{ 202 }

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

{ 203 }

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.

{ 204 }

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

{ 205 }

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

{ 206 }

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

{ 207 }

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

{ 208 }

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

{ 209 }

, 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

{ 210 }

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."

{ 211 }

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 Qadir 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,

{ 212 }

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

{ 213 }

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)

{ 214 }

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 compan-

{ 215 }

ions 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.

{ 216 }

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

{ 217 }

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, Volumell , page

{ 218 }

236; Sirat-e-Halabiyya, Volume ll, page 107, Sahih Bukhari, Volumell, 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.

MERIT OF BEING A PARTY TO BAI'AT-E-RIZWAN

Third, you said that since the sahaba were at the Bai'at-e-Rizwan and pledged their fealty to the Prophet, they were not subject to condemnation, but deserved praise because they are the referents of the holy verse you cited (48:18). Research scholars and ulema have commented extensively on this topic, saying that the divine pleasure of this verse refers only to the particular action, Bai'at (allegiance), and that it does not extend indefinitely.

You are aware yourselves that on the occasion of the Bai'at in Hudaibiyya, there were 1,500 people of the community present, of whom afterwards

{ 219 }

a number of people were included in the 'verses of hypocrisy'. Allah promised them Hell for ever. Is it possible that Allah and the Prophet might be pleased with some people and that some of them might remain in hell forever? It follows that the divine pleasure was not due to the Bai'at-e-Shajara (allegiance under the tree) alone, but was based on sincere faith and good deeds. Those who believed in divine unity and Prophethood and pledged fealty deserved divine pleasure. They were declared to be the people of Paradise. But those who paid allegiance without faith, or who did not pay allegiance, deserved His wrath. Obviously, the Sahaba performed commendable actions, and for their good actions (like allegiance under the tree) they should be praised. And even if a believer, whether he be a sahabi or not, commits a fault, he may be criticized.

SHIAS DO ACKNOWLEDGE MERITS OF SAHABA

The Shia sect has always reported the good performances of the sahaba.

Moreover, it acknowledges the good performance even of those who have been the targets of sharp criticisms. For instance, it appreciates their allegiance under the tree, their migration with the Holy Prophet, taking part in battles, but it also criticizes and condemns their bad actions.

Hafiz: I'm surprised to hear you say that the Prophet's companions committed misdeeds. The Prophet declared each of them the guide and leader of the community. He said in a well known hadith: "Verily, my companions are like stars; if you follow any one of them, you will be guided." Your faith is distinctly unconventional, and we do not accept unconventional faith.

HADITH OF "FOLLOWING COMPANIONS" EXAMINED

Well-Wisher: I am constrained to discuss some aspects of this hadith before I venture to reply. Of course we will not talk about the source, correctness, or weakness of the hadith by way of criticism, for we would drift from the main point. Our discussion will focus on its meaning.

Those who were blessed with the honor of seeing the Holy Prophet, or who had narrated hadith from him, are called sahaba and ashab (companions) whether they were emigres (muhajir) from Mecca or those who helped them (ansars) in Medina or others.

The greatest misunderstanding among you is that, on account of your good will towards the companions, you consider all of them free from all faults although the fact is otherwise. Among the companions of the Holy

{ 220 }

Prophet, there were both good and bad people, of whom Allah and His Prophet were fully aware. This can well be proved by the chapter Munafiqun (Hypocrites) and verses of some other chapters, like Tauba also known as Al-Bara'a (The Immunity) and Ahzab (The Clans), which were revealed in condemnation of companions who were hypocrites and sinners. Your own prominent ulema have recorded some of the companions' faults and misdeeds in their authentic books. Hisham Bin Muhammad Sa'yib Kalbi, one of the illustrious ulema of your sect has compiled a book on the faults and defects of the sahaba.

The hypocrites, whom Allah Almighty (in the Holy Qur'an) and the Holy Prophet have condemned, were two-faced people, who were Muslims in appearance only. Their hearts were stained with corruption and misguidance; and all of them were included in the companions. So how can we have goodwill towards all the companions? And how can we be sure that following any of them will ensure salvation? Is it not a fact that in the affair of Aqaba there were companions who appeared to be faithful but were determined to kill the Holy Prophet?

AQABA AFFAIR AND DESIGN TO KILL HOLY PROPHET

Hafiz: Some ulema consider the Aqaba affair the invention of the Shias.

Well-Wisher: It is unkind of you to rely on the beliefs of some who have the mentality of the Kharijis and Nasibis. This affair is so clearly known to all that your own ulema have acknowledged it.

Please refer to Dala'ilu'n-Nabuwat compiled by Hafiz Abu Bakr Ahmad Bin Husain Baihaqi Shafi'i, who is one of your eminent scholars and jurists. He has recorded the story of Batn-e-Aqaba with an authentic chain of narrators; and also Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, towards the end of v. V of his Musnad, reports from Abu Tufail, and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes in his Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, and it is known to all the ulema, that the Holy Prophet on that night cursed a group of the companions.

Nawab: What was the matter, and who were those who wanted to kill the Holy Prophet?

Well-Wisher: The great ulema of both sects have written that on Muhammad's way back from the Tabuk expedition, fourteen hypocrites conspired to kill him. The plan was to push him from his camel into a precipice as he rode by night over al-Aqaba, a narrow passage through which only one man could pass. When they tried to execute their design,

{ 221 }

the Angel Gabriel informed the Holy Prophet of it. The Holy Prophet sent Hudhaifa Nakha'i to hide behind a hill. When the conspirators arrived and talked together, he recognized them all. Of them seven belonged to the Umayyads. Hudhaifa came to the Holy Prophet and named all of them. The Holy Prophet ordered him to keep the plot secret and said that Allah was their guard. In the early part of the night, the Holy Prophet began the journey, followed by his army. Ammar-e-Yasir led the camel from the front and Hudhaifa drove it from behind. When they reached the narrow passage, the hypocrites threw their leather bags full of sand (or their oil-cans) before the camel making a huge noise, hoping that the frightened animal would throw the Holy Prophet down the steep cliff. But Allah Almighty protected him and the conspirators fled away in the crowd.

Were these people not included among the companions? Is it true that to follow them means the path of guidance?

When we talk of the companions of the Holy Prophet of Allah why should we shut our eyes to their faults?

THE PROPHET NEVER BADE US FOLLOW LIARS

I have referred in past nights to Abu Huraira's character, telling you that

Caliph Umar had lashed him because he used to quote false hadith from the Prophet. Was he not among the companions? Had he not falsely narrated a large number of hadith? Similarly, were not the other companions, like Sumra Bin Junda, included among them? Can the Holy Prophet of Allah order the community to follow liars and forgers? If this hadith is correct, that is, that if we follow any one of the companions, we will be guided, then please let us know whom we should follow, if two companions go in opposite directions. Or if there are two groups of them, each fighting against the other, or each contrary to the other, whom should we support?

Hafiz: First, the revered companions of the Prophet of Allah were never hostile to each other. And even if one opposed the other, we should assess the facts properly. The one who is purer and whose statement is more logical should be followed.

Well-Wisher: If, according to your statement, we made careful inquiries and found one of them pure and on the right side, then the opposite group of the ashab must be impure and on the wrong side. Then this hadith basically loses credence because it is impossible that disagreeing companions can both be sources of guidance.

{ 222 }

OPPOSITION OF COMPANIONS AT SAQIFA

If this hadith is genuine why do you raise objection against the Shias because they followed a group of the companions like Salman, Abu Dharr, Miqdad, Ammar-e-Yasir Abu Ayyub Ansari, Hudhaifa Nakha'i and Khuzaima Dhu'sh-Shahadatain, etc., to whom I have referred in past nights? These men certainly did not pledge fealty to Abu Bakr. Therefore, of the companions who opposed each other, who was on the right side? Decidedly one was on the wrong side though the hadith you have quoted tells us that we may follow any of the companions and be guided.

SA'D BIN UBAIDA'S OPPOSITION TO ABU BAKR AND UMAR

Was Sa'd Bin Ubaida not one of the companions who did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr and Umar? All the Shia and Sunni historians unanimously hold that he went to Syria and lived there until in the middle of the caliphate of Umar, he was murdered. So following him and opposing Abu Bakr and Umar, according to this hadith is the path of guidance.

TALHA AND ZUBAIR CONFRONT ALI AT BASRA

Were Talha and Zubair not among the companions who pledged allegiance under the tree? Did they not oppose the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet, the acknowledged fourth caliph according to your own belief. Were not these companions responsible for the bloodshed of innumerable Muslims? Now please let us know which of these two groups of companions who fought with each other was the truly guided one. If you say that, since both groups were obedient both were on the right side, you will be wrong. It is impossible to claim that opposing factions are both guided.

It therefore follows that the companions who were on the side of Ali were definitely the guided ones. The group on the opposite side took the wrong way; and this is another proof to refute your statement that all those companions who were present in Bai'at-e-Rizwan, under the tree, were rightly guided. Among those who pledged fealty under the tree were these two, Talha and Zubair, who also fought against the rightful caliph. They actually fought against the one about whom the Holy Prophet had said: "Oh Ali, fighting against thee is fighting against me." Doesn't it

{ 223 }

amount to fighting against the Holy Prophet of Allah? So how can you say that the word Ashab or presence under the tree of allegiance is a guarantee for salvation?

MU'AWIYA AND 'AMR AS USED TO CURSE AND ABUSE ALI

Mu'awiya and 'Amr As were companions and yet they fought against the successor of the Holy Prophet and cursed and abused Ali at public meetings and even in the addresses given after Jum'a (Friday) prayers. They did so despite the fact, as reported by prominent ulema of your sect in their authentic books, that the Holy Prophet had repeatedly said, "He who abuses or curses Ali, abuses me. He who abuses me, abuses Allah."

The learned Taftazani has elaborately dealt with this topic in his Sharhe Maqasid. He writes that since the companions were inimical to one another, some of them had deviated from the right path. Some of them, on account of envy and worldly aspirations, perpetrated all kinds of cruelty. It is evident that most of the companions who were not ma'sum (infallible) committed heinous acts. But some ulema because they favored them, have tried to cover up their faults.

There are many clear arguments to reject the hadith in question. There is no doubt that this hadith is forged. Many of your ulema have expressed their doubts about the authenticity of its sources.

SOURCES OF HADITH "MY COMPANIONS ARE LIKE STARS" ARE WEAK

After quoting this hadith in his Sharhu'sh-Shifa, v.II, p.91, Qazi Ayaz says that Darqutni in his Faza'il and Ibn Abdu'l-Birr say that this hadith is not authentic.

It is also narrated from Abd Bin Hamid in his Musnad who quotes from Abdullah Ibn Umar that Bazar refused to acknowledge the authenticity of this hadith. Also he says that Ibn Adi quotes in his Kamil with his own references from Nafi, and he from Abdullah Ibn Umar, that the sources of this hadith are very weak. Baihaqi is also reported to have written that the matter of this hadith is commonly known but its sources are weak.

Among the sources of this hadith are Harith Bin Ghazin, whose character is unknown, and Hamza Ibn Abi Hamza Nussairi, who was charged with lying. The weakness of the hadith is evident. Ibn Hazm also says that this hadith is a fabricated one and is to be rejected.

{ 224 }

So in our argument we cannot rely on a hadith with such a weak chain of sources. Even assuming, however, that the hadith were correct, it could not be applied in the general sense; it would refer only to the devoted and pious companions who, in accordance with the command of the Holy Prophet followed the book of Allah and the holy progeny of the Prophet.

COMPANIONS WERE NOT INFALLIBLE

Having said this, if I criticize some of the companions, you shouldn't consider me unjust. They were after all, human beings and were likely to err.

Hafiz: We also believe that the companions were not infallible, but at the same time it is an accepted fact that all of them were righteous people. No fault was committed by them.

Well-Wisher: You claim too much if you insist that they were all just and free from faults since in the authentic books written by your own ulema they argue against it. They tell us that even some of the chief companions sometimes committed faults.

Hafiz: We are not aware of such records. Please let us know about them if you can.

Well-Wisher: Ignoring what they did during the days of ignorance (i.e. before the advent of Islam), they committed many sins after they had embraced Islam. It is enough to mention only one event by way of example.

Your own prominent ulema write in their authentic books that in the year of the conquest of Mecca (8 A.H.) some of the leading companions indulged in festive amusements and gaiety and secretly took wine.

Hafiz: This is definitely a concocted story. When drinking was announced to be unlawful, the respected companions did not so much as attend such parties, not to mention drinking wine.

Well-Wisher: It was never concocted by opponents. If it was concocted at all, it was done by your own ulema.

Nawab: If there were such a party, the names of the host and the guests also must have been mentioned. Can you explain that point?

{ 225 }

Well-Wisher: Yes, your own ulema have explained it.

TAKING WINE BY TEN COMPANIONS IN A SECRET MEETING

Ibn Hajar writes in his Fathu'l-Bari, v.X, p.30, that Abu Talha Zaid Bin Sahl arranged a wine party at his house and invited ten people. All of them drank wine and Abu Bakr recited some couplets commemorating some infidels who were killed in the battle of Badr.

NAWAB: Have the names of the guests also been mentioned? If so, please let us know.

Well-Wisher: (1) Abu Bakr Bin Abi Qahafa, (2) Umar Ibn Khattab, (3) Abu Ubaida Garra, (4) Ubai Bin Ka'b, (5) Sahl Bin Baiza, (6) Abu Ayyub Ansari, (7) Abu Talha (the host), (8) Abu Dajjana Samak Bin Kharsa, (9) Abu Bakr Bin Shaghuls, (10) Anas Bin Malik, who was 18 years old at that time and who served the wine. Baihaqi in his Sunan, v. VIII, p.29, has also narrated from Anas him self that he said that he was the youngest of them at that time and was serving the wine. (At this there was great commotion in the meeting.)

Sheikh: I swear by Allah that this story has been concocted by the enemy!

Well-Wisher: You are too much agitated and you have made a profane oath! But you are not totally at fault. Your studies are limited. If you had read more widely, you would know that your own ulema have written all this. Now you should seek Allah's pardon.

I am now constrained to explain facts according to the statements of your own ulema. Muhammad Bin Isma'il Bukhari in Sahih (commenting on Ayat-e-Khamr, "verse concerning wine", in the chapter Ma'ida of the Qur'an); Muslim Ibn Hajar in his Sahih (Kitab-e-Ashraba Bab-e-Tahrimu'l-Khamr); Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, v.XXX, p.181 and 227; Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir, v.XI, p.93; Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in his Durru'l-Mansur, v.II, p.321; Tabari in his Tafsir, v.VII, p.24; Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his Isaba, v.IV, p.22 and Fathu'l-Bari, v.X,p.30; Badru'd-din Hanafi in his Umdatu'l-Qari, V.X, p.84; Baihaqi in his Sunan, pp.286 and 290; and others have recorded these facts with detailed explanations.

SHEIKH: Perhaps these things took place before wine was made unlawful.

{ 226 }

Well-Wisher: What we gather from the commentary and history shows that even after the prohibitory verses some Muslims and companions continued taking forbidden wine.

Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari reports in Tafsir-e-Kabir, v.II, p.203, on the authority of Abil Qamus Zaid Bin Ali, who said that Allah had revealed three times the verses prohibiting the use of wine. In the first verse He says, "They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit." (2:219)

But the Muslims did not immediately give up wine. When two men, being intoxicated, offered their prayers and talked nonsense, another verse was revealed, saying: "Oh you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated until you know (well) what you say." (4:43)

Even after this, the drinking of wine continued, but people did not offer prayers while intoxicated. One day a man took wine (according to the report of Bazar, Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Mardawiyya the man was Abu Bakr) and composed an elegy for the pagans who were killed in the battle of Badr. When the Holy Prophet heard of this, he became angry. He went to the party and wanted to beat him. The man said, "I seek Allah's shelter from Allah's and His Prophet's wrath. Allah be my witness, I will not take wine again." Then the following verse was revealed: "Oh you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (divination by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's work; shun it therefore that you may be successful." (5:90)

Among the companions of the Holy Prophet there were good and bad men just as there are among other believers and Muslims. Those of them who tried to obey Allah and His Prophet reached an exalted rank. Those who followed their worldly aspirations were looked down upon by others. So those who fault the worldly companions do so with some reason. The wicked actions of some of the sahaba which are recorded in the authentic books of your own ulema are also condemnable according to the evidence of the Holy Qur'an. The Shias condemn them on that basis. If there is a logical reply to this argument, we are ready to accept it.

COMPANIONS' BREAKING THEIR PLEDGE

WELL-WISHER: It is astonishing that even after hearing their condemnable qualities (I have mentioned only a few out of a large number) you still ask me about their misdeeds! Now I should like to submit another

{ 227 }

example of their odious actions, which are recorded in all the books of both the sects: the breaking of their pledge. Allah has made it compulsory to keep one's promise. He says: "And fulfill the covenant of Allah when you have made a covenant, and do not break the oaths after making them fast." (16:91)

And again Allah has called those who break a pledge the cursed ones. He says: "And those who break the covenant of Allah after its confirmation and cut asunder that which Allah has ordered to be joined and make mischief in the land; (as for) those, upon them shall be a curse, and they shall have the evil issue of the abode. (13:25)

So it is clear both from the Qur'anic verses and from a large number of hadith that breaking a pledge is a great sin, particularly a pledge made with Allah and His Prophet. The seriousness of this offense was graver for the companions of the Holy Prophet.

Hafiz: What pledge with Muhammad did the companions break? How can it come under the target of the Qur'anic verses?

I think that if you consider the matter carefully you will admit that all these things are sheer concoctions of the Shias. The companions of the Holy Prophet were free from all such actions.

IN THE HOLY QUR'AN "TRUTHFUL ONES" REFERS TO MUHAMMAD AND ALI

Well-Wisher: I have told you repeatedly that the Shias are pledged to follow their leaders. Otherwise they cannot be Shias. The Holy Qur'an has given evidence of their leader's truthfulness. Your prominent ulema, for instance, Imam Tha'labi and Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti in their Tafsir, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in his Ma Nazal mina'l-Qur'an fi Ali, Khatib Khawarizmi in Manaqib, Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch.39, narrating from Khawarizmi, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim and Hamwaini and Muhammad Bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib, ch.62 - all of them have quoted from the history of the great scholar Muhaddith-e-Sham that in the holy verse "Oh you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and be with the truthful ones." (9:119)

The truthful ones refers to Muhammad and Ali. So the followers of this exalted family cannot be liars or forgers because he alone would tell lies or fabricate stories who has no true and strong reasons to fall back upon this cause. What the Shias say has been written by your own ulema. First you should object to your ulema, who wrote these things. Had your

{ 228 }

ulema not written about the pledge-breaking of the sahaba in their authentic books, I would not have mentioned it in this meeting. HAFIZ: Who of the Sunni ulema has written that the sahaba broke the pledge. Simply vain talking won't do.

WELL-WISHER: I am not merely talking. My argument is completely logical. The companions broke their pledge a number of times. They' broke the fealty for which the Prophet of Allah had commanded them, the most imponant was the pledge and fealty at Ghadir-e-Khum.

GHADIR HADITH AND ITS NATURE

All the Shia and Sunni ulema acknowledge that, in the 10th of the Hijra year, the Prophet of Allah, returning from his last pilgrimage, gathered together all his companions at Ghadir-e-Khum on the 18th of Dhi'l-Hijja. Some of those who had gone ahead were called back by order of the Holy Prophet and those who had lagged behind were awaited. Most of your ulema and the historians and the Shia sources give the figure of 70,000 people there, and some of your other ulema, for instance Tha'iabi in his Tafsir, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in his Tadhkirat'u-Khasa'isi'I-Umma fi Ma'rifati'l- A'imma and others have written that there were 120,000 people gath- ered there. The Holy Prophet ordered a pulpit to be prepared. He mounted the pulpit and delivered a long sermon, a greater part of which contained the vinues and merits of the Commander of the Faithful. He recited most of the verses, which had been revealed in praise of Ali and reminded the people of the holy rank of the vicegerency of the Com- mander of the Faithful. -Then the Holy Prophet said, "Oh you people! Have I not the greater claim than you have on your lives?" The reference is to the holy verse "The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves." (33:6)

The crowd with one voice shouted "Cenainly, Oh messenger of Allah!" Then the Holy Prophet declared: NOf whomsoever I am the maula, (master) this Ali is his maula." After this he raised his hand and prayed to Allah. NOh Allah, be you a friend to him who is a friend to him (that is, Ali) and be an enemy to him who is an enemy to him (Ali). Help him who helps him and forsake him who forsakes him.

Then a tent was pitched by order of the Holy Prophet who ordered the Commander of the Faithful Ali to sit in the tent. The whole umma was commanded to offer bai'at (allegiance) to Ali. The Holy Prophet said that he gave this instrudion in compliance with the command of Allah. The first one to offer allegiance on that day was Umar. Then Abu Bakr,

{ 229 }

Uthman, Talha, andZubairfollowed suit, and all these people continued offering allegiance for three days (i.e. while the Holy Prophet remained there). HAFIZ: Can you believe that an event of such importance occurred as claimed by you and that none of the prominent ulema have reported it? WEll-WISHER: I did not exped such a statement from you. The Ghadir- e-Khum affair is as clear as day and no one but a bigoted and obstinate person would invite ignominy by denying such an event. This important matter has been recorded by all your pious ulema in their authentic books. I should like to mention here some of the names of the authors and their books sothat you may know that all your eminent ulema have relied on this hadith.

1. Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi - Tafsir-e-Kabir Mafatihu'I-Ghaib.

2. Imam Ahmad Tha'labi - Tafsir-e-Kashfu'l-Bayan.

3. Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti - Tafsir-e-Durru'I-Manthur.

4. Abu'i-Hasan Ali Bin Ahmad Wahidi Nishapuri - Asbabu'n- Nuzul.

5. Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari - Tafsiru'I-Kabir.

6. Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani - Ma Nazal Mina'I-Qur'an fi Ali and Hilyatu'I-Auliya.

7. Muhammad Bin Isma'il Bukhari - Ta'rikh, Vol.1, p.375.

8. Muslim Bin Hajjaj Nishapuri - Sahih, Vol.2, p.325.

9. Abu Dawud Sijistani - Sunan.

11. Hafiz Ibnu'I-lqda - Kitabu'I-Wilaya. ~

12. Ibn Kathir Shafi'i Damishqi - Ta'rikh.

13. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal - Vol.4, pp.281 &371.

14. Abu Hamid Muhammad Bin Muhammad AI-Ghazali - Sirru'l- Alamin.

{ 230 }

15. Ibn Abdu'l-Birr - Isti'ab.

16. Muhammad Bin Talha Shafi'i - Matalibu's-Su'ul, p.16.

17. Ibn Maghazili Faqih Shafl'i - Manaqib.

18. Nuru'-d-Din Bin Sabbagh Maliki - Fusulu'I-Muhimma.

19. Husain Bin Mas'ud Baghawi - Masabihu's-Sunna.

20. Abu'I-Mu'ayyid Muwafiq Bin Ahmad Khatib Khawarizmi - Manaqib.

21. Majdu'd-Din Bin Athir Muhammad Bin Muhammad Shaibani - am'u'I-Usul.

22. Hafiz Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Ahmad Bin Ali Nisa'i - Khasa'isu'l- Alawi and Sunan.

23. Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi - Yanabiu'I-Mawadda, Ch. IV.

24. Shahabu'd-din Ahmad Bin Hajar Makki - Sawa'iq Muhriqa and Kitabu'I-Manhu'I-Malakiyya, particularly Sawa'iq, Part 1, p.2S. In spite of his extreme fanaticism, he says: "This is a true hadith; its veracity cannot be doubted. Verily it has been narrated by Tirmidhi, Nisa'i and Ahmad, and if studied, its sources are sound enough."

25. Muhammad Bin Yazid Hafiz Ibn Maja Qazwini - Sunan.

26. Hafiz Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Abdullah Hakim Nishapuri - Mustadrak.

27. Hafiz Sulayman Ibn Ahmad Tabrani - Ausat.

28. Ibn Athir Jazari - Usudu'I-Ghaiba.

29. Yusuf Sibt Ibn Jauzi - Tadhkiratu'I-Khasa'isu'I-Umma, p. 17.

30. Abu Umar Ahmad Bin Abd Rabbih - Iqdu'I-Farid.

31. Allama Samhudi - Jawahiru'I-lqdain.

32. Ibn Taimiyya Ahmad Bin Abdu'I-Halim - Minhaju's-Sunna.

{ 231 }

33. Ibn Hajar Asqalani - Fathu'I-Barl and Tahdhibu't- Tahdhib.

34. Abdu'I-Qasim Muhammad Bin Umar Jarullah Zamakhshari - Rabiu'I-Abrar.

35. Abu Sa'id Sijistani - Kitabu'd-Darayab Fi Hadithi'I-Wilaya.

36. Ubaidullah Bin Abdullah Haskani - Du'atu'I-Huda Iia Ada Haqqi'I-Muwala.

37. Razin Bin Mu'awiya AI-Abdari - Jam Bainu's-Sahihi's-Sitta.

38. Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi says in Kitabu'I-Arba'in that the whole Community unanimously confirms this hadith.

39. Muqibili - Ahadithu'I-Mutawatira.

40. Suyuti - Ta'rikhu'I-Khulafa.

41. Mir Seyyed Ali Hamadani - Mawaddatu'I-Qurba.

42. Abul Fath Nazari - Khasa'es'u'I-Alavi

43. Khwaja Parsa Bukhari - Faslu'I-Khitab

44. Jamaluddin Shirazi - Kitabu'I-Araba'in

45. Abdul Ra'ufu'I-Manavi - Faizu'I-Qadir fi Sharh-i-Jame'u's-Saghir

46. Muhammad bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i - Kifayatu't- Talib, Part. 1

47. Yahya Bin Sharaf-Nauvi - Tehzibu'I-Asma wa'I-Lughat

48. Ibrahim bin Muhammad Hamwaini - Fara'adu's-Simtoun

49. Qazi Fazlullah bin Ruzhahan - Ibtalu'I-Batil

50. Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad Sharbini - Siraju'I-Munlr

51. Abu I Fath Shahristani Shafi'i - Milal wa'n-Nihal

52. Hafiz Abu Bakr Khatib Baghdadi - Tarikh

53. Hafiz Ibn Asakir abul Qasim Damishqi - Tarikh-i-Kabir

{ 232 }

54. Ibn Abi'I-Hadid Mutazali - Sharhe Nahju'I-Balagha

55. Ala'uddin Samnani -Urwatu'I.Wuthqah

56. Ibn Khaldun - Muqaddlma

57. Molvi All Muttaqi Hindi - Kanzu'I-Ummal

58. Shamsuddin Abul Khair Damishql - Asnu Matalib

59. Syed Sharif Hanafi jurjanl - Sharh-i-Mawaqit

60. Nizamuddin Nishapuri - Tafsir-i-Ghara'ibu'l-Qur'an

HADITH OF GHADIR RELATED BY TABARI, IBN IQDA AND IBN HADDAD

I have related the sources I could remember. But more than three hundred of your prominent ulema have narrated the hadith of Ghadir, the verses of baligh (preaching), kamalu'd-Din (perfection of religion), and the talk in the courtyard of the mosque, on the authority of morethan one hundred companions of the Holy Prophet. If I were to relate the names of all these chroniclers, it would form a complete book. This much, however, is sufficient to prove that the hadith is unanimously accepted as true. Some of your great ulema have written books on this topic. For instance, the well known commentator and historian of the fourth century hijri, Abu ja'far Muhammad Bin jarir"Tabari (died 310 A.H), gives complete details of the hadith of Ghadir in his book Kitabu'l-Wilaya and has narrated it through seventy five chains of transmission.

Hafiz Abu'I-Abbas Ahmad Bin Sa'id Abdu'r-Rahman Al-Kufi, popularly known as Ibn Iqda (died 333 A.H), narrated this holy hadifh in his book Kitabu'I-Wilaya through 125 chains on the authority of 125 companions of the Holy Prophet.

Ibn Haddad Hafiz Abu'I-Qasim Haskani (died 492 A.H), in his Kitabu'l-Wilaya, has narrated in detail the event of Ghadir along with the revelation of the verses of the Qur'an. In short, all your accredited scholars and high-ranking ulema (except a small number of fanatical opponents), quote the origin of this hadith from the Holy Prophet, who declared Ali his vicegerent on the 18th of Dhu'I-Hijja in the year of his last pilgrimage. It is also a fact that the Caliph Umar was the first among

{ 233 }

the companions to express his pleasure on this occasion. Seizing Ali by the hand, he said: "Congratulations to you, Ali! This morning has brought you a great blessing. You have become my maula (master) and the maula (master) of all believing men and believing women."

GABRIEL'S ADVICE TO UMAR

The Shafi'i jurist, Mir Seyyed Ali Hamadani of the eighth-century hijri, one of the reliable scholars of your sect, writes in his book Mawaddatu'l- Qurba, Mawadda V, that a large number of the companions have quoted Caliph Umar in different places as having said

The Prophet of Allah had made Ali the master, the chief and the leader of the nation. He announced in a public gathering that he (Ali) was our maula (master). After praying for his friends and cursing his enemies, he said Oh Allah! You are my witness. (That is, '1 have completed my duty of prophethood.')

On this occasion a handsome and sweet smelling youth was sitting beside me. He said to me, 'Verily, the Prophet of Allah has bound with a covenant which none but a hypocrite would break. So Umar! Eschew breaking it.'

I told the Prophet of Allah that when he was speaking to the crowd, a handsome, sweet smelling youth was sitting beside me and that he told me such a thing. The Holy Prophet said, , He was not of the progeny of Adam, but was Gabriel, (who had appeared in that form). He wanted to stress the point which I had announced about Ali.'

Now I should like to seek justice from you, was it proper for them to break the firm covenant with the Prophet of Allah within two months, to go back on their pledge of sacramental allegiance to Ali, to set fire to his house, to draw swords against him, to insult him, to drag him to the mosque to force his allegiance?

HAFIZ: I did not expect that a respedable and cultured Seyyed like you would attribute world I iness to the companions of the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet declared them the source of guidance for the Community when he said: "My companions are like stars; if you follow anyone of them, you will be guided."

HADITH OF "FOLLOWING COMPANIONS" IS UNAUTHENTIC

WEll-WISHER: First I should like you not to repeat the same thing time

{ 234 }

and again. You have just argued from the same hadith and I have given you Its reply. The companions, like all others, were fallible. So when It is proved that they were not infallible, why should one wonder if, with proper evidence, worldliness is attributed to them? Second, in order to clear your mind, I will again give you a reply, so that you may not rely on such hadith in the future. According to the research of your own eminent ulema, this hadith is not reliable, as I have stated earlier. Qazi Ayaz Maliki quotes from your own prominent ulema that since the narrators of this hadith include the names of the ignorant and uninformed Harith Bin Qazwin and Hamza Bin Abi Hamza Nasibi, who have been found to be liars, this hadith is not worth reporting.

Also, Qazi Ayaz, In his Sharh-e-Shifa and Baihaqi in his Kitab, have declared that this hadith is forged and have regarded its source as unreliable.

SOME OF COMPANIONS WERE SLAVES TO THEIR WISHES AND TURNED AGAINST TRUTH

Ii Third, I never said anything rude, I say only what your own ulema have written. I advise you to read Fazil Taftazani's Sharh-e-Maqasid, in which he states clearly that there are many instances of hostility among the Companions, which shows that some of them had become sinners and tyrants. So we see that people are not to be honored merely because they were companions of the Prophet. Real honor lies in their deeds and character. If they did not belong to the hypocrites but were obedient and faithful to the Holy Prophet they are certainly to be revered and respected. We would apply the dust of their feet to our eyes.

So, you men of justice, do you claim that the many hadith in your own reliable booksconcerningfightingagainstAmiru'I-Mu'mininAli {such as the Holy Prophet saying: "fighting against Ali is fighting against me," are all baseless? Or do you admit that these hadith are perfectly authentic? Are they not recorded with reliable sources in the books of your own distinguished ulema. We need not mention that these hadith are re- corded by Shia ulema with perfect unanimity of opinion in all their books. If you accept these hadith, you must acknowledge that many of the companions were transgressors and sinners as was Mu'awiya. Umar Ibn As, Abu Huraira, Samra Bin Jundab, Talha, Zubair all of whom rose to fight against Ali in fact rose against the Holy Prophet himself.

And since they fought against the Prophet, they certainly deviated from the right path. So, if we said that some of the companions were slaves

{ 235 }

to their desires, we were not wrong, because what we said was true. Besides this, we are not alone in holding that some of the companions were sinners, tyrants, and transgressors. We base our stand on the authority of your own great ulema.

IMAM GHAZALI'S VIEW ABOUT COMPANIONS BREAKING THE PLEDGE TAKEN ON THE DAY OF GHADIR-E-KHUM

If you study Sirru'I-Alamin compiled by Abu Hamid Muhammad Bin Muhammad Ghazali Tusi, you would never object to what I say. I am, however, compelled to quote a portion of his founh treatise in suppon of my statement. He says: "Proof and reasoning became brighter, and there is unanimous accord among Muslims concerning the text of the address on the day of 'Ghadir-e-Khum' that the Holy prophet said: 'Of whomsoever I am maula (master), Ali is his maula (master).' Then Umar immediately said, 'Congratulations to you, congratulations to you, Oh Abu'I-Hasan! You are my master and also the master of all faithful men and women.'"

This son of congratulation clearly indicates the acknowledgment of the Holy Prophet's order, and acceptance of the leadership and caliphate of Ali. But later on they were overpowered by their worldly desires. love for power and authority deprived them of compassion. They took it upon themselves to appoint a caliph at Saqifa-e-Bani Sa'dat. They wanted to raise the flag of their own ascendancy and to conquer territory so that their names might be preserved in history. They were intoxicated with lust for power. They ignored the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an, and the orders of the Holy Prophet. They sold their religion for this world. What a bad bargain they made with Allah! When the Holy Prophet was on his death bed he asked for pe'n and ink so that he could clarify the issue of succession. (May God forgive my saying iV, But Umar said: Nleave this man. He is talking nonsense." So when the Holy Qur'an and the hadith could not help them, they relied upon lima (consensus). But this is also void because Abbas, his descendants, Ali, his wife and their descendants did not associate themselves with those who offered allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Similarly, the Saqifa men also refused allegiance to the Khazraji, and the Ansars rejected them also.

Respected people! please remember, the Shias do not claim anything except what your own fair ulema claim. But since you hate us, you find fault with what we say, however reasonable it might be. But you never

{ 236 }

criticize your own ulema as to why they have written such things although they have in fac~ revealed the truth and have stamped these realities on the pages of history.

SHEIKH: Sirru'l-Alamin was not written by Imam Ghazali. His position was too lofty for him to write such a book, and notable ulema do not believe that this book was written by him.

SIRRU'L-ALAMIN IS IMAM GHAZALI'S BOOK

WELL-WISHER: Many of your own ulema have admitted that this book was written by Imam Ghazali. Yusuf Sibt Ibn jauzi was careful in his references to other scholars (and was also a fanatic in his religion). In his Tadhkira Khawasu'I-Umma, p. 36, he argues from the same statement of Imam Ghazali in his Sirru'I-Alamin and quotes the same passage which I have quoted. Since no comments have been made regarding it, it shows first that he acknowledges this book to be written by Imam Ghazali. Second, he also agrees with his views, which I have briefly cited, although he himself cited them in detail. If he had not agreed with them he would. have commented on them. But of course your fanatical ulema when they come across such statements of prominent scholars and find themselves unable to reject them logically, either say that the book was not written by that author, or that it was an invention of the Shias. Or they sometimes even go so far as to say that these just men were all sinners and infidels.

REFERENCE TO IBN IQDA'S STATUS

There is evidence that many of your distinguished ulema were perse- cuted simply because they spoke the truth. Fanatical ulema and uninformed people of your sect considered it unlawful to read noncon- formist books. The authors of such works were even put to death as was Hafiz Ibn Iqda Abu'I-Abbas Ahmad bin Muhammad Bin Sa'id Hamadani who died 303 A.H. He was one of your prominent ulema. Many notable scholars of your own sect, like Dhahabi and Yafi'i, have acknowledged him and said that he had learned 300,000 hadith with their sources and that he was a man of great piety.

At public gatherings in Kufa and Baghdad in the third century A.H., he openly narrated the failings of the Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar.) People therefore called him Rafizi and refrained from quoting hadith from him. Ibn Kathir Dhahabi and Yafi'j write about him: "Sheikh Ibn Iq~a sa.t in the Basra Mosque (a famous Mosque between Baghdad and Kazlmaln) and narrated the defects and shortcomings of the Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and

{ 237 }

Umar) to the people. For this reason the hadith reported by him have been rejected. Otherwise there is no doubt about his being a true and pious man." Al-Khatib Baghdadi also has praised him in his Ta'rikh but in the end he says: "Since he described the defects and failings of the Sheikhs, he was a Rafizi."

So you people should not be under the impression that it is only the Shias who expose the truth of these issues. Your own great ulema like Imam Ghazali and Ibn Iqda used to point out the flaws in the chief companions.

REFERENCE TO TABARI'S DEATH

In every era of history there have been many instancesof ulema who have been tortured or persecuted on account of their speaking or writing the truth. For instance the well known commentator and historian Muhammad Ibn jarir Tabari, who was the pride of your ulema, died in 310 A.H. in Baghdad. But because the authorities feared a civil disturbance, they refused to allow his coffin to be taken out in the day time. Perforce he was laid to rest in his own house during the night.

NISA'I'S MURDER

Another instance of persecution was Imam Abdu'r-Rahman Ahmad Ibn Ali Nisa'i's murder. Hewas a dignified man and is regarded asone of the Imams of Sahih Sitta (Six Authentic Books). He belonged to the high- ranking ulema of your sect in the 3rd century A.H. When he reached Damascus in 303 A.H., he saw that, because of the Bani Umayya, the residents of that place openly abused the name of Amiru'l-Mu'minin Ali Bin Abi Talib after every ritual prayer, particularly in the address of congregational prayers. He was much grieved to see this and he decided tocollectall thehadithofthe Holy Prophet in praiseof Amiru'I-Mu'minin with the chain of their sources, all of which he remembered. Accord- ingly, he wrote a book, Khasa'isu'I-Alawi, in support of the exalted position and virtues of Ali. He used to read to the people from the pulpit the hadith from his book the praises of the Holy Imam.

One day when he was narrating the high merits of Ali, a rowdy group of fanatics dragged him from the pulpit and beat him. They punched his testicles and catching hold of his penis, dragged him out of the mosque and threw him into the street. As a result of these injuries he died after a few days. His body was taken to Mecca where he was laid to rest. These events are the consequence of enmity and ignorance.

Now I beg your pardon that I have been driven a little far from my point.

{ 238 }

What I meant was that the position of Wilaya (Vicegerency) of Amiru'l. Mu'minin was not recorded by the Shia ulema alone. Your own prominent ulema have also narrated that the Holy Prophet in the presence of 70,000 or 120,000 people, raised Ali's hands and introduced him as Imam (leader and guide) of the people.

SUNNIS' DOUBT ABOUT MEANING OF MAULA

HAFIZ: Of course there is no doubt about the occasion and the text of this hadith, but at the same time it does not have the significance which your passionate eloquence suggests.

Apart from this, there are some doubts regarding the text of this hadith. For instance, the word maula, you told us, means, "one who has a greater claim on others", although it is known that in this hadith maula means "lover, helper and friend." The Prophet knew that Ali had many enemies and so he wa nted to exhort the people that whomsoever he loved or was friend or helper to, Ali also loved him and was his friend and helper. The reason he demanded allegiance from the peoplewasthat he did not want

WEll.WISHER: I think you sometimes unnecessarily adopt the habits of your predecessors. If you would consider the facts carefully, the truth of this issue would become clear.

HAFIZ: What are the facts which prove your point of view? Please let us know.

MEANING OF MAULA AS "GUIDE", "MASTER" IN LIGHT OF THE VERSE' YA AYYUHA'R-RASUL BALIGH

WEll-WISHER: The first proof is the Holy Qur'an and the revelation of the verse: "Oh Apostle! deliverthat which has been revealed to you from your lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people." (5.67)

HAFIZ: How can you claim that this verse was revealed on that day and for this purpose?

WELL-WISHER: All your reputable ulema have accepted it: Jalalu'd-din

Suyuti: Durru'I.Mansur; vol. II, p. 298; Hafiz Ibn Abi Hatim Razi: Tafsir- e-Ghadir; Hafiz Abu ja'far Tabari: Kitabu'I-Wilaya; Hafiz Abu Abdullah Mahamili: Amali; Hafiz Abu Bakr Shirazi: Ma Nazala mina'l-Qur'an Fi

{ 239 }

Amiri'l-Mu'minin; Hafiz Abu Sa'id Sijistani: Kitabu'l-Wilaya; Hafiz Ibn Mardawiyya: Tafsir-e-Ayah; Hafiz Abu'l-Qasim Haskani: Shawahidu't-Tanzil; Abu'l-Fatha Nazari: Khasa'isu'l-Alawi; Mu'inu'd-din Meibudi: Sharh-e-Diwan; Qazi Shekani: Fathu'l-Ghadir, vol. III, p. 57; Seyyed Jamalu'd-din Shirazi: Arba'in; Badru'd-din Hanafi: Umdatu'l-Qari Fi Sharh-e-Sahih Bukhari, vol. 8, p. 584; Ahmad Tha'labi: Tafsir Kashfu'l-Bayan; Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi: Tafsir-e-Kabir, vol. III, p. 636; Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani: Ma nazala mina'l-Qur'an Fi Ali; Ibrahim Bin Muhammad Hamwaini: Fara'idu's-Simtain; Nizamu'd-din Nishapuri: Tafsir, vol. VI, p. 170; Seyyed Shahabu'd-din Alusi Baghdadi: Ruhu'l-Ma'ani, vol. II, p. 348; Nuru'd-din Bin Sabbagh Maliki: Fusulu'l-Muhimma, p. 27; Ali Bin Ahmad Wahidi: Asbabu'n-Nuzul, p. 150; Muhammad Bin Talha Shafi'i: Matalibu's-Su'ul, p. 16; Mir Seyyed Ali Hamadani Shafi'i: Mawadda V from Mawaddatu'l-Qurba; Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi: Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch. 39.

In short, as far as I know, thirty of your leading ulema have written in their authentic books and in their own commentaries that this holy verse was revealed on the day of Ghadir-e-Khum in regard to Amiru'l-Mu'minin Ali.

Even Qazi Fazl Bin Ruzbahan, despite all his ill will and fanaticism, writes: "Verily it is proved in our authentic Sahih that when this verse was revealed, the Prophet of Allah holding Ali by the hand, said: 'To whomsoever I am the maula (master), this Ali is also his maula.'"

It is, however, very surprising the same perverted Qazi in Kashf Ghumma gives a strange report from Razi Bin Abdullah: "In the days of the Holy Prophet we used to read this verse thus: 'Oh our Prophet (Muhammad) deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord, that is, Ali is the master of the believers. If you do not, then you have not delivered His message.'"

Also Suyuti in his Durru'l-Mansur from Ibn Mardawiyya, Ibn Asakir and Ibn Abi Hatim from Abu Sa'id Khadiri, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud (one of the writers of Wahi - revelations) and Qazi Shukani in Tafsir-e-Fathu'l-Ghadir narrate that in the day of the Holy Prophet they also recited that verse in that very way.

In short, the warning contained in this verse says: "If you do it not then (it will be as if) you have not delivered His message (at all)..." shows that the message which the Holy Prophet had been ordered to deliver was of great importance. It was in fact essential to the completion of Prophethood itself. Therefore, the issue in question was surely the matter of the

{ 240 }

imamate, the conferring of authority on one who would guide the people according to the tenets of Islam after the death of the Holy Prophet.

REVELATION OF VERSE "THIS DAY HAVE I PERFECTED FOR YOU YOUR RELIGION" AT GHADIR-E-KHUM

The second circumstance which proves my point is the revelation of the verse: "This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed my favor on you and chosen for you Islam for a religion." (5:3)

Hafiz: But it is an admitted fact that this verse was revealed on the day of Arafa, and no one of the ulema has claimed that it was revealed on the day of Ghadir.

Well-Wisher: I ask you not to make undue haste in denying this fact.

Of course, I admit that some of your ulema have said that this verse wasrevealed on the day of Arafa, but a large number of your reputable ulema have also said that it was revealed on the day of Ghadir. Also some of your ulema hold the view that perhaps this verse was revealed twice, once at the close of the day of Arafa and then again on the day of Ghadir.

Accordingly, Sibt Ibn Jauzi says in his Khawasu'l-Umma, p. 18: "It is probable that this verse was revealed twice, once on the day of Arafa and once on the day of Ghadir-e-Khum, just as the verse: 'In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful' was revealed twice, once in Mecca and then again in Medina."

Your trustworthy scholars, such as Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in Durru'l-Mansur, vol. II, p. 256 and Itqan, vol. I, p. 31; Imamu'l-Mufassirin Tha'labi in Kashfu'l-Bayan; Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in Ma Nusala Mina'l-Qur'an Fi Ali; Abu'l-Fatha Nazari in Khasa'isu'l-Alawi; Ibn Kathir Shami in Tafsir, vol. II, p. 41, following Hafiz Ibn Mardawiyya: Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari, scholar, commentator and historian of the 3rd century A.H. in Tafsir-e-Kitabu'l-Wilaya; Hafiz Abu'l-Qasim Haskani in Shawahid-ut-Tanzil; Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira-e-Khawasu'l-Umma, p. 18; Abu Ishaq Hamwaini in Fara'id-us-Simtain, ch. XII; Abu Sa'id Sijistani in Kitabu'l-Wilaya; Al-Khatib-e-Baghdadi in Ta'rikh-e-Baghdad, vol. VIII, p. 290; Ibn Maghazili Faqih Shafi'i in Manaqib, ch. XIV and Maqtalu'l-Husain, ch. IV, all have written that on the day of Ghadir-e-Khum the Holy Prophet appointed Ali by divine order to the rank of wilaya (Vicegerent). He told the people whatever he was ordained to say about Ali and raised his hands so high that the white of both his armpits was visible. He

{ 241 }

addressed thepeople thus: "Salute Ali because he is the amir (lord) of the believers. The whole Community complied with his order. They had not yet departed from one another when the aforesaid verse was revealed."

The Holy Prophet was highly pleased with the revelation of this verse. So, addressing the people, he said: "Allah is Great, He who has perfected for them their religion and has completed His favor on them and is satisfied with my Prophethood and Ali's vicegerency after me."

Imam Haskani and Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal have given the complete details of this event. If you, respected people, would leave behind your preconceived ideas on this matter, you would understand the holy verse and hadith, which show that the word "maula" means "wali" (master) i.e., one having authority over all others.

If "maula" or "wali" did not mean "one who has a greater claim on others," the latter phrase "after me" would be meaningless. And this sentence, which the Holy Prophet repeatedly uttered from his sacred tongue, proves that "maula" and "wali" mean "one who has greater claim on all others," because he said that rank in particular was granted to Ali after him.

Third, you might consider the circumstances. In that hot desert, where there was no protection for the travellers, the Holy Prophet gathered the whole umma. People sat in the shade of the camels, with their feet covered, in the scorching heat of the sun. In these conditions the Prophet delivered a long address, which Khawarizmi and Ibn Mardawiyya in their Manaqib, and Tabari in his Kitabu'l-Wilaya and others have narrated. Does it make sense to think that the Prophet would require thousands of his followers to spend three days in the blazing desert to swear allegiance to Ali merely to indicate that Ali was their friend? In fact there was no one in the whole Community who did not already know the close association between the Holy Prophet and Ali or had not heard about him (as I have already pointed out earlier). The revelation of the Qur'anic verse in question for the second time, particularly in different circumstances and with such serious instructions that people might be put to great inconvenience and suspense, could not simply mean that they should be friends of Ali. Either the Holy Prophet's performance was meant to indicate great significance or it was frivolous. And certainly the Holy Prophet is free from all frivolous actions.

It is reasonable to conclude therefore, that these arrangements were made not merely to indicate that people should befriend Ali. The event, in fact, marked the completion of the Prophet's message: the establish-

{ 242 }

ment of the Imamate, the source of the umma's guidance after the death of the Prophet.

SIBT IBN JAUZI'S VIEW ABOUT THE MEANING OF "MAULA"

Some of your reputable ulema have acknowledged that the primary meaning of "maula" is "master." Among them is Sibt Ibn Jauzi, who after giving ten meanings of the word in his Tadhkira-e-Khawas, ch. II, p. 20, says that none of them except the tenth one corresponds with what the Holy Prophet meant to say. He says: "The hadith specifically means obedience; so the tenth meaning is correct, and it means 'mastery over others.' Hence, the hadith means 'of whomever I am the 'maula' (master) Ali is also his 'maula' (master).'"

In the book Maraju'l-Bahrain Hafiz Abdu'l-Faraj Yahya Bin Sa'id Saqafi interprets it in the same way. He narrates this hadith with his own sources from his leaders, who said that the Holy Prophet, holding Ali by the hand, said: "Of whomsoever I am 'wali' or master over himself, Ali is also his 'wali' or master over himself."

Sibt Ibn Jauzi says, "The saying of the Holy Prophet that Ali has authority or is the master over the selves of all the believers clearly proves the Imamate or vicegerency of Ali and that obedience to him is obligatory."

VIEW OF IBN TALHA SHAFI'I ABOUT THE MEANING OF MAULA

Muhammad Bin Talha Shafi'i in his Matalibu's-Su'ul in the middle of Part V, ch. 1, p. 16, says that the word maula has many meanings, for instance: "master," "helper," "successor," "truthful one," and "leader." He then says that this holy hadith furnishes an inner interpretation to the verse of Mubahala. (3.61) In it Allah Almighty has called Ali the 'self' of the Holy Prophet. There was no separation between the self of the Holy Prophet and the self of Ali since He combined the two with the pronoun referring to the Holy Prophet.

Muhammad Bin Talha adds: "In this hadith the Holy Prophet indicated that whatever obligations the believers had in respect to him, they had also in respect to Ali. As the Holy Prophet was certainly master of the believers in all of their matters, their helper, leader, and chief - all of these being connotations of the word "maula" - then it follows that he meant the same thing for Ali (A.S.) also. And this is of course, an exalted position, an eminently high rank, which was specifically assigned to Ali. It is for

{ 243 }

this reason that the Day of Ghadir was a day of eid and rejoicings for the lovers and friends of Ali."

Hafiz: In view of your statement, since the word "maula has a number of meanings, it would be wrong to conclude that it was used in this case to indicate a single meaning, "master," to the exclusion of other meanings.

Well-Wisher: You are well aware of the basic principles of scholars that while a word may have different meanings, it has only one basic meaning and that the rest of the meanings are derived. The basic meaning of the word "maula" or "wali" is master. For instance, the "wali" of "nikah" (wedlock) means one who acts as attorney, or trustee. The "wali" of a woman is her husband, the "wali" of a child is his father, who has full authority over him. The "wali ahd" (heir apparent) of a king means "one whose right to rule cannot be denied if he outlives the ancestor."

Apart from this, your objection recoils upon you as to why you have restricted its meaning to "friend" and "helper" when it has many other meanings. So this specification without any specific object is void. The objection you have made comes back to you and not to us because the meanings that we have specified are not without the specified object. The verses of the Holy Qur'an, the hadith, and the opinions of scholars, all prove the same meaning which we have given. Among these are the reasons which your own prominent ulema, like Sibt Ibn Jauzi, Muhammad Ibn Abi Talha Shafi'i have given regarding its meaning. Moreover, it is narrated in a large number of hadith both from your sources and mine that this Holy verse was read thus:

"O Prophet of Allah! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord about Ali's wilaya (vicegerency) and his being master of the believers."

Jalalu'd-din Suyuti, who is one of your reputable ulema has collected these hadith in his book Durru'l-Mansur.

ALI'S ARGUMENT BASED ON HADITH OF GHADIR IN THE MOSQUE AT KUFA

If this hadith and the word "maula" had not been proof of Ali as Imam and Caliph, Amiru'l-Mu'minin would not have repeatedly argued from it. In fact in the committees of counselors he referred to it as evidence for his Imamate, as Khatib Khawarizmi in his Manaqib, p. 217; Ibrahim Ibn Muhammad Hamwaini in his Fara'id, ch. 58; Hafiz Ibn Iqda in Kitabu'l-

{ 244 }

Wilaya; Ibn Hatim Damishqi in Durru'n-Nazim, and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharh-e-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. II, p. 61, have recorded it. Particularly important is the evidence given by thirty companions at Rahba.

Many of your distinguished ulema have narrated the discussion Ali led with the Muslims at Rahba-e-Kufa (i.e., in the courtyard of the Kufa mosque). Following is a partial listing of those who recorded this event.

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal in his Musnad, Part 1, p. 129; Ibn Athir Jazari in Asadu'l-Ghaiba, vol. III and vol. V, pp. 206 and 276; Ibn Qutayba in Ma'arif, p. 194; Muhammad bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharh-e-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. I, p. 362; Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isfahani in Hilyatu'l-Auliya, vol. V, p. 26; Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Isaba, vol. II, p. 408; Muhibu'd-din Tabari in Dhakha'ir-e-Uqba, p. 67; Imam Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i in Khasa'isu'l-Alawi, p. 26; Allama Samhudi in Jawahiru'l-Iqdain; Shamsu'd-din Jazari in Asnu'l-Matalib, p. 3; Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch. 4; Hafiz Ibn Iqda in Kitabu'l-Wilaya.Ali stood before the people and asked them to bear witness about what they had heard the Holy Prophet saying about him at Ghadir-e-Khum. Thirty of the companions, including twelve Badris (those who had fought in the Battle of Badr), stood up and said that they saw on the Ghadir-e-Khum day the Holy Prophet holding up Hazrat Ali's hand and saying to the people:

"Do you know that I have greater claim on the believers than they have on their own selves?" All of them said: "Yes." Then the Holy Prophet said: "Of whomsoever I am "maula" (master), this Ali is his "maula" (master)."

SAD PLIGHT OF THOSE WHO DID NOT CONFIRM HADITH GHADIR

Out of this gathering three men did not bear witness to the event. One of them was Anas Bin Malik, who said that because he had become enfeebled with old age he had forgotten all about it. Ali cursed the three. He said: "If you are telling lies, may Allah afflict thee with leprosy, which even your turban would not conceal." No sooner did Anas stand up from his place when leprosy appeared on his body. (according to some reports he became both blind and a leper.)

FOURTH ARGUMENT: "HAVE I NOT A GREATER CLAIM ON YOU THAN YOU HAVE ON YOURSELVES?"

WELL-WISHER: Fourth, the way in which the hadith has been narrated

{ 245 }

in itself proves that the work "maula" means "master." The Holy Prophet, in his address at Ghadir, asked the people: "Have I not a greater claim on you than you have on yourselves?" This refers to the words of the Holy Qur'an: "The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves." (33:6)

Moreover, there is a reliable hadith in the books of both sects which records that the Holy Prophet said: "There is no believer on whom I have not a greater claim in this world and in the Hereafter, than he has on himself. All of them said with one voice that he had a greater claim on them than they had on themselves. After that the Holy Prophet said: "Of whomsoever I am the "maula," this Ali is also his "maula." So from the context of his speech it follows that the Holy Prophet meant "authority" or "mastery over others" when he used the word "maula."

Hafiz: In many of the books there is no such record of the Holy Prophet having said these words: "Have I not a greater claim on you than you have on your own selves?"

Well-Wisher: In narrating the hadith of Ghadir, narrators have used slightly different words, but so far as the hadith of the Shias are concerned, all of the Ithna Ashari ulema say that the text and context of hadith of Ghadir are as narrated above.

And in most of the authentic Sunni books, written by your prominent ulema, like Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira-e-Khawasu'l-Umma, p. 18; Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal in Musnad; Nuru'd-din Sabbagh Maliki in Fusulu'l-Muhimma; and a host of others who have narrated hadith of Ghadir, the sentence "Have I not a greater claim on you than you have on yourselves" does exist.

Now for the sake of blessedness I submit the translation of this hadith which has been narrated by the Imam of the traditionists, Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, in his Musnad, vol. IV, p. 281, on the authority of Bara'a Bin Azib. He said: "I was travelling with the Holy Prophet. We reached Ghadir. The Holy Prophet announced: 'Assemble for prayers.' It was customary when something serious was about to happen that the Holy Prophet ordered the people to assemble for prayers. When the people had assembled and prayers had been offered, the Prophet used to preach a sermon. A special place was provided for the Holy Prophet between two trees. After the performance of the prayers the Holy Prophet, raising Ali's hand above his head, spoke to the crowd: 'Do you not know that I am the master of the believers and have more rights over them than they

over their own selves?' All of them said, 'Yes, we know that.' He again

{ 246 }

said, 'Do you not know that I have greater rights over every believer than he has over his own self?' All of the answered, 'Yes, we know it.' Thereafter the Holy Prophet said, 'Of whomsoever I am the maula (master) this Ali is his maula (master).' Then he prayed to Allah: 'O Allah! Be a Friend of him who is a friend of him (i.e. Ali) and be an enemy of him who is an enemy of him.' Immediately following this, Umar Bin Khattab met Ali and said, 'Congratulations to you, O son of Abu Talib! You have now become maula (master) of all the believing men and women.'

Also Mir Seyyed Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda V; Sulayman Balkhi in his Yanabi and Hafiz Abu Nu'aim in his Hilya have recorded this hadith with slight variations in the wording.

Hafiz Abu'l-Fatha, from whom Ibn Sabbagh also had quoted in his Fusulu'l-Muhimma, has narrated this hadith in these words: "O people! Allah Almighty is my "maula" (master), and I have a greater right over you than you have over yourselves. You should know that of whomsoever I am the 'maula' (master) Ali is also his 'maula' (master)." Ibn Maja Qazwini in his Sunan and Imam Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i in his hadith (pp. 81,83,93,24) have narrated this hadith in the same way. And Zaid Ibn Arqam writes in his hadith No. 84 that the Prophet of Allah said in the course of his address: "Do you not know that I have a greater authority over all believers, men or women, than they have over themselves?" All of them said: "We bear witness that you have greater authority over every believer than he has over his own self." At that time the Prophet said: "Of whomsoever I am the maula (master) this Ali is also his maula (master)." Then he raised the hand of Ali. In addition Abu Bakr Ahmad Bin Al-khatib Baghdadi (died 462 A.H.), in his Ta'rikh-e-Baghdad, Vol. 8, pp. 289, 290, has narrated a detailed hadith from Abu Huraira that if any one fasts on the eighteenth day of Dhu'l-Hijja (The Day of Ghadir), he will be rewarded for sixty months of fasting. He then records the above hadith in the same way.

HASAN'S COUPLETS BEFORE THE HOLY PROPHET

The fifth circumstance to prove the wilaya (vicegerency) of Ali is the reading of his couplets, which Hasan Bin Thabit read with the permission of the Holy Prophet, in the gathering in which Ali's rank of Vicegerent was announced. Sibt Ibn Jauzi and others have written that when the Holy Prophet heard those verses, he said, "Oh, Hasan! so long as you

{ 247 }

continue helping us or praising us with your tongue, ruhu quds, the holy spirit, will also be supporting you."

The well known commentator and narrator of hadith of the fourth century A.H., Hafiz if Ibn Mardawiyya (died 352 A.H.), in his Manaqib; the Chief of the Imams, Muwaffaq Bin Ahmad Khawarizmi in Manaqib and Maqtalu'l-Husain, part IV; Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in his Risalatu'l-Azhar fi ma Aqdahu'sh-Shu'ara and many of your scholars, narrators and historians report from Abu Sa'id Khadiri that on the day of Ghadir-e-Khum, after the address of the Holy Prophet and the appointment of Ali as his successor, Hasan Bin Thabit said: "Do you permit me to recite some couplets on this occasion?" The Holy Prophet said: "Yes, recite with Allah's blessings." So he stood up at a raised spot and recited spontaneously composed verses. The meaning of the verses is as follows:

"On the Day of Ghadir-e-Khum, the Holy Prophet called together the umma, and I heard his voice calling them. The Prophet said to the people, "Who is your maula and wali?" The people said clearly, "Allah is our maula (Lord) and you are our wali (Guardian) and no one denies this fact." So then the Holy Prophet said to Ali: "Stand up! I am content with your becoming the imam (vicegerent) and hadi (guide) after me. So of whomsoever I am the maula (master) this Ali is also his maula (master). Hence, all of you people should loyally and faithfully help him." Then the Prophet prayed to Allah: "O Allah! Be a friend of him who is a friend of him (Ali) and be an enemy of him who is enemy of him."

These couplets are a clear proof of the fact that on that day the companions of the Holy Prophet did not interpret the word "maula" in any other way except "imam" and that Ali would be the caliph after the Prophet died. If the word "maula" did not mean "imam" or master over others, the Prophet would have at once interrupted Hasan when he had recited the line: "I am content with your being imam and guide after me," and would have told him that he was mistaken and that he did not mean Ali to be the imam and successor after him and that he meant by the word "maula" "friend" or "helper." But in fact the Holy Prophet supported him by saying "Ruhu'l-Quds will also be supporting you." Apart from this, the Holy Prophet clearly explained the position of imamate or wilaya (vicegerency) of Ali in his sermon. You should study the sermon of the Holy Prophet, which he delivered on the Ghadir-e-Khum day and which has been reported in full by Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari (died 310 A.H.) in his book Kitabu'l-Wilaya. He writes that the Prophet said: "Listen and obey. Verily, Allah Almighty is your maula and Ali is your imam. Until the Day of Judgment the imamate will belong to my progeny, the descendants of Ali."

{ 248 }

COMPANIONS' BREAKING THEIR PROMISE MADE ON THE DAY OF GHADIR

Whatever interpretation you may give to the word "maula," it is an acknowledged fact that the companions made a promise to the Prophet on that day. There is complete concurrence between the two sects on this point. Then why did they break that pledge? Even if we suppose for the moment that by maula the Holy Prophet meant merely "friend" or "helper," for Allah's sake tell us if you think that friendship meant that they should set fire to Ali's house, terrify his family, and threaten him with drawn swords.

The Prophet gave clear instructions that the companions should pledge allegiance to Ali. Do you think that he intended that they should therefore terrorize his own son-in-law? After the death of the Prophet, didn't they break their pledge? Did they, who broke the pledge, fulfill, in your opinion, the conditions of friendship? Did they read verse 15 of ch. 13, Al-Ra'd (the Thunder) of the Qur'an? "And those who break the covenant of Allah after its confirmation and cut asunder that which Allah has ordered to be joined and make mischief in the land; (as for) those, upon them shall be a curse, and they shall have the evil (issue) of the abode." (13:25)

COMPANIONS' BREAKING THE PROMISE AT UHUD, HUNAIN, AND HUDAIBIYYA

In the battles of Uhud and Hunain, when the Holy Prophet had made all his companions promise that they would not run away that day, didn't they actually run away? They ran from the battlefield and left the Holy Prophet to face the enemy. This has been recorded by your own historians, like Tabari, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, and Ibn A'same Kufi. Wasn't this breaking a solemn pledge?

I swear by Allah that you unreasonably find fault with the Shias when we say only what your own renowned ulema and historians have said.

SHIAS CONDEMN ONLY THOSE COMPANIONS WHOSE ACTS WERE UNJUST

I don't understand why you people have been attacking us for generations. Whatever you write is accepted, but if we write what the great Sunni ulema have written, we are labelled as infidels simply because we criticize the injustice of some of the Companions.

{ 249 }

If, however criticism of the Companions means Rafizi'ism, then apparently all the Companions were Rafizis, because all of them criticized one another's bad actions. Even Abu Bakr and Umar did so.

Some of the Prophet's companions were pious believers and were highly respected. Others indulged their lower desires and were condemned. If you want historical proof of this fact, I suggest that you read Ibn Abi'l-Hadid's Sharh-e-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.IV, pp. 454, 462, and study Zaidi's detailed reply to Abu'l-Ma'ali Juwaini's objection, which Abu Ja'far Naqib has recorded. Then you will know how much controversy existed among the companions, who in fact cursed one another as sinners and infidels.

COMPANIONS' RUNNING AWAY AT HUDAIBIYYA

In his account of the Hudaibiyya affair, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, in his Sharh-e-Nahju'l-Balagha, and others of your historians have also written that, after the conclusion of the treaty of peace, most of the companions, including Umar Bin Khattab, expressed their anger concerning the terms of the treaty. They told the Holy Prophet that they were not satisfied with peace and wanted to fight. The Holy Prophet said that if they wanted to fight, they were at liberty to do so. So they attacked. But the companions suffered a crushing defeat and fled to the hills and did not even return to protect the Holy Prophet. Then the Holy Prophet asked Ali to draw the sword and repel the Quraish. Seeing Ali before them, the Quraish drew back. Later the companions who had fled returned and begged the Prophet's pardon. The Holy Prophet said to them: "Do I not know you! Are you not the same people who trembled in fear in the Battle of Badr until Allah Almighty sent angels for our help! Are you not the same companions of mine who on the Day of Uhud fled to the hills and left me unprotected? Although I kept on calling you, you did not return."

The Holy Prophet recounted all their weaknesses, and they continued expressing their regret for their actions. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid says at the conclusion of his work that this rebuke was directed specifically against Umar, who did not believe any of the promises made by the Holy Prophet. Then he writes that, in light of the statement of the Holy Prophet, Caliph Umar must have fled from the Battle of Uhud because in his talk the Holy Prophet had referred to that also.

Now you can yourself see that if we relate this fact, which is recorded by your eminent ulema like Abi'l-Hadid and others, we shall at once be subjected to attack because we have insulted the Caliph, but there is no

{ 250 }

objection to Abi'l-Hadid. In fact we have no intention of insulting anybody. We merely relate historical facts, and you look at us with scornful eyes. You ignore those facts.

SHIAS WILL SEEK REDRESS ON THE DAY OF JUDGMENT

The Shias will have many complaints on the Day of Judgment against your ulema. The world will perish, but you must appear in Allah's Court of Justice to answer for your oppression.

Hafiz: Please tell me for what oppression you will seek justice on the Day of Judgment?

Well-Wisher: There are instances which I might cite. When the Day of Divine Justice comes I will certainly seek justice.

Hafiz: I ask you not to excite the emotions of others. Tell us what oppression you have suffered.

Well-Wisher: Oppression and tyranny is not a new thing for us today. But its foundation was laid immediately after the demise of our ancestor, the Holy Prophet. The right of our oppressed grandmother, Fatima Zahra, which was bequeathed to her by her father, the Holy Prophet, for the bringing up of her children, was usurped. No notice was taken of her complaints and protestations.At last she passed away in the prime of her youth with a broken heart.

Hafiz: Please you are unnecessarily exciting the people. Tell us what right of Fatima was usurped? Please remember that if you fail to prove your claim you will, to some degree, fail in the Divine Court of Justice. Please yourself to be in the Divine Court of Justice and argue your case.

Well-Wisher: One day we shall be before the Divine Court. We expect justice. If you too have a sense of justice you should, like a just judge listen to my submissions without prejudice. I believe you will acknowledge the validity of our claim.

Hafiz: I swear that I have no prejudice or stubborness. Surely you have observed during these nights that I do not argue perversely. When I have heard reasonable arguments I have accepted them. My silence was an indication itself of my accepting the just cause. By nature I am not disposed to quarrel. I admit that before I met you here, I wanted to defeat you. But I have been so impressed by your purity, your politeness, good