy Prophet. They have not attributed such things even to Hafsa, daughter of Umar. It was only A'yesha's behavior which led to her indignity. We related only as much as your prominent ulema have said about her. Have you not studied Imam Ghazali's books, the histories by Tabari, Mas'udi and Ibn A'tham Kufi etc. which report that all your eminent ulema have described her as disobedient to the Holy Prophet. Still, you complain because I have criticized Ummu'l-Mu'minin's conduct. Can there be any clearer blot on one's character than transgression against the order of Allah and His Prophet and revolution against the Caliph of the Holy Prophet?

In the sura of al-Ahzab (The Clans), Allah has addressed the wives of the Holy Prophet: "And stay in your houses and display not your finery like the display of the ignorance of yore." (33:33)

Of course the other wives of the Holy Prophet complied with this order and never left their houses without an urgent reason. Even A'mash has reported this fact.

UMMU'L-MU'MININ SUDA DID NOT

GO OUT EVEN FOR HAJJ OR UMRA

It is reported in the Sahih and other books of your traditionists and historians that people asked Suda, wife of the Holy Prophet, why did she not perform the Hajj and the Umra. She replied, "It is compulsory for me to perform one Hajj and Umra and no more. And He says: 'And stay in your houses.' So in obedience to this command, I shall not go out of my house; rather, my intention is that I will not, as far as possible, go out of the room in which the Holy Prophet of Allah had placed me until I die." In fact she did this and it was her dead body which was taken out of the room. 

Suda, A'yesha, and Umme Salma, were wives of the Holy Prophet and were mothers of the believers. Of course they differ from one another because of their conduct. 

According to the community, A'yesha and Hafsa are worthy of respect, not because they were the daughters of Abu Bakr and Umar, though you respect them on that score, but because they were the wives of the Holy Prophet. But the wives of the Holy Prophet deserve honor when they are devout, as it is clearly stated in the Holy Qur'an. "O wives of the Prophet! you are not like any of the other women." (33:32)

EIGHTH SESSION (Thursday night, 1 Sha'ban, 1345 A.H.)

Seyyed Abdu'l-Hayy: Respected sir, last night you contributed to discord among the Muslims. 

Well-Wisher: Tell me how I did that. 

Seyyed: While explaining "ourselves", you divided Muslims into two groups: Muslims and believers. But Muslims are all one and the same. Those who say the words "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger" are all brothers. They should not be separated into two groups because this is harmful to Islam. The Shias call themselves believers, and they call us Muslims. You must have seen in India that Shias are called believers and the Sunnis are called Muslims. The fact is that 'Islam' and 'Iman' (conviction) are identical terms because Islam means acceptance of the commands of religion. This recognition is the reality of 'Iman.' The whole community has agreed that Islam is pure Iman. You have gone against the common view.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAM

(SUBMISSION) AND IMAN (FAITH) 

Well-Wisher: First, your reference to the common people does not mean the people of the community as a whole. It refers to the common people of a group of the Sunnis. Second, your statement about Islam and Iman is not accurate. Not only do the Shias differ with the Sunnis but the Ash'aris, Mu'tazalis, Hanafis, and Shafi'is also have different views about it. Third, I frankly don't understand why learned men like you should resort to such trivial objections. This division into two groups has been made by Allah in the Holy Qur'an. Perhaps you have forgotten the matter relating to Companions of the Right and the Companions of the Left referred to in the Holy Qur'an which says: "The dwellers of the desert say: 'We believe.' Say: 'You do not believe but say, we submit; faith has not yet entered your hearts.'" (49:14)

Certainly you must know that this verse was revealed in condemnation of the desert tribe of the Bani Asad, who were Muslims in name only. During a year of famine, they flocked to Medina and, in order to get relief, claimed to be believers. But at heart they were unbelievers in Allah and the Holy Prophet. This verse verifies that there are two groups of Muslims: sincere Muslims, who have acknowledged the realities of Iman, and those who make mere verbal declarations of faith. In our social sphere the latter group is entitled to the safety and benefits of the laws meant for all Muslims. But, according to the injunction of the Holy Qur'an, they are not entitled to any reward in the hereafter. Their declarations that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His messenger, and their making a display of the fact that they are Muslims, have no real significance. 

Seyyed: You are right, but Islam without Iman (faith or conviction) has no meaning, just as Iman without Islam has no merit. Allah says in the Holy Qur'an: "And do not say to anyone who offers you peace: 'You are not a believer.'" (4:94) 

This verse proves that we must treat one according to one's outward semblance. If anyone says, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah," we should accept his Iman. This in itself is the best proof that Islam and Iman are identical terms.

Well-Wisher: This verse was revealed about a particular person, either Usama Bin Zaid or Muhallam Bin Jasama-e-Laisi, who, it is said, killed a man in battle who had declared "There is no god except Allah." He was killed on the assumption that he had said these words in fear. But because you think it is in the general sense, we also regard all Muslims as being pure. Unless of course, we see them denying the fundamentals of religion. But there is a difference between Islam and Iman because there are various classes of Iman. Imam Ja'far Bin Muhammad As-Sadiq says in the narration of Umar and Zubair: "For Iman there are conditions, ranks, and stages. Some of them are defective and their defect is apparent; some are of better value and are weighty; some of them are complete and have reached perfection." 

Defective Iman is the very first stage of Iman through which a person passes into Islam from infidelity. Higher degrees of Iman are possible. Reference to them has been made in some of the hadith. Among them is a narration in Usul Kafi and in Nahju'l-Balagha from the Commander of the Faithful and Ja'far Bin Muhammad As-Sadiq who said: "Allah has divided Iman into seven classes which consist of goodness, truthfulness, conviction of the heart, submission to the will of Allah, loyalty, knowledge, and forbearance. These seven qualities have been unequally distributed among human beings. One who completely possesses all these qualities is a perfect believer. Hence, Islam is in the first category of Iman, in which there is only verbal declaration of belief in the prophethood of Muhammad and the unity of Allah. Iman has not entered such person's heart. The Prophet of Allah told a group of his people: 'O people! You are among those who have accepted Islam with your tongue, but not yet with your heart.'" 

Obviously Islam and Iman are different. But we are not required to probe the hearts of others. I said last night that the sign of a believer is his deeds. But we have no right to make inquiries about the actions of Muslims. We are compelled, however, to indicate the characteristics of Iman, so that those who are immersed in sleep may be inspired to perform their duties. Thus they will be aware of the reality of Iman and will know that salvation in the hereafter will come only through performing good deeds, as the hadith says: "Iman means acceptance with the tongue, conviction in the heart, and performance with our limbs." Acceptance with the tongue and conviction in the heart are the preface to action. 

Of course we know that this nasty world is only a preface to the next world. The way of salvation for such a man is closed in the hereafter unless he becomes a man of good deeds here. Allah Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: "I swear by the declining time, surely man is in loss, Except those who believe and do good...." (103:1-3) 

In short, according to the Holy Qur'an, piety is the root of Iman. And if one has no good deeds to his credit, his verbal acknowledgement or conviction at heart will still leave him far from Iman. If it is true that we should consider anyone a Muslim who says, "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah," why do you regard the Shias as infidels? Certainly Shias believe in the unity of Allah, the prophethood of Muhammad, one Qibla, one Book. They perform all obligatory acts, observe prescribed fasts, go on the pilgrimage, pay khums and zakat (religious taxes), believe in bodily resurrection, and the Day of Reckoning. 

Isn't it you who cause disunity among Muslims? You keep millions of Muslims separated from you and call them infidels although you have not the smallest evidence to support such charges. You do not recognize that these are the devices of enemies who want to create discord among Muslims by means of such lies. The fact is that we have no differences in the fundamentals of our belief except the Imamate and vicegerency. And what if there were differences in the practices of the faith? Such differences exist among your own four schools of law, and they are more serious than those between us. (It would not be proper now to point out the differences between Hanafis and Malikis or between Shafi'is and Hanbalis.) In my opinion you have not the slightest evidence to establish the polytheism or infidelity of Shias. The only unpardonable fault of the Shias, according to what the Kharijis and Nasibis have propagated by means of the Umayyads, is that the Shias do not misinterpret the traditions. They do not give people like Abu Huraira, Anas, and Samura a place between the Holy Prophet and ourselves. Even your own jurists and your own great Caliphs condemned them as liars. 

The greatest fault ascribed to the Shias is that they follow the progeny of the Prophet, Ali and the twelve Imams, and not the four Imams. But you have no evidence from the Prophet to show that Muslims must follow the Ash'aris or Mu'tazalis in the fundamentals and Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali or Shafi'is in the articles of practice. On the other hand, there are innumerable instructions from the Prophet telling us that the progeny and Ahle Bait of the Prophet are the equals of the Holy Qur'an, and that the community should attach themselves to them. Among these hadith are the hadith Thaqalain, hadith-e-Safina, hadith-e-Bab-e-Hitta. Can you quote a single hadith in which the Holy Prophet said that his people after him should follow Abu'l-Hasan Ash'ari and Wasil Bin Ata, etc. in the fundamentals and one of the four individuals - Malik Bin Anas, Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Abu Hanifa, or Muhammad Bin Idris Shafi'i? Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, chapter IV, reports from Fara'id Hamwaini quoting from Ibn Abbas that the Holy Prophet said to the Commander of the Faithful: "O Ali! I am the city of knowledge and you are its gate. No one can enter the city without having first entered the gate. He is a liar who claims to love me while he is your enemy because you are from me, and I am from you. Your flesh is my flesh, your blood is my blood, your soul is my soul, your appearance is my appearance. Blessed is the man who obeys you, woe be to one who disobeys you. Your friend is fortunate, and your enemy is in loss. One who is with you is successful, and one who is aloof from you is lost. After me, you and all the Imams in your progeny are like the ark of Noah: whoever boards it will be saved, and whoever refuses to board it will be drowned. Their (the Imams') likeness is like that of the stars: when a star sets, another rises. This order will continue until the day of judgement." 

It has been clearly narrated in the hadith-e-Thaqalain (acknowledged by both the sects) that "If you are attached to the Ahle Bait, never, never shall you be misled." Even the fanatical Ibn Hajar Makki records his findings in his Sawa'iq Muhriqa, chapter 2 Sub-chapter, 1, page 92, in connection with the verse of the Holy Qur'an: "And stop them, for they shall be questioned." (37:24)

And Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi has also quoted from Sawa'iq in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, chapter 95, page 296, (printed in Istanbul) saying that this hadith has been narrated in different ways. Ibn Hajar says: "Verily, the hadith of Attachment to Two Great Things (Thaqalain) has been narrated in different ways. It has been narrated by more than 25 companions of the Holy Prophet." 

Ibn Hajar says regarding the above Qur'anic verse that on the Day of Judgement, the people will be questioned about the Wilaya of Ali and the descendants of the Prophet. 

He writes that according to some sources, this hadith was narrated on the occasion of 'Arafa, and some say it was narrated when the Prophet was on his death bed with his apartment full of his Companions. Others say that it was included in his last address after his final Hajj. Ibn Hajar gives his opinion regarding the different occasions of this hadith: "There is no inconsistency in the possibility that the Prophet, in his desire to show the glory of Qur'an and his holy descendants, repeated this hadith on these and other different occasions. It is reliably reported that the Prophet said: 'I leave among you two great things: if you follow them, you will never be misled. And these two are the Book of Allah (Qur'an) and my Ahle Bait.'"

Tabrani has reported this hadith with this addition: "I question you about these two: the Holy Qur'an and the Ahle Bait, so do not try to outstrip them. Otherwise, you will be destroyed. Do not disregard them, otherwise you will be ruined. Do not try to teach them, for they know better than you." 

Even the fanatical Ibn Hajar, after quoting from Tabrani and others, writes: "The Prophet called the Qur'an and his progeny, 'two great things' because these two are so weighty and dignified in every aspect." The Prophet also said: "I praise Allah who has filled the hearts of my Ahle Bait with wisdom." And the Prophet also said in a hadith referred to earlier: "....and never try to teach them (my progeny) anything since they are the most learned of you all. Consider them superior to all your ulema because Allah has created them pure and has introduced them to the Community with supernatural powers and innumerable other merits." 

There is one point in the hadith which stresses attachment to the Ahle Bait: namely, that the successive generations of the Ahle Bait, will not be severed until the Day of Judgement. It is astonishing that some people admit that the members of the Ahle Bait possess great learning but violate the Prophet's orders and take as their religious leaders those who had no right of preference. Can you or we change the Holy Qur'an? Can we select any other book? 

Seyyed: No, never. This is the Prophet's trust, a divine message, and the greatest source of guidance. 

Well-Wisher: May God Bless you! You have spoken the truth. When we cannot change the Holy Qur'an and replace it with another book, the same principle must be followed regarding those who are the equals of the Holy Qur'an. So, according to which principle were those people who did not belong to the Prophet's progeny allowed to supersede his progeny? I want a simple answer to this question so that we may know whether the three Caliphs - Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman - belonged to the Ahle Bait of the Prophet, and were included in the hadith we've mentioned (Thaqalain, Safina, Bab-e-Hitta). If they are included, then we must follow them, according to the orders of the Prophet. 

Seyyed: No one believes that any of the Caliphs except Ali was included in the Ahle Bait of the Prophet. Of course, the three Caliphs mentioned were good companions of the Prophet. 

Well-Wisher: Did the Prophet tell us to follow a particular individual or group? If one faction says that it is expedient to follow other people, should we obey the Prophet or follow expediency as determined by the community? 

Seyyed: It is obvious that obedience to the Prophet is obligatory. 

Well-Wisher: After the Prophet has instructed us to follow the Holy Qur'an and his progeny, why have others been preferred? Did Abu'l-Hasan Ali Bin Isma'il Ash'ari, Wasil Bin Ata, Malik Bin Anas, Abu Hanifa, Muhammad Bin Idris Shafi'i, and Ahmad Bin Hanbal belong to the progeny of the Prophet or the Commander of the Faithful, Ali and his eleven descendants? 

Seyyed: Obviously, no one ever said that these people belonged to the Prophet's progeny, but they were notable jurists and pious men of the community.

Well-Wisher: But according to the consensus of the community, the twelve Imams are the direct descendants of the Prophet. Your own ulema agree that they are the equals of the Holy Qur'an, and that obedience to them leads to salvation. Moreover, the Prophet said that they are the most learned of men. 

In light of these emphatic injunctions, what reply will they give when the Prophet asks them why they violated his dictates and let others supersede his progeny? Is there any injunction from the Prophet that the Asharis or Mu'tazalis should follow their leaders or that the Malikis, Hanbalis, Hanafis, and Shafi'is should follow their leaders in the practice of the faith? Nobody so much as mentioned their names for 300 years after the death of the Prophet. 

Only later, for political or other reasons which I am not aware of, they appeared on the stage. But the Imams and the descendants of the Holy Prophet were well known during the Prophet's own time. Ali, Hasan, Husain and Fatima were known as Ahle Kisa, that is "the people of the mantle." They were the ones in whose praise "the verse of purity" was revealed. Is it proper to call those who follow Ali, Hasan, Husain, and other Imams infidels? You have preferred those who did not belong to the progeny of the Prophet, to those who were ideal jurists. What answer will you give in the divine court of justice when you will be asked as to why you misguided the poor people, why you called the followers of the Ahle Bait infidels and innovators? 

You fault us because we are not the followers of the creeds of Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis, or Shafi'is. And yet you don't follow Ali, despite the clear and vivid injunctions from Allah and the Holy Prophet that you should do so. Without good reason, you follow one of the four schools of law and have closed the doors of jurisprudence. 

Seyyed: We rely on the four Imams in the same way as you rely on the twelve Imams. 

Well-Wisher: Well done! What a good thing you have said! 

The number of the twelve Imams was not specified by the Shias or their ulema many centuries after the death of the Prophet. Many hadith, narrated from both Sunni and Shia sources, prove that the Prophet himself specified the number of the Imams as twelve. 

Among your many ulema who have recorded this fact is Sheikh Sulayman Qanduzi Hanafi, who writes in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, chapter 77, concerning the statement: "There will be twelve successors after me." 

Yahya Bin Hasan in his Kitabu'l-Umma has narrated in twenty ways that the Holy Prophet said that his successors would be twelve in number, and all of them would be from the Quraish. It has been narrated in three ways in Sahih. Bukhari, in nine ways in Sahih Muslim, in three ways in the Sunan of Abi Dawud, in one way in the Sunan of Tirmidhi, and in three ways in Hamidis Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain. 

There are many of your ulema, such as Hamwaini in Fara'id, Khawarizmi and Ibn Maghazili, each in his Manaqib, Imam Tha'labi in Tafsir and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, and Seyyed Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda 10. All have recorded 12 hadith narrated by Abdullah bin Abbas, Ubaya bin Rabi'i Zaid bin Haritha, Abu Huraira and the Commander of the Faithful, Ali. All of these narrate in different, but similar, words that the Prophet said that the number of his successors and Imams would be twelve, and that all of them would be from the Quraish. Some hadith say that they would be from the Bani Hashim. In some traditions, the specific names of the twelve successors have also been given. Some give only the number. I have cited only one example out of the many hadith of your ulema. Now can you cite a single hadith indicating that the number of his successors would be four? Even if there were one such hadith, we would accept it in preference to our own. 

Regardless of the fact that you cannot quote a single hadith about your four Imams, there is a great difference between the Shia Imams and your Imams. Our twelve Imams are the divinely appointed successors. 

Regarding your Imams, only this much can be conceded: they possessed the knowledge of fiqh (jurisprudence) and could interpret the Holy Qur'an and the hadith. Some of them, like Abu Hanifa, according to the admission of your own ulema, were not included among narrators of hadith, jurists, or mujtahids, but were people who relied on their own opinion. This in itself is evidence of their lack of knowledge. On the other hand, the Shia Imams are divinely appointed guides, ordained successors of the Holy Prophet. Of course in every age there are some highly learned jurists and scholars among the Shias who interpret the commands of Allah, keeping in view the Holy Qur'an, the hadith, and the consensus of opinion. We follow the verdicts of such ulema. Although your jurists were pupils of, and derived most of their knowledge from, the Shia Imams, you blindly follow your elders, those of their students who deviated from the bases of knowledge and relied on speculation. 

Seyyed: How can you claim that our Imams derived benefits from your Imams?

Well-Wisher: It is an historical fact that Imam Ja'far Sadiq excelled all others in knowledge. The eminent Alim, Nuru'd-Din bin Sabbagh Maliki acknowledges in his Fusulu'l-Muhimma that the holy Imam was conspicuousLy known for his learning. He writes: "People derived knowledge from him in different spheres. People came from distant lands to receive instruction. He became well known in all the lands and the ulema narrated more hadith from him than from any other member of the Ahle Bait...." A large group of the distinguished people of the community, like Yahya Bin Sa'id Ibn Jarih, Malik Bin Anas, Sufyan Thawri, Abu Ainiyya, Abu Ayyub Sijistani, Abu Hanifa, and Saba - all have quoted his narrations. 

Kamalu'd-Din Abi Talha also writes in his Manaqib that prominent ulema and religious leaders have quoted hadith from the holy Imam and have gained knowledge from him. Among them he mentions the names of those mentioned in Fusulu'l-Muhimma. Even enemies acknowledged the merits of the holy Imam. For instance, Maliki in his Fusulu'l- Muhimma and particularly Sheikh Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Salmi in his Tabaqatu'l-Masha'ikh write: "Verily, Imam Ja'far Sadiq excelled all his contemporaries. He had instinctive knowledge and expertise in religion, complete piety in the world, abstinence from all worldly desires, and deep wisdom."

And Muhammad Bin Talha Shafi'i has recorded all these merits of the holy Imam in his Matalibu's-Su'ul, chapter VI, page 81: "This learned man was of the distinguished leaders of the Ahle Bait. He was endowed with deep knowledge and was always in a state of remembrance of Allah. He often recited the Qur'an and gave its interpretation. His companions gathered pearls from the sea of his knowledge. He divided his time in the day and night in different forms of devotion. A visit to him served as a reminder of the hereafter. To listen to his speech led one to adopt piety, and to follow his instructions led to the attainment of paradise. His luminous face signified that he belonged to the family of the Holy Prophet. The purity of his actions also showed that he was of the progeny of the holy Prophet. Many of the ulema have received hadith and gained knowledge from him. Among them were Yahya Bin Sa'id Ansari, Ibn Jarih, Malik Bin Anas, Sufyan Thawri, Ibn Ainiyya, Sha'ba and Ayyub Sijistani. All were grateful for their good fortune and privilege in learning from him."

ASSOCIATION OF SHIA'ISM WITH

IMAM JA'FAR SADIQ

Nawab: Shias believe in the twelve Imams. Why is Shia'ism associated with the name of Imam Ja'far Sadiq and called the Ja'farite sect?

Well-Wisher: Every prophet, in accordance with the divine command, appoints his successor. Muhammad declared Ali to be his successor and ordered the community to obey him. But after the death of the Prophet, the caliphate was seized by Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. During their caliphate, except during the earlier days, Abu Bakr and Umar consulted Ali on all matters and acted upon his counsel. Moreover, the great ulema and eminent scholars of other religions who came to Medina in search of religious knowledge were completely satisfied with their discussions with Ali. Throughout his life, Ali continued to serve Islam in many ways. After his martyrdom, when the Bani Umayya became rulers, the imamate was cruelly suppressed. Imam Hasan Mujtaba, Imam Husain, Imam Zainu'l-Abidin, and Imam Muhammad Baqir were victims of the extreme cruelty of the Umayyads. All roads of approach to them were closed and except for a few of their followers, others could not benefit from their knowledge. Every one of them was murdered. 

In the beginning of the second century after the hijra, however, under the heavy pressure of the atrocities of the Umayyads, the people rose up against them. Bloody fighting ensued between the Bani Abbas and Bani Umayya. While the Bani Umayya were busy defending their own ruler, they could not continue their oppression of the Ahle Bait. Accordingly, Imam Ja'far Sadiq emerged from the seclusion imposed by the Umayyads. He instructed people concerning religious laws. Four thousand lovers of knowledge gathered around his pulpit and quenched their thirst from the holy Imam's limitless ocean of knowledge. Some of his chief companions have recorded four hundred doctrines which are known as Usul-e-Arba'mi'atin - meaning "The 400 Verdicts."

Yafi'iy Yamani wrote that Imam Ja'far excelled all others in his knowledge. Jabir Ibn Hayyan Sufi, wrote a thousand-page compilation, listing nearly 500 booklets based on the teachings of Imam Ja'far. 

Some of the great Sunni jurists were also his students. Abu Hanifa, Malik Bin Anas, Yahya Bin Sa'id Ansari, Ibn Jarih, Muhammad Bin Ishaq, Yahya Bin Satid Qattan, Sufyan Bin 'Uyayna, Sufyan Thawri - all benefitted from his immense learning. This great flowering of learning occurred at this time because the Bani Umayya obstructed the way of his ancestors, and unfortunately the Bani Abbas would restrain his descendants from speaking freely. The reality of Shia'ism was unveiled and the merits of the Ahle Muhammad were proclaimed by Ja'far Sadiq. Accordingly, this sect became known as "Ja'fari," but there is no difference between Imam Sadiq and any of the four Imams among his ancestors and the four Imams who preceded him or the six who came after him. All were divinely commissioned spiritual guides. 

Although both friends and enemies recognized his excellence in knowledge and perfection in all merits, your predecessors refused to treat him as the most learned theologian and perfect man of his age. They refused to recognize his school of law along with the other four schools, even though he held the most exalted rank in learning and devotion, as admitted by your own ulema. Since he belonged to the Ahle Bait of the Holy Prophet, he had a right to receive preference over others. In spite of these factors, your fanatical ulema have shown such callous disregard for the progeny of their Prophet that your high-ranking theologians, like Bukhari and Muslim, would not even record hadith from this faqih (jurist) or the Ahle Bait. Moreover, they did not quote hadith from any of the Imams or Sa'dat of the holy progeny: Alawi, Husaini, Abidi, Musawi, Rizawi or from such ulema and jurists, like Zaid Bin Ali Bin Husain, the Martyr, Yahya Bin Zaid, Muhammad Bin Abdullah, Husain Bin Ali, Yahya Bin Abdullah Bin Hasan and his brother Idris, Muhammad Bin Ja'far Sadiq, Muhammad Bin Ibrahim, Muhammad Bin Zaid, Abdullah Bin Hasan, Ali Bin Ja'far (Arizi), and others, all of whom were outstanding ulema and jurists and who belonged to the family of the Prophet. 

On the other hand, they have quoted hadith from people Like Abu Huraira, whose character is known to you all, and from the great liar and forger, Akrama, the Kharijite. Your own ulema have confirmed that these men were liars and yet, they accept their hadith with all their hearts. Ibn Bayyit writes that Bukhari has quoted as many as 1,200 hadith from the Kharijis and Nasibis, like Imam Bin Hattan, the admirer of Ibn Muljim, the murderer of the Commander of the Faithful. The followers of Imam-e-Azam (Abu Hanifa), Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i and Imam Hanbal consider them pure Muslims though none of them belonged to the Ahle Bait of the Prophet, and every one of those sects is free to adopt his own

ways though there are great differences in fundamentals as well as practices among them. How regrettable it is that they call the followers of Ja'far Bin Muhammad As-Sadiq infidels! And in all places dominated by Sunnis, including Mecca, about which Allah says, "Whoever enters it is free," they are not free to express their faith or to perform their prayers. So you good people should know that we Shias are not the cause of differences in Islam; we have not brought about disunity among Muslims. As a matter of fact, much of the disruption appears from your side. It is you who call 100 million Muslims infidels, although they are faithful believers along with you. 

Hafiz: It is true, as you said, that I am not an unjust man. I admit that there have been outrages due to fanaticism. I would like to say without any pretension or flattery, that I have benefitted greatly from your talk and have learned a great deal. But with your permission, let me say one thing, which is a complaint, as well as a defense of the worthy Sunni Sect. Can you tell me why Shia preachers and ulema like you do not check your common people from making statements which lead to unbelief? The result is that others get a chance to use the word unbelief against them. A man may become the target of attacks because he has made an improper assertion. So you people should also not make the Sunnis the target of your attacks. The Shias utter things which affect the hearts of the Sunnis, who in turn ascribe unbelief to the Shia. 

Well-Wisher: May I know which statements or actions lead to unbelief? 

Hafiz: The Shias find fault with the chief companions and some of the pure wives of the Prophet; this is obviously an act of unbelief. Since the companions fought for years with the Prophet against the infidels, it is obvious that their services were free from all moral imperfection. They certainly deserve Paradise, particularly those who gained divine blessings. According to the Holy Qur'an: "Certainly Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance to you under the tree." (48:18)

There is no doubt that the Holy Prophet respected them. One who denies their excellence is certainly misled. The Qur'an says: "Nor does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed." (53:3-4) Such a person denies the Holy Prophet and the Holy Qur'an, and one who denies them is undoubtedly an infidel. 

Well-Wisher: I hoped that such topics would not be raised in this public meeting. My reply might reach the uninformed people, and they might spread adverse propaganda. It would be better if we discussed these matters privately. I will call on you some day, and we will solve this problem in private. 

Hafiz: I am sorry, but many of our people for the past several nights have insisted that this topic be discussed. Your discussion is always reasonable. If you make a convincing reply, there will be no unpleasant repercussions. Otherwise, you concede the point to us. 

Nawab: It is right. We all want the issue to be resolved here and now. 

Well-Wisher: I only comply with your wish. I did not expect that an able man like you, after the complete explanations that I have given during previous nights on the question of infidelity would attribute infidelity to the Shia sect. I have already submitted complete proof that the Shia Ithna Asharis are the followers of Muhammad and his holy descendants. You have raised several issues. I will reply to each of them separately. 

CRITICIZING THE COMPANIONS

DOES NOT MEAN INFIDELITY 

First, you said that Shia criticism of the Companions (sahaba) and some of the wives of the Prophet leads to infidelity. I don't understand the basis of this statement. If criticism is supported by evidence, it may be allowed. And even if one makes a false charge, this doesn't make him an infidel. He would be called a sinner, like one who drinks wine or commits fornication. And certainly every sin against divine law is pardonable. 

Ibn Hazm Zahiri Andalusi (born 456 A.H.) says in his book Al-Fasl fi'l-milal wa'n-Nihal Part III, page 227: "If one abuses the companions of the Prophet ignorantly, he is not to blame. If he does it with knowledge, he is a sinner like other sinners who commit fornication, theft, etc. Of course if he curses them intentionally since they are the companions of the Prophet, he is an infidel because such behavior' amounts to enmity against Allah and His Prophet. Otherwise, simply abusing the companions does not amount to infidelity."

Accordingly, Caliph Umar asked the Prophet to permit him to behead Hatib, the hypocrite, although he was one of the great companions, a muhajir (emigre), and one who took part in the Battle of Badr. For his abusing and attributing hypocrisy to him, Umar was not called an infidel. So how is it possible that the Shias should be called infidels for abusing some of the companions, supposing for the moment that what you say is correct. Moreover, the great ulema of your sect have rejected your point. Among them is Qazi Abdu'r-Rahman Shafi'i, who in his Muwafiq has rejected the reasoning of your fanatic ulema about the infidelity of the Shias. And Muhammad Ghazali writes that cursing and abusing the companions is never an infidelity; even cursing the two sheikhs does not constitute infidelity.

Mulla Sa'd Taftazani writes in Sharhe Aqa'id-e-Nas'i that "Some intolerant people say that those who curse the Sahaba are infidels. It is difficult to accept that view. Their infidelity is not proved because some of the ulema favored them, overlooked their evil deeds, and made foolish pleas in their support. They said that the companions of the Prophet were free from all sin, although this assertion was contrary to facts. Sometimes they fought among themselves. Jealously and love for power often moved them to commit evil actions. Even some of the prominent sahaba were not free from sinful actions. So if, on the basis of some evidence, one criticizes them, he should not be condemned for it. Some people, because they favored the sahaba, covered up their evil actions. But some did record their evil actions and censured them." 

Apart from this, Ibn Athir Jazari, the author of Jam'u'l-Usul, has included the Shias in Islamic sects, so how can you call them infidels? During the period of the first caliphs, some people cursed the sahaba for their evil deeds. Nevertheless, the caliphs did not order them to be put to death for their infidelity. Accordingly, Hakim Nishapuri in his Mustadrak, Part IV, pages 335, 354, Imam Ahmad Hanbal in his Musnad Part 1, Page 9, Dhahabi in his Talkhise Mustadrak, Qazi Ayaz in his Kitab -e-Shifa, Part IV, chapter 1 and Imam Ghazali in his Ihya'u'l-Ulum, Volume II, report that during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, a man came to him and uttered such filthy language and curses against him that those present there were moved to indignation. Abu Barza Salmi asked the Caliph if he would permit him to kill the man because he had become an infidel. Abu Bakr said that it could not be since no one except the Prophet could pass such a judgement. 

CALIPHS THEMSELVES DID NOT REGARD

CURSING THEM AS INFIDELITY

In fact, the Sunni gentlemen surpass even those whom they support. The Caliphs themselves heard abuses and charged people with infidelity or ordered them to be killed. Moreover, if cursing the sahaba is a cause of infidelity, why don't you call Mu'awiya and his followers infidels. They cursed and abused the most perfect of the sahaba, Ali Bin Abu Talib. Being selective in this matter only shows that your aim is something else. You wish to fight against the Ahle Bait and their followers! If cursing the sahaba is infidelity, why don't you charge Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha with infidelity? All your historians have said that she frequently abused Caliph Uthman and openly declared: "Kill this old idiot, for truly he has become an infidel." If, however, a Shia says that it was good that Uthman was murdered because he was an infidel, you will instantly rise up against him. But when A'yesha told Uthman to his face that he was na'thal and an infidel, neither the Caliph forbade her to do so nor did the sahaba reproach her. Nor do you find fault with her. 

Nawab: Respected sir, what do you mean by the term na'thal? 

Well-Wisher: Firuzabadi, who is one of your high-ranking ulema, gives its meaning in his Qamusu'l-Lughat as "an old idiot." Also there was a Jew with a long beard in Medina with this name, with whom Uthman was compared. The commentator on Qamus, Allama Qazwini, also giving the same meaning, says that Ibn Hajar in his Tabsiratu'l-Muntaha, writes, "Na'thal, the Jew with a long beard, lived in Medina; he resembled Uthman very much." 

CALIPH ABU BAKR ABUSED ALI 

Finally, if one who abuses the sahaba is an infidel, why did Caliph Abu Bakr, in the presence of sahaba and a gathering of Muslims, abuse the most exalted sahabi, Ali Bin Abi Talib? You praise the merits of Abu Bakr although you should condemn him. 

Hafiz: Why do you falsely accuse him of this charge? When did Caliph Abu Bakr abuse Caliph Ali? 

Well-Wisher: Excuse me! We do not report anything until we have made complete inquiries. Perhaps you should consult Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume IV, page 80, where it is recorded that Abu Bakr, taunting Ali from the pulpit of the mosque, said: "He (Ali) is a fox, the evidence of which is its tail. He creates disturbances, minimizes the importance of big disturbances, and incites people to make an uproar. He seeks help from the weak and accepts assistance from women. He is like Ummi't-Tahal (an adulteress in the days of ignorance, as explained by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid) with whom the men of his family were fond of committing adultery." 

Now you may compare Abu Bakr's abuse of Ali with the criticism made by Shias against the sahaba. If abusing any of the sahaba amounts to infidelity, then Abu Bakr, his daughter, A'yesha, Mu'awiya and his followers should be labelled infidels. If it does not constitute infidelity, then you cannot call the Shias infidels on that score. 

CALIPH UMAR HELD THAT CURSING A

MUSLIM IS NOT INFIDELITY

Moreover, according to the verdicts of your own great jurists and Caliphs, those who curse the Caliphs are not infidels. Imam Ahmad Hanbal in his Musnad, Volume III, Ibn Sa'd Katib in his Kitab-e-Tabaqat, Qazi Ayaz in his Shifa, part IV of chapter 1, report that the governor of Caliph Umar, Ibn Abdu'l-Aziz, wrote from Kufa that a man had reviled and abused Umar Ibn Khattab, the second Caliph. The governor sought permission to execute the man. Umar Ibn Khattab replied that it was not permissible to take the life of a Muslim for abusing or cursing any Muslim excepting one who abuses the Prophet. 

ACCORDING TO ABU'L-HASAN ASH'ARI

EVEN CALLING ALLAH OR HOLY PROPHET

BY EVIL NAMES IS NOT INFIDELITY

Some of your prominent ulema, like, Abu'l-Hasan Ash'ari and his followers, believe that if a man has faith in his heart and yet displays infidelity (by practicing Judaism or Christianity, for example) or rises up to fight against the Prophet, or calls Allah or the Prophet evil names, even then he is not an infidel. Faith means belief in the heart and since no one can be aware of another's heart, it cannot be said whether the apparent infidelity was from the heart or not. The Ash'ari ulema have also discussed these issues in their books. Ibn Hazm Andalusi has written in detail about these points in his Kitabu'l-Fazl (Part IV, page 204, 206). In light of these facts what right have you to charge the Shias with infidelity? 

MOST COMPANIONS ABUSED ONE ANOTHER

BUT NOT REGARDED AS INFIDELS 

In your authentic books, like Musnad of Ahmad Hanbal, Volume II, page 236; Sirat-e-Halabiyya, Volume II, page 107, Sahih Bukhari, Volume II, page 74, Sahih Muslim, Kitab-e-Jihad wa Asbabu'n-Nuzul Wahidi, page 118, there are many hadith indicating that most of the companions abused each other in the presence of the Holy Prophet. But the Prophet didn't call these men infidels. He admonished them. (The narrations about these quarrels and mutual enmity are recorded only in the books of the Sunnis, not in Shia books). In view of these remarks, I hope that you are satisfied that cursing or abusing any companion does not constitute infidelity. If we curse someone without any reason, we will be

sinners, not infidels. And every sin is forgivable. 

HOLY PROPHET OF ISLAM KNEW ALL

GOOD AND BAD ACTIONS OF SAHABA 

Second, you said that the Prophet respected and honored his companions. This is correct. In addition, all Muslims and men of learning agree that the Holy Prophet knew the good and bad actions of the people. He appreciated their good deeds. Accordingly, he esteemed Nushirwan's justice and Hatim Ta'i's munificence. If he respected someone, it was for his good deeds. But appreciation shown to one for doing a good deed, does not prove that his end will be fortunate. Perhaps he will commit evil deeds in the future. If he does, upbraiding him beforehand, is unjustified, even though it may be known that he will commit the sin in the future. Ali knew of the sin and damned end of Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Muljim Muradi and repeatedly told him that he was his assassin. At one point he explicitly said: "I want him to live, but he is bent upon killing me, and this treacherous friend belongs to the clan of the Murad." This statement has been recorded by Ibn Hajar Makki towards the end of Part I of Sawa'iq, page 72. Yet Ali did not intend to punish him. Hence, the hadith which indicates that the merit of some particular action or statement is not necessarily influential for all time to come.