For Those Promoting Unity: Sunni Scholars Labeled as Nasibis

[wellwisher]

Oh, ho, so this donkey wellwisher has some brain, Masha Allah, I thought all donkeys have no brain , I am wrong, this donkey is full of brain.



Could you please use your "brain of donkey" to verify the belief of Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Ahmad Ibn Hambal in his Musnad and others who puts in numerous traditions of distortion in his collection of Sahih and off-course Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani who said that the word YAY-ASI is not the correct word used in existing Qur'an but YATBAYN is the correct word ?

Ban this fool, when he finds that he is defeated and his LIES are exposed. He starts offending,like a kid. And he tries to derail the issue, lol like a shamless looser.

[Syed_zeeshan]

Ban this fool, when he finds that he is defeated. He starts offending,like a kid.

I am unable to find point of my defeat, in fact you have been defeated, I thought I wouldn't answer to this idiot, it was my mistake that I answered to a man who belongs to the clan of Shaytan (La'een) and whose aim is to destroy the Ummah of Huzoor (saaw) with his distorted quotes.

[wellwisher]

I am unable to find point of my defeat, in fact you have been defeated, I thought I wouldn't answer to this idiot, it was my mistake that I answered to a man who belongs to the clan of Shaytan (La'een) and whose aim is to destroy the Ummah of Huzoor (saaw) with his distorted quotes.

This is how you were defeated LIAR:

ANways here is a another blow from shia scholars who testifies that Majlisi believed in tahreef, so get lost brainless moron.

Shia shaykh Sayed Tayeeb Mosawi al-Jazairi in his saying on commentary of Qummi, wrote:

ولكن الظاهر من كلمات غيرهم من العلماء والمحدثين المتقدمين منهم والمتأخرين القول بالنقيصة كالكليني والبرقى، والعياشي والنعماني، وفرات بن ابراهيم، واحمد بن ابى طالب الطبرسي صاحب الاحتجاج والمجلسى، والسيد الجزائري، والحر العاملي، والعلامة الفتوني، والسيد البحراني وقد تمسكوا في اثبات مذهبهم بالآيات والروايات التى لا يمكن الاغماض عنها والذي يهون الخطب ان التحريف اللازم على قولهم يسير جدا مخصوص بآيات الولاية.


“and what is obvious from the words of those other than them, from the early and later scholars of hadith, is the proponence of [the belief in] omission. Such as: al-Kulayni, al-Barqi, al-Ayashi, an-Nomani, and Furat ibn Ibrahim (al-Koofe), Ahmad ibn Abu Talib a-Tabrasi author of “al-Ihtijaj”, al-Majlisi, sayed Jazairi, al-Hurr al-Amili, allama al-Fattuni, sayed al-Bahrani. They have held on tightly to the verses and narrations, that cannot possibly be looked away from, to establish their opinion. The thing that makes disaster less than it is, they said tahrif happen in very small proportion, only in verses on wilayat”.

Also, renowned shia scholar Ali al-Milani commented on shia scholars which believed in tahrif :

Question 4: Is it true the saying of Shaykh Mufid, and Abul Hasan al-Amili, and Sayyid Ni’matullah al-Jazairi and Majlisi and others- in spite of their virtues and high position- that there was Tahreef in the Quran?

Answer 4 (answering Milane): We do not deny the existence of a very few from among our Muhaddethin about the deletion of the Holy Quran, and this saying is refuted but it is not allowed for us to disassociate ourselves from them.

Comment:As you can see this ayatolla didn’t deny that above mentioned scholars did believe in Tahrif.

“Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.” Quran (17:81)

[Syed_zeeshan]

This is how you were defeated LIAR:

When did I accepted defeat on this issue you idiot, rather I posted replies, and you jumped when your fanatic Aalim Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani was mentioned, so this defeat is yours Mr. Donkey with Brain

[ALIASGAR_SHAH]

Do you believe that anyone who curses the wives of Rasoolullah صلي الله تعالى عليه واله وصحبه وسلم is a kaafir?

Do you believe that anyone who curses the sahaba رضي الله تعالى عنهم is a kaafir, especially the shaykhan Abu Bakr and Umar رضي الله تعالى عنهما?

Do you believe that anyone who believes in the tahreef of the Qur'an is a kaafir?

Even if you answer these questions in the affirmative (which I highly doubt you'd do without the guise of taqiyyah), you've already stated before that your divine imams are superior to the messengers of Allah . Believing in what you claim your imams have said is not part of Islamic creed, yet you choose to make it so. Even the basic 6 points of belief do not mention belief in the imams, but they do mention belief in the prophets, clearly identifying the superiority of the prophets above all of mankind, including your imams.

Furthermore, the so-called infallibility of the imams has been disproven, starting from 'Ali himself.

Salaam Brother Abdul Wahhab. I have a gift for the shiites. Below find the transcript of a very imp debate between a very lerarned shia scholar and a highly leanred sunni scholar . It was organized by Nadir shah.

He (the Molla) said, "How could he ever think the name (Bahr-ul-'ilm) becoming himself? He is quite devoid of knowledge. If I gave him two evidences proving the fact that Imam- i-Ali 'radi-allahu anh' was the first Khalifa by rights, he would not be able to find an answer. Not only him; even if all the Sunnite scholars came together, they would not be able to answer."


"What are those unanswerable evidences of yours?" I said.


1- He said, "First, I should like to ask you a question: Hadrat Prophet 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' stated as follows about Ali ibn Abi Talib 'radi-allahu anh': 'Whatever Harun (Aaron) was in relation to Musa (Moses), you are the same with relation to me. The only difference is that no Prophet shall come after me.' You, too, know this hadith."


"Yes. In fact, it is widely known," I said.


He said, "This hadith ash-Sharif shows that Imam-i-Ali should be the Khalifa after hadrat Prophet."


"How is that," I asked.


He said, "It is pointed out that the position of Imam-i-Ali in relation to the Prophet is identical with that of Harun to Musa. The only exception is stated to be "Yet no Prophet shall come after me." For this reason, hadrat Ali should be the first Khalifa. Had Harun's lifetime not ended, he would have succeeded Musa."


"You assert clearly that these statements have a general reference according to the knowledge of logic. How do you reach the conclusion that they have a general meaning?"


"In exceptions, annexation implies a general meaning."


"Harun 'alaihis-salam', like Musa 'alaihis-salam', was a Prophet. On the other hand, as you, too, know, hadrat Ali was not a Prophet; neither before, nor afterwards. Furthermore, Harun 'alaihis-salam' was Musa's 'alaihis-salam' real brother. On the other hand, hadrat Ali 'radi-allahu anh' is not Rasul-i-akram's 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' real brother. Exception in something general refers to supposition in the knowledge of logic. Therefore, the meaning of the statement must be sought as to a position, a station. Accordingly, the letter (t) at the end of the (Arabic) word 'menzila' (position) indicates a singular meaning. The izafet (annexation) 'like the position of Harun' is an izafet-i-ahdiyya, as is the case with most types of annexation. In other words, it does not indicate a general meaning. And the word 'Only' means 'Yet'. Then, the statement bears a suppositious meaning, not a definite one. In statements such as this, something which is uncertain can be understood with the help of some other information. That is, as the relation between the words 'menzila' and 'Harun' indicates that he was the Khalifa only for the Sons of Israel, so it indicates that hadrat Ali 'radi-allahu anh' was left in Medina-i-munawwara as the Khalifa during the Holy War of Tabuk.


"Being left there as the Khalifa shows that he is more virtuous. He must be the first Khalifa," he said.


I said, "Then, Abdullah ibni umm-i-Mektum 'radi-allahu anh' must be a Khalifa, too. For Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' left him, as well as others, as the Khalifa, that is, as his representative, in Medina-i-munawwara. Now, for what reason do you choose hadrat Ali 'radi-allahu anh' as the first Khalifa instead of conferring the honor on one of the others; for instance, on this one (named above)? Moreover, if being left as a representative were a cause of superiority, Ali 'radi-allahu anh' would not have expressed his anxiety by complaining, 'Are you going to leave me here with women, children and the incapable?' And our Master Fakhr-i-alam 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' would not have consoled him by stating, 'Don't you like to have a position with me like that of Harun with Musa?' "


"According to the Sunnite (branch of) knowledge (called) Usul, the important thing is not the dissimilarity between the causes but the generality of the statement," he said.


I said, "I am not treating the dissimilarity between the causes as a documental evidence. Yet I am stating that the indefinite element in this hadith ash-Sharif is a token suggesting its specificity." He was silent.


I went on, "Furthermore, this hadith ash-Sharif cannot be put forward as a document. For it has not been narrated unanimously. Some of the scholars have stated it was sahih, some of them have said it was hasan, and others have declared it was a dhaif (Kinds of hadith ash-Sharifs are explained in full detail in the book Se'adet-i Ebediyye (Endless Bliss).) hadith. Ibn-ul-Jawzi, for instance, says that it is mawdu'. [Abulferedj Jemal-ud-din Hafiz Abd-ur-Rahman bin Ali-yyul-Jawzi 'rahmatullahi alaih' is a great alim (savant, profoundly learned scholar) of hadith. He was born in Baghdad in 508 and passed away there in 597 [A.D. 1201]. He wrote more than a hundred books. His tafsir (explanation of Qur'an al-karim), titled Mughni, is well-known]. How could this (hadith) prove that Imam- i-Ali 'radi-allahu anh' was the first Khalifa, despite the fact that a document should be widely known nass (an ayat al-karima or hadith ash-Sharif which has been stated clearly)?"


He said, "Yes, that is right. This (hadith) is not our only evidence. The hadith, 'Salute Ali as the Amir (Ruler) of believers,' is an evidence. It is an irrefutable fact that this hadith ash- Sharif signifies Ali's right to be the first Khalifa, if not his prophethood."


I said, "This hadith ash-Sharif is mawdu' to our knowledge. The books of the 'Ulama (savants) of Ahl- as-sunnat 'rahmatullahi ta'ala alaihim ajmain' do not contain sahih hadith of this sort." He mused (for a while). Then he said suddenly:


"I am going to state another evidence, which is impossible to interpret otherwise. The ayat, 'Come on! Let us call your children and our children!', is my evidence," he said.


I questioned, "How can this ayat al-karima, which is the sixty-first ayat of Al-i-'Imran sura, be an evidence?"


He said, "When the Christians coming from Nejran to Medina disbelieved, Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' said to them, 'I challenge you; let us imprecate Allah's condemnation on the party which is lying.' And then he came forward, taking Ali, Fatima (his daughter), Hasan and Husain (his two grandsons) with him. Certainly, a person who joined (the Prophet) in this invocation is more virtuous than one who did not."


I said, "What you have just told is an episode. It does not signify superiority. For there is an episode that is ascribed to each of the Ashab al-kiram 'radi-allahu ta'ala anhum ajmain' and which distinguishes him from the others. History readers are quite familiar with this fact. Furthermore, Qur'an-i-azim-ush-shan was revealed in the Arabic language. For instance, supposing two tribes were about to fight each other and the chief of one of them said, 'I shall take the brave ones of my tribe with me. And you must select the brave ones in your tribe;' this statement would not prove that neither tribe contained any brave men other than those who came forward. Being with one's immediate relations during an invocation is (an indication of) a broken heart and it is intended for the acceptance of the invocation."


"This shows abundance of love," he said.


I said, "This is a kind of love innate in one's nature. It is like one's loving oneself, one's children. It is out of place to look for superiority in this."


"One more thing: The Prophet 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' put hadrat Ali in the same place with himself," he asserted.


I said, "You are not aware of the knowledge of Usul; perhaps you do not even know Arabic! The word 'enfus', which you presume to be an evidence, is jem'i qillat (plural of paucity). It has been attached to (the word) 'Na', which is an element of plural. When one plural is placed against another plural, it causes the division of (the number) one by a thousand. For instance, to say that 'the cavalry company have mounted' means to say that all the horsemen in the company have mounted their horses. Jem' means more than one. The twenty-sixth ayat of Nur sura, which purports, 'These are not as they have said', points to hadrat Aisha 'radi-allahu anha' and Safwan 'radi-allahu anh.' Likewise, the expression 'their hearts', in the fourth ayat of Tahrim sura, is plural, yet according to the knowledge of logic it means 'two hearts' because it is attached to a pronoun signifying 'two'. By the same token, the expression 'our children', said about Hasan and Husain 'radi-allahu anhuma', and the plural reference 'women', made to hadrat Fatima 'radi-allahu anha' alone, are hyperboles. If this ayat al-karima indicated that hadrat Ali should be the first Khalifa, then Hasan, Husain and Fatima should have been Khalifas respectively. However, hadrat Fatima could never be a Khalifa."


He said, "I have another proof. The fifty-eighth ayat of Maida sura purports, 'Verily, thine protectors, thine owners are Allahu ta'ala and His Messenger and believers.' As it is unanimously stated by scholars of Tafsir (Islamic branch of knowledge involving explanation of Qur'an al-karim), hadrat Ali 'radi-allahu anh', as he was performing namaz, gave his ring as alms to a poor person, whereon this ayat al-karima was revealed. The phrase 'inna-ma' in the ayat al-karima means 'he, alone'. That is, it refers only to him. And the word 'Wali' (in the ayat al-karima) means 'the one who is best disposed to governing'. What is your opinion of the Sahaba-i-kiram?"


"Our knowledge about them is such that they are true in person and in words," was my answer.


2- He said, "Many an ayat in Qur'an al-karim reproaches them. There are a number of ayats declaring that they are hypocrites, that they harassed and annoyed Rasulullah. Examples of this fact are the fifty-ninth ayat of Tawba sura and the eighth ayat of Mujadala sura and the first ayat of Munafiqun sura and the sixteenth and twentieth and twenty-ninth and thirtieth ayats of Muhammad sura. Moreover, as is pointed out in the hundred and second ayat of Tawba sura and in the eleventh and twelfth and fifteenth ayats of Fat-h sura and in the fourth ayat of Hujurat sura, so clandestine were the hypocrites in Medina that our master Fakhr-i-'alam himself, let alone other people, was unaware of them. It is stated in the Enfal sura, 'Verily it is them who opposed Rasulullah, who evaded the renowned Holy War of Badr and returned before seeing the enemy, and who refrained from the honor of that day for which believers gave up their lives.' It is for this reason that Allahu ta'ala 'jalla jalaluh', who is aware of secrets, reveals the hypocrites' evil intentions in the sixth ayat of Enfal sura. It is these hypocrites, again, who escaped from the Holy War of Hunayn and who relied on their being superior in number and thus caused the revelation of the tenth and hundred and sixteenth ayats of Al-i-'Imran sura. In the catastrophe of Uhud they ran away into the mountains, leaving hadrat Fakhr-i-kainat in the hands of the enemy. They caused the wounding of his blessed face and martyrdom of two of his teeth and his falling down from the mare. In fact, when they were asked to help they pretended not to hear and were therefore reproached by Allahu ta'ala in the hundred and fifty-third ayat al- karima of Al-i-'Imran sura. On account of the infamous behavior they showed in Tabuk, they were reprimanded and threatened through the thirty-ninth ayat al-karima of Tawba sura.


(He went on), "As all these facts show, the Prophet's Ashab disobeyed him, opposed him. The ayat al-karima about their desertion purports that all of them ran away, not only a few of them. For the forty-third ayat of Tawba sura declares plainly that they incurred torment and censure. And they caused the revelation of the forty-fourth ayat al-karima of Tawba sura, which scolds the Fakhr-i-'alam 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' because he allowed them to rejoin the believers. Moreover, during the Holy War of Ahzab, or Hendek (Trench), which took place during the eleventh month of the fifth year of the Hijra (Hegira), they were reprimanded and censured through the thirteenth and fifteenth ayats of Ahzab sura and through many other ayats. How could such people ever be said to be true people? How could their actions and words ever be of documentary value in religious matters? It is neither reasonable nor scientific to believe or trust them."


I took my turn: "All the ayat al- karimas that you put forward as documents in order to vilify the Ashab al-kiram 'alaihimur-ridwan' were intended for munafiqs (hypocrites). No one doubts as to this fact. In fact, Shiites also unanimously acknowledge this fact. It would be quite incompatible with justice and reason to attempt to heap the reproaches stated in these ayat al-karimas which are known to have been revealed to reprimand the hypocrites on the Ashab al-kiram, who have been praised and lauded through ayats, and thus to try to defame these great people. Formerly there were many hypocrites. Later on they began to decrease in number. Towards the end of the blessed lifetime of our master Fakhr-i-'alam 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' the hypocrites were separated from the true believers. With the hundred and seventy-ninth ayat al-karima of Al-i-'Imran sura, Allahu ta'ala severed the good from the vicious. Our master, hadrat Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' stated, 'As the fire in the smith's forge severs the iron from its dirt, so Medina severs the good people from the bad ones.' [That is, as the forges used by blacksmiths and blast-furnaces separate the scum called dross from the iron, so Medina city separates good people from bad ones.]. For how could it ever be justifiable to impute (the contents of) the ayat al-karimas describing the hypocrites to the Ashab al-kiram? The hundred and tenth ayat of Al-i-'Imran sura purports, 'You have been the most beneficent, the best of ummats.' How could those people, who are praised and lauded through this ayat, be equated with the hypocrites?


(I went on), "Allahu ta'ala praises the Ashab al-kiram through many ayat al-karimas. It is written in all the books of Tafsir that the fifty-ninth ayat of Tawba sura descended about Ibni zil Huwaysira bin Zuheyr, who was the chief of the (Khawarij) tribe. It is not worthy of a man of knowledge to impute (the evils purported in) this ayat al-karima to the Sahaba-i- kiram 'ridwanullahi ta'ala alaihim ajmain'. It will be appropriate at this point to paraphrase the passages explaining this event in the book Bukhari-yi-Sharif. Abu Said-i-Hudri 'radi- allahu anh' narrates: I was with our master Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam.' I was enjoying the pleasure of seeing his blessed luminous face. He was meting out the booties taken from the disbelievers in the Holy War of Hunayn. Huwaysira from the Bani Tamim clan came in, and said, 'O Rasulallah! Observe justice!' Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' stated, 'Shame on you! If I do not administer justice, who does? If I did not dispense justice, you would suffer much harm!' At that moment 'Umar-ul-Faruq 'radi- allahu anh' stood up and said, 'Please give me permission to kill that nescient.' He (Rasulullah) stated, 'Leave him! For this man has friends. They perform namaz like you. They fast, read Qur'an al-karim with you. Yet the word of Allahu ta'ala does not go down their throats. They leave the religion (Islam) like an arrow leaving the bow. When he looks at his arrow and at the target and at the bottle, he cannot see any of them. Yet the arrow has reached the bottle, pierced it, and shed the blood. Among them will be a person, whose color is black. One of his arms is like the udder of an animal. It drips ceaselessly.' As Abu Said-i-Hudri narrates, hadrat Ali 'radi-allahu anhuma' made war against the Khawarij during his caliphate. We saw a man of this sort among the captives. He was exactly as our master Rasulullah described him. It has been reported that the reason for the revelation of this ayat al-karima was due to the following statement made by a hypocrite named Abulhawat: 'O my friends! Why don't you look at your owner! He wants to make a show of justice by giving what belongs to you to shepherds.'


(I went on), "Also, the eighth ayat of Mujadala sura was revealed for the Jews and hypocrites. For they were organizing meetings hidden from the Muslims among themselves, and trying to deceive the Ashab al-kiram with eye and eye-brow gestures. The believers, on the other hand, would feel pity for them, thinking that they were apprehending a certain calamity that was going to befall them and talking secretly among themselves lest others should know about it. Yet the prolongation of these talks revealed their real purposes. The Ashab al-kiram 'alaihimur-ridwan' complained to our master Fakhr-i-'alam 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' and petitioned that these malevolent secret meetings should be put an end to. Therefore he (Rasulullah) commanded that such meetings should be discontinued. Yet the hypocrites disobeyed him and carried on their sedition. Upon this the eighth ayat of Mujadala sura was revealed, which purported, 'Have you not seen those who were prohibited from holding secret meetings? They have met again despite the prohibition. They have been meeting for sinning, for (stirring up) enmity, opposition to Rasulullah.' Their disobeying the prohibition and meeting again means opposition.


(I went on), "The blessed meaning of the eighth ayat of Mujadala sura is, 'When they greet thee, they do not do so (in the same manner) as Allahu ta'ala greets thee.' Jews are reproached in this ayat al-karima. Whenever Jews met Rasulullah they would say, 'May sam be to you,' instead of saying, 'May salam be on you.' And Rasulullah 'sall- allahu alaihi wasallam' would reply, 'And the same to you!' Thus, instead of saying, 'salam', which means 'safety, security', they would say, 'sam', which means 'death'. They thought they could deceive Fakhr-i-kainat, who is the highest of all creatures, of all the past and future human beings. When they left him they would say that they had deceived him and that if he had been a Prophet they would have incurred (Allah's) scourge on account of this atrocity of theirs. It is for this reason that it was declared, 'Their calculation shall add up to torment in Hell', at the end of the ayat al-karima. (Bukhari) states in his book that when Jews entered the presence of our Prophet 'sall-allahu ta'ala alaihi wasallam' they would pronounce their doubtful, wicked word of greeting, as it was their vicious custom. Aisha 'radi-allahu anha' understood this and became angry. Our master, Rasulullah, stated that there was no reason for becoming angry and that his invocation, 'May the same be to you!', was accepted (by Allahu ta'ala).


"The expression, 'When the munafiqs (hypocrites) come to thee...', in the first ayat of Munafiqun sura, refers to Abdullah bin Selul and his friends. It has nothing to do with Ashab al-kiram.


(I went on), "The meaning of the sixteenth ayat of Muhammad sura is, 'Of them, the ones who listen to thee; when they leave thee...' This ayat al-karima, too, was revealed for the hypocrites. The hypocrites would appear in the presence of Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam', hear his statements, and yet they would not want to understand what he was saying. Imam-i-Muqatil [Of Balh; passed away in Basra in 150] states as follows in his Tafsir: As Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' preached during the Khutba, they would pretend not to understand, asking Abdullah ibni Abbas 'radi-allahu anhuma', 'What does this man want to say?' Abdullah ibni Abbas 'radi-allahu anhuma' reports that they would ask him from time to time. Allahu ta'ala, who is the (real) owner of justice, revealed the sixteenth ayat of Muhammad sura, thus distinguishing the faithful believers who were serving whole heartedly from the hypocrites. The blessed meaning of this ayat is, 'Allahu ta'ala has sealed their hearts shut.' Then, revealing the next ayat, He (Allahu ta'ala) gave the Ashab al-kiram the good news of hidayat (guidance to the right way) and najat (salvation). Said bin Jubair 'radi-allahu anh' states: The expression, 'Thou hast seen those with ailing hearts', purported in the twentieth ayat of Muhammad sura, uncovers the hypocrites explicitly. For there are three kinds of hearts: The first one is the believer's heart, which is pure and attached to Allahu ta'ala with love. The second kind of heart is rigid and dead. It will never feel mercy. The third kind is the ailing heart. This ailment is the singular property of hypocrites. Allahu ta'ala describes all these three kinds of hearts in the fifty-first ayat of Hajj sura. Two of these three hearts are in torment. One of them shall attain salvation. The believer's heart is Salim. Allahu ta'ala praises and lauds the heart that is Salim. The eighty-eighth ayat of Shu'ara sura purports, 'That day, property and children shall do no good. Only those who come with a heart that is Salim shall attain benefits.'


"The Bani Anber tribe were disbelievers. It would be wrong, both mentally and scientifically, to place them among the Ashab al-kiram.


"As for the Holy War of Badr; as it is explained both in your books and in our books, it took place as it is stated in the first ayat of Enfal sura.


(I went on), "The dispersal that took place in the Holy War of Hunayn was not a desertion. It was a precaution, a tactical stratagem. Every war embodies retreats as well as forward movements. After all, those who dispersed were not the greater ones of the Ashab al- kiram. They were the slaves who had been emancipated after the conquest of Mecca a few months earlier. It was for certain that the result was going to be a victory. In fact, that this withdrawal brought about victory is informed in the twenty-seventh ayat of Tawba sura, which purports, 'Then He conferred serenity on His Messenger and on the believers.' Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' was aware of this. For this reason he did not rebuke those who had dispersed. He was not offended with any of them. Then, would it be proper for us to censure them? Since it is stated, 'It is permissible to desert the battle when one's life is in danger,' in the book (Kitab-ush-sharayi') which was written by Abulqasim Shii, a Shiite scholar, would it not be necessary to hold one's tongue about the Sahaba 'radi-allahu ta'ala anhum ajmain' who retreated during the Holy War of Hunayn?


"As for the desertion in the Holy War of Uhud; it took place before its prohibition. It is declared in the hundred and fifty-fifth ayat of Al-i-'Imran sura that Allahu ta'ala has forgiven them.


"It is explained in all books of Tafsir that the good news purporting, 'Allahu ta'ala has forgiven thee,' which is before the hundred and fifty-third ayat al-karima of Al-i-'Imran sura, is attached to this ayat, which follows it.


"The meaning of the ninety-ninth ayat of Tawba sura is, 'O those who have had iman! What happened to you when you were said to go out for Jihad?' This does not mean to censure or rebuke them. Yet it means to inform them that they have been slack. And this information includes all of them. It has not been stated that hadrat Ali 'radi-allahu anh', who was among them, was an exception." Upon this the head Molla began to talk:

[ALIASGAR_SHAH]

Whereever it is I sdaid it is the sunni scholar and where it is Mulla said it is shia scholar. The debate continues;

3- "Would it be something right to make a person Khalifa while his caliphate was a matter of controversy? The Bani Hashim (tribe) were the notables of the Ashab al-kiram. Only after long hesitation and upon insistent coercion did they acknowledge his caliphate. Is this the way of accepting a Khalifa?"


I answered, "All the Sahaba 'radi-allahu ta'ala anhum ajmain' unanimously agreed on the caliphate of hadrat Abu Bakr 'radi-allahu ta'ala anh'. Anyone without prejudice will acknowledge this fact. Hadrat Ali 'radi-allahu ta'ala anh' and a few other Sahabis 'radi- allahu ta'ala anhum ajmain' were late to acknowledge their obedience, not because they were opposed, but because they had not been invited to the election and therefore had not attended it. Besides, a few people's opposition could not have turned the preference of the majority to the other way round. Had such a thing been possible, it would have been possible when hadrat Ali 'karram-allahu ta'ala wej-heh' was elected the (fourth) Khalifa (afterwards), and consequently his caliphate would not have been rightful."


4- The head Molla changed the subject: "Abu Bakr deprived hadrat Fatima of her right by violence. Putting forward the hadith ash-Sharif, 'We Prophets do not leave inheritance behind us. What we leave will become alms,' he did not give her her dues. During the battle of Hayber, Jabrail (Gabriel) 'alaihis-salam' brought the command which purported, 'Give the person who is close to thee his right.' When our master the Prophet asked, 'Who is the person close to me?', he was told that it was Fatima. It has been reported by Umm-i- Eymen and Esma bint-i-Umeys and Ali ibni Abi Talib that upon this event Fatima was given the date orchard called (Fedek). Despite these witnesses, he deprived her of her right with a hadith ash-Sharif reported by him; what is this, if not cruelty? Is it compatible with Islam to accept a Khalifa whose conduct and deeds are like this?"


I answered: "There are two possible reasons for hadrat Fatima's demanding for the date orchard called Fedek. She might have said that she had inherited it. Or she might have claimed it was her property because it had been given to her before (her father's death). Your assertion denotes that she asked for it because it was her property. None of the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat has said that the orchard named Fedek had been given to Fatima 'radi-allahu anh' or that it was her property. Nor is it written in any Islamic book. All books say that she asked for it because (she thought) it was an inheritance from her father. How could this event, which is narrated clearly in the book (Bukhari-yi-Sharif), be changed into 'it was taken away from her by force'? Hadith-i-Sharifs are plain enough not to tolerate such distortions. For the date orchard named Fedek was in the possession of our master the Prophet. When he passed away it went under the control of Abu Bakr, his Khalifa. When hadrat Fatima asked for it as an inheritance, he answered her as it was stated in the hadith ash-Sharif, and swore that he held Rasulullah's relatives higher than his own. These facts are written in the book (Bukhari-yi-Sharif). It is completely wrong to say that this hadith ash-Sharif was reported only by Abu Bakr. This hadith ash-Sharif was reported also by 'Umar, 'Uthman, Ali, Talha, Zubair, Abd-ur-rahman, Abbas, and the blessed wives of our master Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam'. It is written in Bukhari-yi-Sharif. Imam-i-Ismail Bukhari states: Ishaq said to me: I have heard this hadith ash-Sharif from Malik bin Anas. (He said) he had heard it from Shahab-i-Zuhri, who (had said he) had heard it from Malik bin Ews. I visited Malik bin Ews and asked him. He said to me: One day before noon I was sitting in front of my house, when one of hadrat 'Umar's men came and said that the Khalifa wanted to see me. I went there and entered the Khalifa's presence. The Khalifa was sitting on a couch. There was not a mattress on the couch. He was leaning back on a cushion. I greeted him, and sat down. He said to me, 'A few people from your tribe were here. I ordered that they should be given some money. I sent for you because I would like you to divide this money and distribute it to them. Take it and mete it out!' I requested the Khalifa to excuse me and have someone else carry out this order. But when he insisted I could not refuse him. At that moment the door-keeper entered and said that 'Uthman, Abd-ur-rahman, Zubair, Sad ibni Abi Waqqas 'radi-allahu anhum' requested admittance. He (the Khalifa) said they could come in. So they entered and sat down. Some time later the doorman came in again and said that hadrat Ali and Abbas 'radi-allahu anhuma' were waiting outside for admittance. Given the permission, they entered, and sat down. Hadrat Abbas began to talk, saying that 'Ali 'radi-allahu anh' and I are here for the settlement of a disagreement between us concerning the property of (Bani Nadr), which Allahu ta'ala gifted to Rasulullah.' He wanted this matter to be discussed so that those who had come earlier would feel satisfied and pleased, too. First the Khalifa began to talk, saying, 'I ask you (to tell the truth) for the right of Uluhiyyat (being worshipped) and Izzat (Honor, Glory) of Allahu ta'ala, who has created the earth and heavens and who allows them to maintain their existence every moment: Did Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' make the statement, (We Prophets do not leave inheritance behind us! What we leave behind will become alms)? Do you know that he said this hadith ash-Sharif?' 'Uthman and his friends, who had arrived there earlier, said, 'Yes, we know about it. He (the Prophet) said so.' Then the Khalifa turned to Ali and Abbas and repeated the same question. Both of them replied in the affirmative. 'Then you must be ready to listen to the decree enacted in this respect: Janab-i-Rabb-ul-'alamin 'ta'ala wa taqaddes' has given this property as a Ghanimat. That He has made this gift only upon His Habib-i-akram, and no one else has been qualified with this concession, is pointed out in the sixth ayat of Hashr sura. Our master the Fakhr-i-kainat spent all such property, distributing it in a manner compatible with Islam, leaving behind what exists today. Setting apart the legitimate needs of his household from that Ghanimat, he would give the rest to those who were granted an allowance from the Bayt-ul-mal. What do you say about this? Would Rasulullah not do so?' Upon this question of the Khalifa, all the people being there replied in the affirmative.


"Hadrat Khalifa went on with his discourse: When Rasulullah passed away, Abu Bakr as- Siddiq 'radi-allahu anh' took control. He followed Rasulullah's example and did the same. Until his death, he carried on a faultless administration. Now you two are there to have me talk, to ask from me. Since both of you ask the same question, there must be one answer for both of you. You, hadrat Abbas, are here to ask about the right of your brother's son, Ali, and you, hadrat Ali, are here to ask about your wife's right, which is an inheritance from her father. I have quoted to you the hadith ash-Sharif, 'We do not leave inheritance behind us...', which you admit to have heard. Then I have informed you about the policy followed by Abu Bakr-i-Siddiq, who was the rightly-guided Khalifa of our master the Rasul-i-akram. The very day I became the Khalifa I assigned the task of carrying on this business to you, making it a stipulation that you were to follow the same policy as before.' Thus, in the presence of hadrat 'Uthman and his friends, he (the Khalifa, hadrat 'Umar) answered hadrat Ali and Abbas's question, stating that they had been given this duty under that stipulation. (And he went on), 'Now, if you have come here to ask for permission to do something contrary to this stipulation; I swear by the greatness of the Creator of earth and heavens that I shall not give permission to do something counter to the wishes of Allahu ta'ala and His Messenger. If you are incapable to execute this task, return it to me! I shall provide your needs for you.' When Urwa Tabn-i-Zubair was asked about this event, he repeated that he had heard it from Malik bin Ews 'radi-allahu anh' as it was. And he added a narration reported by hadrat Aisha 'radi-allahu anha', the blessed wife of our master Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam': One day the Ezwaj-i-tahirat (the Prophet's pure wives) 'radi-allahu anhunna' sent me to my father (hadrat Abu Bakr-i-Siddiq) to ask my father, who was the Khalifa at that time, about the portions they were to receive from the Ghanimat. He stated, 'Don't you fear Janab-i-Haqq? Our master Rasulullah's hadith ash-Sharif, (We Prophets do not leave inheritance), shows that you do not have any portions. Do you remember this hadith ash-Sharif?' Upon this refusal, I remembered the hadith ash-Sharif and went back.


"In order to explain that those who are vulgarly obstinate despite all these clear evidences must be malevolent people, I have quoted the hadith ash- Sharif in the book Bukhari-yi-Sharif exactly as it is. Hadrat Abu Bakr 'radi-allahu anh' heard this hadith ash-Sharif from our master Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam'. It is the most dependable document for him. For there are three ways of learning something: First, by perceiving it; second, by hearing it from all people; third, by hearing it from Rasulullah. Hadrat Fatima's not having heard about this hadith ash-Sharif does not signify its nonexistence. Hadrat Ali and Abbas's confirmation and the Prophet's blessed wives' stopping asking for their rights upon hadrat Aisha's dissuation, leave no doubt as to its authenticity. And you are wrong to say that hadrat Fatima brought two women as witnesses. She proposed hadrat Ali and Umm-i-Eymen 'radi-allahu ta'ala anhum' as witnesses. Only one of these witnesses, i.e. Umm-i-Eymen, was a woman. This fact is also written in the book (Nahj-ul-haqq), by Ibn-ul-Mutahhir Hasan bin Yusuf Hulli, a Shiite scholar. After all, this could not be an Islamic way of argumentation. The following event will explain why it is not: Hadrat Ali 'radi-allahu anh' sued a Jew for a coat of arms, and proposed hadrat Hasan, (his son), and Qanber, his slave, as witnesses. Qadi Shureyh, who was the judge, dismissed the action because it was not Islamic for a person to be a witness for his father. And Imam-i-Ali 'radi-allahu anh', the Khalifa as he was at that time, followed Islam and reason by acquiescing in the decision.


[Ibni Mutahhir-i-Hulli was born in 684, and passed away in 726 [A.D. 1226]. He was one of the scholars of Imamiyya group. He wrote hundreds of books. Qadi Shureyh was appointed the Qadi of Kufa by hadrat 'Umar 'radi-allahu ta'ala anhuma'. He served as a judge there for almost sixty years. He passed away in 87, when he was one hundred years old. He should not be mistaken for Qadi Shureyh, who was a friend of Imam-i-azam Abu Hanifa. Mensur, the Khalifa (at that time), appointed him the Qadi of Kufa. He was born in 95, and passed away in Kufa in 177 (A.D. 793)].


"Supposing all these evidences are disignored and it is still presumed that the Khalifa Abu Bakr as-Siddiq took the date orchard called Fedek by force; then why did hadrat Ali 'radi- allahu anh' not give the date orchard to hadrat Hasan and Husain when he became the Khalifa and everything was now in his hands, under his command? Why did he not change what had been done by the three Khalifas previous to him? Hadrat Ali's following the same policy as had been followed by the previous three Khalifas concerning the date orchard is a plain evidence for the fact that it had not been taken by force by Abu Bakr." Upon this the head Molla said:


5- "Would it be sahih (acceptable) for a person who has attempted to reject Rasulullah's commandment to become the Khalifa?"


"No, it couldn't be," I said.


He said, "How did it come to be sahih that 'Umar, who had beaten Abu Huraira 'radi- allahu anh' and prevented him from carrying out the command he had been given, became the Khalifa? Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' gave Abu Huraira his blessed sandals, and said to him, 'Go with these! Give the good news that those who believe in the Kelima- i-shahadat shall enter Paradise!' As Abu Huraira was going to carry out this commandment, he met 'Umar. 'Umar asked him where he was coming from and where he was going. When Abu Huraira told him about the duty he was going to do, he knocked him down with a blow on the chest, and told him to go back. Abu Huraira was badly offended. Going back, he told Rasulullah (what had happened). As is written in the book (Al-Jam'u beyn-as-sahihayn), by Hafiz [person who is profoundly learned in the knowledge of Hadith] Muhammad bin Abi Nasr Hamidi Andulusee Maliki [passed away in 488 (A.D. 1095)], Abu Huraira says: Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and I were sitting with Rasulullah. The Fakhr-i-kainat stood up and left. He did not come back. We were anxious. We went out to look for him. I was ahead of the others. I walked on till I reached the wall of (the house that belonged to) Bani Nejjar, who was one of the Ansar. I began to walk around, looking for the door. I saw Rebi'a go in through a small door, and followed him in. I saw Rasulullah inside. He told me to go near him. He gave me his blessed sandals and said, 'Go with these! Give the good news to all those you meet that those who have iman in the Kelima-i-shahadat shall enter Paradise!' I went out to do his command. First I met 'Umar. He asked where I was going. When I told him that I was going to give some good news to believers, he hit me and told me to go back. I went back in tears. As I was telling Rasulullah, 'Umar came there, too. He listened. Rasulullah asked 'Umar what he had done. He said: 'O the Messenger of Allah! I am ready to sacrifice my parents for you! Did you give your blessed sandals to Abu Huraira and tell him to give the good news of Paradise to those who have the iman of Kelima-i-shahadat in their hearts?' When our master Rasulullah said, 'Yes, (I did)', 'Umar said, 'O the Messenger of Allah! Please do not do this! I fear that those who hear this will put their trust in this and become slack in doing the (worships that are) fard and wajib. Please leave them to themselves!' So Rasulullah stated, 'All right, leave them!' When due attention is paid, doesn't this behavior of 'Umar's mean to reject the commandment of Allah and His Rasul (Messenger) 'sall-allahu ta'ala alaihi wasallam'? Isn't this behavior opposing the commandments? How could it ever be permissible to make such a person Khalifa and to deliver Muslims' matters into his hands?"


I answered: "This behavior of hadrat 'Umar's does not mean to reject Rasulullah's command. Nor does it signify disobedience. He submits his opinion, his apprehension to Rasulullah. His opinion will be either accepted or rejected, depending on Rasulullah's final, irrevocable commandment. By saying, 'O the Messenger of Allah! I am ready to sacrifice my parents for you,' which is a sign of utter courtesy, mildness, and deep reverence, he shows that he is ready to do his commandment anyway. Rasulullah 'sall- allahu alaihi wasallam', on the other hand, does not rebuke hadrat 'Umar on account of this behavior of his, but, instead, he accepts his opinion, considering it useful for Muslims. He orders Abu Huraira to 'Leave the sandals, and do not say so!'


This kind of behavior is not peculiar to hadrat 'Umar only. Most of the Ashab al-kiram did similar things, and our master the Prophet accepted most of them. It is written in the books Bukhari and Muslim that our master, Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam', stated, 'Every person that comes to the world has a place allotted for him (or her) either in Paradise or in Hell.' One of the audience said, 'O the Messenger of Allah! Then, might we as well wait and go to the one where Allahu ta'ala has allotted a place for us instead of worshipping?' Our master Rasulullah said to that person, 'Do not give up your worships. For those who are to go to Paradise will be made to do the deeds that will take them to Paradise. And those who are to go to Hell will do what will lead to Hell.' Then he recited the fifth ayat of Wel-leyli sura. Hadrat 'Umar's statement is similar to this answer of Rasulullah's. In fact, hadrat 'Umar made this statement relying on this hadith ash-Sharif of Rasulullah's. That is, he meant to say, 'O Rasulallah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam'! We have learned from you that it would not be right to give this kind of good news to the ignorant. I am afraid most of them may rely on the Kelima-i-shahadat and neglect the worships that are fard and wajib and slacken in their adherence to Islam.' It was accepted (by the Prophet) that hadrat 'Umar's pure intention was only this and therefore his deprecation was welcomed.


Hadrat Ali 'radi- allahu anh' also made many such statements as this which could be considered irreverence. In fact, the group called Nawasib (a subdivision of Kharijiyya group) speak ill of him on account of these statements. Abd-ul-Hamid Naji attempted to belittle Imam-i-Ali by quoting these statements with documents in his book. Ali bin Ahmad ibni Hazm (384-456 [A.D. 1064]; wrote some four hundred books), an Andalusian scholar, in his book (Tafseel), and Sharif Murtada, a Shiite scholar, in his book (Tanzih-ul-enbiya), answered these (vilifications) and rebutted Naji. If you wish, I can give you many examples of these (answers)." The head Molla did not say anything. He shifted to another question:


6- "Is it fair for a person who calls himself the Amir-ul-Muminin to prohibit something which has been made halal (permitted) by Allahu ta'ala and His Messenger?"


"What is that?" I questioned.


He said, " 'Umar prohibited the "Mut'a nikah" (Nikah means marriage contract as prescribed by Islam. Mut'a nikah is a kind of temporary marriage practiced among Shiite Muslims.), which had been made halal by Allah and His Messenger and which is declared in the Book (Qur'an al-karim) and the Sunnat (hadith ash-Sharifs). If this is not opposing the commandment of Allahu ta'ala, how can it be explained otherwise? Can such a person be called Muslim? Can he be the Amir-ul-Muminin?"


I gave the following answer to the head Molla: "As is explained in the well-known book (Musnad) by Ibni Maja, a hadith scholar, [Muhammad bin Yazid was born in Qazveen in 209, and passed away in 273 [A.D. 886]. One of the six books of Hadith is his book (Sunan)], 'Umar 'radi-allahu anh', as he was the Khalifa, said, 'Fakr-i-'alam 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' made the mut'a nikah halal (permitted) for us three times, and he made it haram (forbidden) three times. Wallahi (I swear in the name of Allah), if I hear that a married person has confined a woman (in his house) by way of mut'a nikah, I shall carry out Islam's commandment by Rejm, that is, by having him stoned to death.' This statement does not show that mut'a nikah was forbidden by hadrat 'Umar. It shows that he would not permit mut'a nikah as it had been forbidden by Rasulullah. All the Ashab al-kiram, with the exception of hadrat Abdullah ibni Abbas, supported this statement of the Khalifa's. No one except him was opposed to this. And later on he, too, agreed, it thus being a unanimous decision of the Ashab al-kiram. The book Bukhari says in its report of a narration coming from hadrat Ali that, hadrat Ali said to Abdullah ibni Abbas, 'You are wrong. Our master the Fakhr-i-'alam prohibited mut'a nikah.' Upon this statement of hadrat Ali's, Abdullah (ibni Abbas), too, agreed with this decision and admitted that mut'a nikah had been made haram afterwards.


(I went on), "Furthermore, Sulaiman bin Ahmad Tabarani, a great hadith scholar, [who was born in Tabariyya in 260, and passed away in Isfahan in 360 (A.D. 971)], and Sulaiman bin Dawud Tayalisi, [who passed away in 202 (A.D. 817)], quote in their books Said bin Jubair as having said: I said to Abdullah ibni Abbas, 'I could never say that mut'a nikah was halal. And you shouldn't have said it was halal, either. Can you imagine the harm that will arise from saying so? When you say that it is permissible, it will spread everywhere and others will use this statement of yours as a document for the justification of mut'a nikah.' Upon this Abdullah said, 'By saying so I did not mean that mut'a nikah would always be halal for everybody. I said it would be permissible only in case of indispensable necessity to prevent some harm which would otherwise be inevitable. I said so thinking that, inasmuch as Allahu ta'ala gives permission to eat as much lesh (Kinds of meat Islam prohibits to consume are called lesh. They include putrifying meat as well as that of an animal killed not in the manner prescribed by Islam.), blood or pork as will eliminate harm in case of indispensable necessity, mut'a nikah should be permissible (in case of strong necessity).' As will be understood from these explanations, that mut'a nikah was always permissible for everybody was not Abdullah ibni Abbas's opinion, either. His opinion was that it would be permissible to gratify some indispensable necessity which would otherwise be harmful, as is the case with all the things that are haram. Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Husain Beyhekee [384-458 (A.D. 1067)], a Hadith scholar, explains clearly that Abdullah ibni Abbas 'radi-allahu ta'ala anhuma' changed his opinion. It is reported by Tabarani and Beyhekee again that Abdullah ibni Abbas said, 'Mut'a nikah was halal formerly. Yet it was made haram after the revelation of the ayat al-karima which purported, 'Your mothers are haram for you.' The ayat al-karima that purports, 'Only your wives and the jariyas that you have are halal,' in Muminun sura, emphasizes the fact that mut'a nikah has been made haram. For it is inferred from this ayat that only wives and jariyas are halal and others are haram.'


"That mut'a nikah was haram has been reported by most of the Ashab al-kiram including hadrat Ali. It is written in the book Bukhari-yi-Sharif that 'hadrat Ali 'radi-allahu anh' told Abdullah ibni Abbas that Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' prohibited mut'a nikah and consumption of donkey flesh during the Holy War of Hayber.' On the other hand, it is written in the book (Muslim-i-Sharif) and in Ibni Maja's book that our master the Prophet 'sall-allahu ta'ala alaihi wasallam' stated, 'O Muslims! I gave you permission to marry women with mut'a nikah. Yet now Allahu ta'ala has made it haram. If anyone has been keeping such a woman he should let her go and should not take back the property he has given her!' Also, it is written in the books called (Sahih) by Bukhari and Muslim that 'Our master Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' made mut'a nikah halal three times. And he made it haram three times.'


" I asked the head Molla, "Could a woman married by mut'a nikah be an heiress to the man? And supposing this woman had children by this man; could these children inherit from their father?"


"No, they couldn't," was the head Molla's answer.


"Then this woman is not a wife. Nor is she a jariya. What would you say about the ayat al- karima, 'believers keep away from women other than their wives and jariyas?' That is, this ayat al-karima makes only the wife and the jariya halal. It states plainly that one cannot come together with any women except these two. Wouldn't it mean to oppose this plain commandment of Qur'an al-karim to assert that it would be halal to come together with a woman who could be called neither a wife nor a jariya and with whom one has made a (temporary marriage) contract called mut'a nikah? And wouldn't this in its turn mean to strive obstinately, intentionally, and vainly to deviate from the right way?


"Furthermore, you make such preposterous statements as could by no means be justified. For instance, one of your scholars, a man named Ali ibnil'al, has written that it would be permissible for a woman to have sexual intercourse with twelve men in one night and that, in case she conceived, the child's father would be determined by holding a lottery. What other turpitude or enmity could be more destructive than this to Islam?" This answer of mine petrified the head Molla. He thought for a long while. Hoping to escape the quandary, he asked another question:


7- "It is wajib for everybody to obey the Khalifa and to comply with all his commandments. And the person to be obeyed should in his turn be sinless, faultless. Besides, it is unanimously acknowledged by both sides, (by Shiite and Sunnite scholars), that the imam (religious leader) is an innocent person. Everyone with reason will say so, too. For imam means (person who is obeyed). As a shirt which is worn is called rida, so a person who is obeyed is called imam. If the imam were expected to say or do something wrong, he could not be trusted; he would be expected to say or do something that would lead others to disasters and abysses and which would run counter to the commandments of Allahu ta'ala. Since obedience to the imam is a commandment of Allahu ta'ala, fallibility of the imam would mean that Allahu ta'ala commanded (us) to obey something which might be wrong. And this, in its turn, would be something quite polar to reason and religion."


I answered him as follows: "Your assertion that there is unanimity in the innocence and infallibilty of the imam and that this is Islam's commandment, is an altogether wrong and depraved behavior. For one thing, you Shiis do not cherish Ijma' (unanimity of the Ashab al-kiram). You say that Ijma' cannot be a document to show Islam's commandment. According to your belief, ijma' is not a dalil-i-sher'ee (a document in religious matters). For this reason, your argumentation based on ijma' is at loggerheads with your credo, which is the basis of your belief. On the other hand, if by 'unanimity' you mean that the Shiis also agreed in this belief, this time all the ijma's before the appearing of the Imamiyya group should have been untenable, wrong. In addition, since there was nothing in the name of Shiism by the time hadrat Ali 'karram-allahu ta'ala wajhah' was elected the Khalifa, the unanimity that effected this election should have been corrupt, wrong, which in turn means that he should have been made the Khalifa unjustly. For the caliphate of hadrat Muawiya was recognized by hadrat Hasan and all the other Muslims including the Shii group. Yes, (imam) means the person who is obeyed. Yet there is no document stating that he has to be innocent or infallible. Any evidence put forward to prove this assertion would be easily refuted by the following five antitheses:


I. It is wajib (Commandments that are plainly stated in Qur'an al-karim are called Fard, or Fardh, (pl. Faraidh). If it has not been stated clearly whether something is a commandment, it is called Wajib. In other words, a wajib is a kind of commandment next to fard in importance.) only to obey the commands of an Amir (Ruler, leader of Muslims) or a hakim (Muslim judge). It is not necessary for a person who is obeyed to be infallible in whatever he does.


II. According to the Shii group, a Mufti is not innocent, that is, infallible. Yet it is wajib for everybody to comply with the commands of the Mufti.


III. A hakim (judge) will accept as a witness anyone who is considered to be impartial. A witness on whose evidence the judge bases his verdict is not necessarily an infallible person.


IV. A slave has to obey all his owner's commands unless they are haram (deeds, actions, statements, behaviors forbidden by Islam). Yet this does not necessarily mean that his owner is sinless.


V. Throughout the namaz ( Islam's most important commandment is the namaz, which is performed five times daily and in a manner prescribed by Islam. When a group of Muslims perform the fard (obligatory part) of namaz together, one of them leads, conducts the prayer, and the others follow his actions. The person who conducts the namaz is called imam, and the Muslims who imitate his movements are called jamaat.), the jamaat have to follow the imam. Even if the imam performs this namaz for some worldly advantage or makes the ruku' (bowing posture in namaz) and the sajda (prostration in namaz) for someone (or something) else rather than for Allah's sake, the jamaat will still have to follow him.


Thus the people who are obeyed and followed in these five instances are not necessarily sinless people." Upon this, the head Molla began to talk:


"We did not consider these meanings of obeying or following. We considered its meaning pertaining to the obedience that could be said of obedience to things with a certain degree of strength. The strongest of them is our master Rasulullah's saying, 'Am I not awla (better, more valuable) to you than your life is?', to those who were around him. When they said, 'Yes, (you are), o the Messenger of Allah,' he (Rasulullah) stated, 'Then, for whoever I am the mawla, Ali, too, must be his mawla.' Therefore, obedience (in this context) means to make (someone) your master. Even if we were to take it in its general meaning as in the five items you have just stated, it would still not be as you think it is. Yes, it is wajib to obey commanders and judges, yet (it is wajib to obey) only those who have been appointed by the sinless imam, [that is, by the Khalifa]. It is not wajib to obey those who are not so. The Shiis' saying that Muftis are to be obeyed is not intended to mean obedience to the muftis themselves. This obedience originates from the fact that they have been appointed by the sinless imam (the Khalifa). Since they are his representatives, their command is the imam's command. However, it is not necessary to obey their own commands.


"As for obeying others; it is necessary to obey them only when their commands are permitted (by Islam), because this obedience has been commanded by Allah. However, obeying the imam, [that is, the Khalifa], is more general than the above mentioned examples. It therefore cannot be compared to them."


My answer was as follows: "Obeying or following does not harbor doubt. This word is one of those words called mutawati. [What mutawati means is explained in full detail in the fourth chapter of the second part of the (Turkish) book "Se'adet-i Ebediyye" (Se'adet-i Ebediyye (Endless Bliss) has been partly translated into English and published in fascicles. For those who have not had the chance to read that book, we shall make a brief definition of the word mutawati: it is an attribute commonly and equally shared by all the members of a species. Like the attributes, or characteristics, of being human or animal. The highest of mankind and the lowest man are equal in being human. For instance, there is no difference between a Prophet and a disbeliever in being human.)] For obedience means for the follower to follow the one whom he obeys. If a person follows a superior person, the follower is called (tabi'), and that superior person is called (metbu'). This act of following varies, depending on the degree and the duration of obedience, but the essence of the act of following will not change with the increase or decrease in the degree or the duration of obedience. In other words, its essential attribute called mutawati will not change. For it is stated unanimously by the scholars of Usul and by others that the difference that causes teshqiq is the difference in the essence of the matter. This difference is not based on time or amount. [Teshqiq is explained detailedly in the (Turkish) book "Se'adet-i Ebediyye" (As it is explained in the book "Se'adet-i-Ebediyye", Mushaqqiq means an attribute, a quality, a characteristic which does not exist in equal amounts in all the members of a species. An example of this is knowledge, which is possessed in different amounts by learned people. The word teshqiq, used in the text, is the noun form of the adjective mushaqqiq. Please see Endless Bliss, Second Fascicle, Chapter 4, Explanation of Wisdom. )].


(I went on), "If you infer the meaning of (iqtida) from the word 'following', this, again, is mutawati. For iqtida means to follow in everything. If the (following) person does something by himself, be it something important or quite insignificant, he will not have done iqtida. Following only in one respect may be said to be iqtida in itself; yet the person (who has done so) cannot be said to have fulfilled iqtida in its full sense. Hence, your thesis, 'the person followed is loved very much by the follower', which is the center of gravity in your argument, is idle; it is like a rowing exercise. For this does not mean 'following' at all. Nor does the meaning you have stated have anything to do with he optional love that is commanded by Islam and which is similar to the love we should have for our master Rasulullah as it is stated in the hadith ash-Sharif, 'Unless one of you loves me more than loving himself and his child(ren) and his parents and all other people, he shall not have had iman in its full sense.' You mistook the love stated in this hadith ash- Sharif for choosing the Khalifa and compared the Khalifas to our master Rasulullah; this comparison is vain from all points of view." The head Molla was silent. Then he shifted to another subject.

[ALIASGAR_SHAH]

8- He said, "It is a widely known fact that our master Rasulullah was very compassionate over his Ummat (Muslims) and that he tried to protect their rights and peace. It is not even necessary to say this. It is due to this compassion of his that when he left the city of Medina and went to another city, he would appoint someone to take his place in his absence. While this is the case, how could it ever be possible for him not to have appointed an imam, a representative to conduct the businesses of this Ummat and to meet the needs of all these people who have reached millions in number after his death, and to have left them uncontrolled till the end of the world? On the other hand, as it is understood from the Khutba called (Ghadir-i-Hum), which is written in your sahih (acceptable, authentic) books, and from other reports, Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' appointed hadrat Ali to take his place after his death both by making clear statements and by implications. As a matter of fact, because it was wajib for Rabb-ul- 'alamin to appoint an imam, towards his death he wanted to make a written will in order to carry out this important task and to prevent the obstinate from evading this task. He asked for a pen and some paper. 'Umar, who was one of the audience, dissuaded him by treating the Messenger of Allah with such an insulting and abhorring statement as could not be made by vulgar people." [Hum is the name of a well situated outside Mecca. Ghadir-i- Hum is the name of a place that is near this well and somewhere between Mecca and Medina]. I answered, "Your saying that 'it was wajib (compulsory, necessary) for Rabb-ul- 'alamin to appoint an imam', is identical with the Mutazila group's thesis that 'it is wajib for Allahu ta'ala to do things, not doing which would run counter to the hikmat (ultimate divine wisdom of Allahu ta'ala).' This statement of yours is corrupt, wrong. For we know that, though all the deeds of Allahu ta'ala are suitable with hikmat and always useful, it cannot be wajib for Allahu ta'ala to do something because it seems to be suitable with hikmat and useful. The Koranic verse which purports, 'He cannot be questioned on what He has done. His born servants shall be questioned on what they have done,' shows clearly that your statement is wrong. If it were wajib for Allahu ta'ala to appoint an imam, humanity would necessarily never have been without an imam. It is a must for the imam to be known by everybody, to have strength and power, to possess qualifications of an imam, to be able to extirpate evil deeds and offensive customs, to effect good deeds, and to protect Muslims from harms. While asserting that the earth cannot be without an imam and nominating only a certain number of innocent people including hadrat Ali for the position, you on the one hand presume that it is wajib for Allahu ta'ala to make them imam, and on the other hand maintain that none of them has the qualifications of an imam. You state that they all lived in a state of weakness, incapability, trouble and oppression, without being able to do anything or have any effect. What kind of use or hikmat could be expected from making imam such an incompetent person who has to submit to others' so powerlessly?


"This stubborn insistence of yours means to make Allahu ta'ala weak and incapable - may Allahu ta'ala protect us against such a belief! For, (according to your thesis), He has been unable to do something. Allahu ta'ala is far and free from such suppositions.


"Another way to refute your thesis is this: Is being suitable with hikmat or being useful always necessary or not? If you say that being suitable with hikmat is not always good, you will have agreed with us. In that case we may say that the hikmats you have cited above did not exist at the time when Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' was about to pass away. For when it is said that existence of hikmats makes no difference, their existence cannot be better than a situation in which they do not exist. On the other hand, if you say that existence of hikmats is better, this time these hikmats should exist either in Allahu ta'ala Himself or elsewhere. If they do not exist in Him, then something other than Allahu ta'ala will have compelled Allahu ta'ala; which is impossible. If hikmats are (supposed to be) in Allahu ta'ala, this time some creatures will have settled in Allahu ta'ala; and this is quite impossible.


"As it is seen, your saying that it is wajib for Allahu ta'ala to appoint an imam is an altogether wrong and nonsensical statement. Yes, as the Ahl-i-Haqq, or the Ahl-as-sunnat (scholars) state, men need an imam, a president for the protection of Islam, for the chastisement of offenders, for the protection and restitution of rights, and for the execution of (the very important tasks of) amr-i-maruf and nahy-i-anilmunkar (advising and motivating people to do the commandments of Islam and warning them against doing its prohibitions and dissuading them from doing them); it therefore is wajib for us to have an imam, a president. Yet it is not wajib for Allahu ta'ala to appoint one. For this reason, when our Prophet 'sall-allahu alaihi wassalam' passed away the Ashab al-kiram 'alaihimur- ridwan' came together and unanimously elected Abu Bakr as-Siddiq 'radi-allahu anh' as their imam. Thus the Islamic religion was protected against a disturbance.


(I went on), "According to the Mutazila group, the important thing is whether mind finds something beautiful or ugly. They leave it to mind to judge what things Allahu ta'ala has created are beautiful and which of them are ugly. They say that Allahu ta'ala has to create the ones that are found beautiful. No assertion could be so loathsome or so corrupt as saying that Allahu ta'ala has to create the things which the human mind finds beautiful. Your assertion is similar to this. As it has been explained in detail, Allahu ta'ala creates whatever He wishes (to create). He does not have to create anything. All the things He has wished (to create) are suitable with hikmat and useful. None of them is ugly. According to the Mutazila group, wajib means an obligation which necessitates punishment when neglected. Accordingly, if a person could not be blamed for not doing something, it could not be said to be (wajib for him to do). To say that Allahu ta'ala has to create a certain thing would mean to say that it will be necessary to censure Him, to punish Him if He does not create it. And this in its turn would mean to that Janab-i-Haqq (Allahu ta'ala) is defective and imperfect and will become perfect and escape punishment only if He creates it. No other defiance a person might insolently perpetrate towards Allahu ta'ala could be more daring than this and no other statement contrary to His Attributes of perfection could be more repugnant. This sordid statement of yours could be refuted by many other answers as well. This statement of yours means to compare the Creator to His creatures, to apply the same criterion as we assess them with. And this, in its turn, is by no means possible. Allahu ta'ala is not like anything, nor is anything like Him in any respect. Furthermore, if it were wajib for Allahu ta'ala to keep a sinless imam, then it would be wajib for Him to send a Prophet in every century, to keep a sinless imam in every city, and to make every Ruler just and true. Yes, any person, whether he is good or bad, would not like to see an environment where Allahu ta'ala has left His born servants to themselves without a guide or an imam and where they lead an ignorant and aberrant life tumbling in darkness.


"To this end, Allahu ta'ala has revealed a book that will guide to happiness and peace and endowed man with enough mental capacity to apprehend its value. If you say that Allahu ta'ala has always sent the sinless imam, the owner of the time and entrusted the management of His born servants' affairs into his hands, this will be another senseless and ridiculous assertion. Aside from the farcicality that this sinless imam should have stayed alive throughout these thousand years during which all his children, grandchildren and kith and kin have died, how could he have been useful by remaining secret despite the increased number of Shiites, instead of coming forward to guide people to the right way, to awaken them from unawareness, and to promulgate Islam? How could he be said to have had such duties as guiding all people to the right way, making rights reach their owners, and many others? What else could be as eccentric and as devious as such a belief? If Allahu ta'ala does not endow a person with the right way, no one can guide him to the right way.


"As all these facts show, Allahu ta'ala does not have to do, or not to do, anything. As is written in your book (Nehj-ul-balagha), hadrat Ali 'radi-allahu anh' stated this fact plainly in the khutba he made during the combat of Siffin. He said, 'Since I manage your affairs, I have rights on you. And you in turn have rights on me and on one another. When there are rights that a person owe to others, there will also be rights owed to him. Allahu ta'ala is the only being who does not owe any rights though there are rights owed to Him. For He can do everything. Everything He does has justice. The right that Allahu ta'ala has on His born servants is their worshipping, obeying Him. Being kind, He gives thawab (rewards) in return for this.' If you pay attention to this khutba, you will see that your statements contradict hadrat Ali's statements.


"Your statement that our master Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' enjoined that hadrat Ali should be made the Khalifa, is wrong, too. Alongside the fard (Islam's commandments), the Ashab al-kiram had to do Rasulullah's commandments as well. Your statement comes to mean that they neglected this duty of theirs by concealing this commandment of Rasulullah's. On the other hand, it is out of the question for such a great number of people to have agreed on wrongdoing. Moreover, contradicting the hadith ash-Sharifs, your statement cannot be correct.


(I went on), "It was declared as follows in a hadith ash-Sharif, which has been reported from Anas bin Malik by Ibni Abi Asim and Elqai, Shiite scholars: 'Allahu ta'ala has protected my Ummat from making an agreement on aberration.' It was declared in another hadith ash-Sharif, reported by the hadith scholar Hakim Uyayna 'rahmatullahi ta'ala alaih' [who was born in Kufa in 107 and passed away in Mecca in 198 (A.D. 813)]: 'Allahu ta'ala will not bring this Ummat together on heresy.' And the word 'hand' in the hadith ash-Sharif, 'Allah's hand is with the jamaat (congregation of muslims)', means 'power', 'help'. As is shown by these hadith ash-Sharifs and many other hadith ash-Sharifs similar to these, the Ummat-i-Muhammadiyya (Muslims) can never form a unanimity in aberration. To say otherwise would mean to deny these hadith ash-Sharifs.


"You allege that our master, Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam', asked for a pen and paper in order to make a written will. This last statement of yours belies your former allegation on the (Ghadir-i-Hum) khutba. If he had delivered such an injunction, he would consider it unnecessary to make a written will in addition. This comes to mean that the (written) will which you allege Rasulullah wanted to make during the khutba he said at the place called Ghadir-i-Hum, is a pure invention. The truth is that all the Ashab al-kiram 'radi-allahu ta'ala anhum ajmain', in which was hadrat Ali and all the Sons of Hashim, unanimously elected hadrat Abu Bakr the Khalifa. This unanimity proves in the light of the above-mentioned hadith ash-Sharifs that his caliphate was rightly-guided and that your statements are null and void. If there had been such a will; during the caliphates of the other three, (i.e. hadrat Abu Bakr and 'Umar and 'Uthman), who in that case would have wronged hadrat Ali, he would demand that they give him his right back, and would take action against them if otherwise. As a matter of fact, when (later) he was elected the Khalifa he drew his sword and fought against those who disobeyed him, as it was Islam's commandment (for the Khalifa) to manage religious and worldly affairs. As we all know, he made wars that cost devastation to numerous cities and bloodshed to thousands of Muslims. A powerful and honorable person who was so harsh with those who would not obey him is now alleged to have remained silent though he saw he was forcefully debarred from the right vested to him by Islam and to have joined the jury to decide on the question of who the right was to be given; is this believable at all?


(I went on), "If it is claimed, as is alleged in the Shiite book, that hadrat Ali 'radi-allahu anh' gave up demanding justice unwillingly because he did not have enough men to support him, (may Allahu ta'ala protect us from saying so), he will have neglected the commandment of Allahu ta'ala and disobeyed Him because he was afraid to fulfill the requirements of the task assigned to him by Allahu ta'ala and His Messenger. It is a universally known fact, however, that hadrat Ali 'karram-allahu wajhah', who was Rasulullah's 'sall-allahu ta'ala alaihi wasallam' paternal first cousin and son-in-law and the lion of Allah, would have rather faced the risk of death than let anyone smear him with such a shameful and humiliating stigma as cowardice, no matter whoever his opponent might be, be it anyone from all over the world, let alone from Arabia only. So you think such a base and ugly act would be worthy of the Amir-ul-Muminin hadrat Ali 'karram- allahu wajhah', who was a master of ours. This statement of yours directs hostility towards him, rather than expressing your love of him. I therefore deem it a debt for my part to consider that exalted imam to be far and pure from such a defect as well as from all other sorts of doubt and defect, and to state this fact here.


(I continued), "Also, your statement that when Rasulullah 'sall-allahu ta'ala alaihi wa sallam' asked for a pen and paper in order to write a will 'Umar 'radi-allahu anh' dissuaded him, is untrue, since there is not enough authentic evidence to prove that this exalted person (hadrat 'Umar) would have exhibited such behavior. For Abdullah ibni Abbas says, as is narrated in the Meghazi section of the book Bukhari: It was Thursday, when our master Rasulullah's 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' illness became graver. He stated, 'Fetch me (some) paper! I shall write a book; so that after me you should never leave the right way.' The people being there began to talk. He (the Prophet) stated, 'It is not suitable to talk aloud in the presence of the Prophet.' It was asked (someone asked) 'Is he in a delirium? Ask him.' Again, Abdullah reported: Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' was ill. There were a few of us with him. He stated, 'I shall write a book for you; so that after me you should not leave the right way.' Some of us said, 'His pains have augmented. We have the Qur'an al-karim with us. The Book of Allah will be enough for us.' We could not come to an agreement. Some of us said, 'Let us bring (some paper). Let him write it so that we shall not lose our way later.' Others stated other things. Different statements were on the increase, when he (the Prophet) stated, 'Stand up!'


"So, as it is reported in (Bukhari), our second most valuable and dependable book after Qur'an al-karim on the earth, the so-called objection was not raised by a certain person. A few people wondered whether it should be better not to do what was asked. For Bukhari's account of the event is in plural form, 'They said,' which indicates that those who reacted were more than one. It would be wrong to attempt to use this event as a ground for reproaching hadrat 'Umar 'radi-allahu anh' only. If there were people to be blamed in this event, all the people present there would equally share the supposed blameworthiness. Ali and Abbas 'radi-allahu anhuma' were among them. Therefore, they, too, would be reproached. Now, on whatever grounds the Shiites would defend hadrat Ali and Abbas, we would like to suggest the same reasons to defend hadrat 'Umar.


(I continued), "The scholars of Hadith give varying accounts of the khutba that was made at Ghadir-i-Hum. Be it as it may, this khutba does not support your thesis. In addition, your allegation that the seventieth ayat al-karima of Maida sura which purported, 'Communicate the commandments that thine Rab (Allah) hath revealed down to thee! Otherwise, thou will have neglected thine duty as the Prophet. Allahu ta'ala shallst protect thee from (other) people,' was revealed at Ghadir-i-Hum, is wrong. For this allegation of yours gives the impression that Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' did not communicate the commandments of Allahu ta'ala to his Ashab (may Allahu ta'ala protect us from saying so)! In this case, it would come to mean that, as he did not want to communicate this commandment and therefore requested Jabrail (Gabriel) 'alaihis-salam' to ask Allahu ta'ala to excuse him through this khutba, he should have abstained from doing this commandment for fear of his Ashab. There is no doubt as to the fact that our master, the Messenger of Allah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam', was innocent of things of this sort.


"Our second evidence is that (your allegation implies that) Allahu ta'ala had not protected Rasulullah 'sall-allahu ta'ala alaihi wasallam' against other people until this khutba, which he made sometime towards his death. On the other hand, it had been known a long time before this khutba of his that Allahu ta'ala had been protecting him. Then, your allegation is wrong because it is contradictory to a known fact.


"As a third proof we say that (your allegation bears the meaning that) Allah's Messenger 'sall-allahu ta'ala alaihi wa sallam' had been afraid of disbelievers until that day, and that he was afraid of the Ashab al-kiram as well. On the other hand, it is a known fact reported through various narratives that the Ashab al-kiram 'alaihimur-ridwan', our masters, never hesitated to sacrifice their own lives and their parents for Rasulullah's sake. It would be paradoxical both with reason and with Islam's teachings to suppose that they might have come together to make a threat to Allah's Messenger. Since it is known how fearlessly, how valiantly our master Rasulullah endeavored to promulgate Islam obeying the ayat al- karima which commanded, 'Teach (people) (the things) that have been commanded!', in the beginning, when he was so lonely and his adversaries and the unbelievers of Quraish were so merciless; it would be a very ugly, an exceedingly abominable slander obnoxiously offensive to that respectable Prophet embellished with superior attributes to say that he was afraid to communicate Allah's commandments during the event of Ghadir, after Mecca had been conquered, the number of people coming in large groups from all directions and becoming Muslims had increased, all those heroic people called the Sons of Hashim and the Sons of Abd-ul-muttalib had become Muslims, the sura of (Izajaeh) had been revealed to give the glad tidings of (new) conquests and victories, and at such a place where the Muhajirs (Those Meccan Muslims who left their hometown and migrated to Medina with the Messenger of Allah. This migration of the Prophet is called Hijrat (Hegira) and is accepted as the beginning of the Muslim Era.) and the Ansars (Muslims who lived in Medina during the Hegira and hosted the Muhajirs. ) and the Sons of Hashim were an absolute majority. Especially, to say that he was afraid of the Ashab al-kiram would mean to deny the hundred and tenth ayat al-karima of Al-i-'Imran sura, which purports, 'You are the most beneficent of ummats. You are the select of people.' It could by no means be justifiable.


"Fourthly, (your allegation means that) our master, Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam', after disobeying Allahu ta'ala in communicating His commandments to his Ashab, came to Medina and, becoming ill, appointed hadrat Abu Bakr to take his place as the imam for a couple of days, thus ignoring the commandment of Allahu ta'ala a second time by leaving hadrat Ali behind although, according to your claim, Allahu ta'ala had commanded him to appoint hadrat Ali as the imam. Inasmuch as he (Rasulullah) appointed Abu Bakr the imam after having been commanded through the ayat al-karima (supposed to have been) revealed at Ghadir-i-Hum that he should tell his Ashab to make hadrat Ali the imam (after him), this ayat must have been revealed not at the so-called place as they suppose, but at (the place called) Arafa, and its revelation was intended not for the Ashab al-kiram, but for the polytheists of Quraish, as is unanimously stated by great scholars. If Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' had known that hadrat Ali were to be the first Khalifa, he would certainly have stated it. There was no reason to be afraid to state it. Because all the Meccans, particularly the Sons of Abd-ul-muttalib were kith and kin to him, they would have been happy and no one would have suffered any fear or harm.


"Aside from all these facts, when the shallow and mediocre phraseology used in this khutba is studied with a critical, unbiased, impartial and reasonable eye free from recalcitrance, it is impossible that these statements should have been uttered by an average person aware of the Arabic literature, nonetheless by the blessed mouth of that Prophet, who was unique in eloquence and rhetoric. This means to say that all these statements are lies fabricated by outsiders. Even if the statement, 'Then, for whoever I am the mawla, Ali, too, must be his mawla,' which is one of these statements, were a (true) hadith ash-Sharif, it would not signify that hadrat Ali were to be the (first) imam. For the word 'mawla' has many different meanings. Twenty of these meanings are written in (the Arabic lexicon called) Qamus. In what meaning a word of this sort is used (in a certain text) should be indicated by means of a special sign, denotation or connotation. It would be wrong to interpret it without such a sign. It is not certain whether it would be correct to give it all or some of its meanings; yet most (scholars) have said that it would be wrong. Supposing for acquiescence's sake we said it would be correct. We agree with you in giving the meanings 'lover' and 'helper' to the word 'mawla'. Yet we do not consider it appropriate to give other meanings. In such cases, it is better to give meanings agreed on. It is for this reason that Abd-ul-ghafir bin Ismail Faris (451-529 [A.D. 1135]; in Nishapur), in his explanation of the word (wali) in his book (Majmaul-gharaib), quotes this hadith ash-Sharif as, 'If a person loves me and knows me as his helper, he should know Ali as his helper, too!' When the matter is pondered over carefully, it will be seen that this hadith does not signify better fitness for caliphate, or superiority at all. For it would not be correct to explain the word 'wali' as 'awla', neither lexically nor from the Islamic point of view. That it would not be Islamic is plain. As for its lexical aspect; words belonging to the (mef'al) category have never been used in the (ef'al) category (in Arabic)." Upon this the head Molla said:


"Abu Zayd, a scholar of lexicon, states that they are used in the Tafsir of Abu Ubaida. And he interpretes the expression '(He) is your mawla' as '(He) is more suitable for you.' "


I said, "His statement cannot be a document. For none of the Arabic scholars has approved this statement of his. If they were synonymous expressions, it would be more correct to say, 'So and so is mawla (a helper, a lover) for you, instead of saying, 'So and so is awla (better, more suitable) for you.' However, they (scholars of lexicon) have said that it would never be correct. Abu Ubaida's statement is refuted by other ways as well. We have seen that the word 'awla' cannot be used instead of 'mawla'. Supposing we were to say it could be used, it still could not be used to mean 'to have', 'to use'. Possibly, 'awla' means 'more suitable for respect and love'. Even if it were admitted that it meant 'to use', it would be unsuitable with the meaning of the ayat al-karima. Could the word 'awla' in the sixty- eighth ayat of Al-i-'Imran sura, which purports, 'To Ibrahim the awla of people,' be said to mean 'to use (Ibrahim 'alaihis-salam)'? 'Awla' in this context could mean 'more suitable to love Him' for the very most.


"Furthermore, the word (Wali) used at the end of the hadith ash-Sharif means (to love). If it meant 'being more suitable to be used, with respect to Rasulullah,' then he (Rasulullah) would have said, 'Whoever is more suitable for being used.' Since he did not say so, it (the expression used in the hadith ash-Sharif) means, 'to love hadrat Ali and to avoid hostility against him,' and not 'to be suitable for being used.' In fact, Abu Nu'aym Ahmad bin Abdullah 'rahima-hullahu ta'ala', [who passed away in Isfahan in 430], reports from Hasan, the son of hadrat Hasan: Hasan was asked about this. They said, 'Does the hadith ash-Sharif (... for whoever I am the mawla, ...) show that hadrat Ali must be the (first) Khalifa?' His answer was that 'If Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' had meant to say by this hadith ash-Sharif that hadrat Ali must be the (first) Khalifa, he would have stated, 'O men! This person is the wali of my duties (my trustee who will take over my duties). He is to be the Khalifa after me. Hear and obey (this)!' I swear by the name of Allahu ta'ala that if Allahu ta'ala and His Messenger 'sall-allahu alaihi wa sallam' had wished that Ali be the (first) Khalifa, then Ali would have disobeyed Allahu ta'ala by not trying to carry out His commandment in this respect, which would in its turn have been a very grave sin.' When one of the listeners said, 'Why, didn't our Prophet say, (For whoever I am the mawla, Ali, too, must be his mawla)?', Hasan said, (No. Wallahi (I swear by the name of Allah that), if Rasulullah had wished Ali to be the (first) Khalifa, he would have commanded this as clearly as he commanded (Muslims) to perform the namaz and to fast.' So these statements of Hasan, an outstanding member of the Ahl-i-beyt and a grandson of hadrat Ali, reveals clearly that your statements are wrong and corrupt." The head Molla was silent. Then he changed course:


9- "What will you say about the hadith ash-Sharifs pointing out the fact that on the Judgement Day every Muslim will be questioned on whether he loved Ali and his children as well as on (his behavior on) matters pertaining to this world and the Hereafter? For Ali bin Muhammad ibni Sabbagh-i- Maliki, (who passed away in 855 [A.D. 1451]), in his book (Fusul-ul-muhimma), derives from the book Al-manaqib and quotes Ibn-il-Muayyad as having said: Abu Burayda reports: One day I was sitting in Rasulullah's presence. Our master Rasulullah stated, 'I swear by Allahu ta'ala, whose power holds my soul, that on the Judgement Day the first (set of) questions human beings will be asked are: How did you spend your lifetime? What did you wear out your body doing? Where did you earn your property, and where did you give it? Did you love My Messenger?' Hadrat 'Umar, who was by my side, said, 'What is the token of loving you, O the Messenger of Allah?' He (Rasulullah) put his blessed hand on the head of hadrat Ali, who was sitting by his side, and declared, 'Loving me is loving this (person) after me.' As is written in, again, the same book, hadrat Ali said, 'Wallahi (I swear by the name of Allah that) our master, Nabiyy-i-ummi 'sall-allahu alaihi wa sallam', stated that those who loved me were believers and those who did not love me were hypocrites.' So, don't you think a person about whose love everybody will be questioned on the Judgement Day must be more virtuous than others and he and his offspring are more rightful to caliphate than others are?"


I answered, "Ibni Sabbagh, whom you call 'Maliki', is not in the Madhhab of Maliki (One of the four right and authentic groups of Sunnî Muslims. The other three are the Madhhabs that are called Hanafi, Shafi'i, and Hanbali.). His books and writings show that he is in the Madhhab of Shii. It is a fact stated by all scholars that Ibni Muayyad, notorious with his nickname 'Firewood of Harazm', is a Shiite, too. Besides, there is no need to look for other documents. Some Shiites change hadith ash-Sharifs and give them the name of a great scholar of hadith. They try to mislead Muslims with such lies. It is obvious that a person who changes and misrepresents a hadith ash-Sharif which is written in its true form in books, must be a liar. Here, the true form of this hadith ash-Sharif is quoted as follows by Imam-i-Muhammad bin Isa Tirmuzi, (who was born in 209 and passed away in 279 [A.D. 892]): 'Man will be questioned on four things. He will be asked how he spent his life time; what he did with his knowledge; where he earned his property; how he wore away his body.' Tabarani, too, quotes this hadith ash-Sharif; yet the final clause reads as follows: 'how he spent his youth.' So the true form of this hadith ash-Sharif is quoted as such. Love for the Ahl al-bayt (The Prophet's immediate relatives: hadrat Ali, his son-in-law and paternal first cousin; hadrat Fatima, his daughter; hadrat Hasan and Husain, his grandsons.) or the name of hadrat 'Umar is not mentioned in it. This comes to mean that Ibni Sabbagh and Ibni Muayyad were liars. Nevertheless, it would have nothing to do with caliphate. Even if we were to accept the misrepresented form of the hadith ash-Sharif as true, it would signify love for the Ahl al-bayt at the very most. The Sunni Madhhab also commands us to love all the members of Ahl al-bayt, every one of them with a love symmetrical with the position they occupy, being neither too frugal nor too inordinate in this respect. Being Sunni requires loving the Ahl al-bayt in a manner suitable for their honor. But you make statements contrary to Islam in order to wage loving them; a person with the least iman in his heart could not make such statements. You say, for one, 'If a person loves Ali, no wrongdoing will harm him.' Likewise, some of you fabricate hadiths. For instance, could we ever believe a person who slanders our master the Prophet by saying that he (the Prophet) said, 'Ali's Shia (group) shall not be questioned on the Judgement Day, neither on venial sins, nor on grave ones. Their evils shall be changed into goodness'? Ibni Babawayh fabricates a hadith in which he quotes Ibni Abbas as having said that our master the Prophet stated, 'Allah will not burn Ali's lovers in Hell.' Another hadith which they fabricate in order to mislead others is, 'A person who loves Ali shall enter Paradise, even if he is a Jew or a Christian.' Isn't it injustice to slander our master Rasulullah 'sall-allahu alaihi wa sallam' by fabricating such statements in the name of hadith?


[The real name of Abu Jafar bin Babawayh is Muhammad bin Ali. He is one of the four renowned men of Fiqh and Tafsir in the Shiite group. He has a book of Tafsir and a book of Fiqh, which is highly esteemed by the Imamiyya group (the Imamites). He was born in Khorasan, and died in 381 (A.D. 991)].


"Calumniation is neither Islamic nor reasonable. Allahu ta'ala declares in the hundred and twenty-second ayat of Nisa sura, 'The wrongdoer shall be punished.' The last ayat of Zilzal sura purports, 'He who does the smallest evil shall pay for it.' The unfounded slanders run counter to these ayat al-karimas.


"Furthermore, it is a worship to love the Ahl al-bayt. And this, in its turn, depends first and foremost on having iman, as is the case with all types of worship. The ninety-fourth ayat of Anbiya sura purports, 'The good deeds performed by the believer...'. It is not Islamic to say that people who have not attained the honor of iman, e.g. Jews and Christians, will enter Paradise only by loving the Ahl al-bayt, or to believe that love of these people will change venial and grave sins into goodness and thawab. It is written in the Shiite books that our master Ali 'karram-allahu wajhah' would always give the following advice to his Ahl al-bayt: 'Do not rely on your ancestors! Keep up with your worships and prayers! Do not swerve from doing the commandments of Allahu ta'ala in the slightest degree!' The statements you have made are of no value because they contradict this advice of hadrat Ali's and many other reports. Inasmuch as attainment of happiness in this world and in the Hereafter and the orderliness of worldly matters are dependent on dissuading and deterring people from committing sins and prohibitions, it is entirely paradoxical to say that 'sins will change into thawab.' This statement will incite malevolent people and even Shiites to doing evils, sins and atrocities, which in its turn will demolish Islam. It is obvious that a person with a certain mental capacity will, let alone believing such statements, not even turn to look at them."


After these words of mine, the people who attended the meeting proposed that the questions already prepared be asked and answered. But some of the Shiites said to the head Molla, "Beware from contending with this man. For he is a scholar who is as profound in knowledge as the sea. He has refuted all the evidences you have furnished. It is probable that you will lose your fame and honor." Upon this, the head Molla looked at me, smiling. He said:


"You are a superior scholar. You could answer any other questions as you have answered these. Yet the Bahr-ul-'ilm of Bukhara could not rebut my arguments."


I said, "At the beginning of the conversation you said the scholars of the Ahl- i-sunnat 'rahmat-ullahi ta'ala alaihim ajmain' could not refute you. It is this statement of yours which has impelled me to talk."


He said, "As I am an Iranian, I do not have a rich repertoire in the Arabic branches of knowledge. I may have used inappropriate words. It was not what I meant."


I said, "I would like to ask you two questions. Let all your scholars come together and answer them."


"What are those questions," he asked.

[ALIASGAR_SHAH]

So when a learned Walie Kamil and an erudite Sunni scholar speaks the shiites are defeated.These ****es only have peshawar night and you knwo what that too is a unproven debate between whom between hafiz e Quran with a ****e scholar. No no it is nto a debate bewteen an Alim and a scholar. I laugh at the lack of knowledge they show the sunni scholar had whereas even a young sunni knows the weak reason and proof given by them.

This is below the final result of the debate.

10- "My first question is this: What do you Shiites say about the Ashab al-kiram?"


"All the Ashab, with the exception of five of them, became renegades because they did not elect hadrat Ali the Khalifa. They went out of Islam. The five Sahabis are Ali, Mikdad, Abu Zer, Selman, and Ammar bin Yaser," he answered.


I said, "Supposing what you have said were true, then how did it happen that hadrat Ali married his daughter Umm-i-Gulthum to hadrat 'Umar?"


"That marriage took place against his wish," was his answer.


I said, "I swear by the name of Allah that you downgrade hadrat Ali in such a way that even the basest and lowliest member of the Arabic race would have protested against it. Such heinous vilification of hadrat Ali must be part of a sordid plan. As Allah knows, the lowest, the most plebeian Arab would have protected his chastity and honor at the sacrifice of his life. How much less for a most notable member of the Sons of Hashim, who were the highest and most virtuous of all the Arabic tribes with respect to genealogy, manliness, honor and fame; and how could it be possible for the whole tribe to have agreed to such a humiliating disgrace? How can you attribute something that would have been rejected even by the lowest people to such an honorable and noble hero whose reputation as the 'Lion of Allah' has spread all over the world?"


He said, "Perhaps a female jinni fell in love with 'Umar and showed herself in the guise of Umm-i-Gulthum."


My answer was, "This statement displaces the former in venality. How could reason ever accept such an absurdity? This way of explaining facts would turn all the principles of Islam topsy-turvy. For instance, a man coming home from work might find his wife refusing him to enter his house saying that he must be a jinni and not her husband. Supposing he were backed with two witnesses (to prove that he is himself), this time she might reject the witnesses, too, saying that they also were jinnis. Thus everything would be in utter disorder, not only in every home, but also everywhere. A murderer or a thief might object to the execution of Islam's penal code by saying, for instance, 'I am not the man you are looking for. He might as well be a jinni.' In fact, Jafar Sadiq 'rahmat-ullahi ta'ala alaih', who you claim is the leader of your Madhhab, might have been a jinni." The head Molla was perplexed. He kept silent. Upon this I said, "Here I am asking my second question:


11- "According to the Shii madhhab, are the commandments of a cruel Khalifa acceptable?"


"No, they are not sahih. They are not to be accepted," was his reply.


"Who was the mother of Muhammad bin Hanafiyya, (who was) hadrat Ali's son?" I asked.


He said, "She was Hanafiyya, the daughter of Jafar."


I asked, "Who took this Hanafiyya prisoner?"


He said he did not know.


He did know, yet he said he did not know in order to vitiate the argument. Some of the audience said she had been taken prisoner by Abu Bakr 'radi-allahu ta'ala anh'.


I said, "Everybody knows it is necessary to make a careful choice in marriage. How do you think hadrat Ali 'radi-allahu ta'ala anh' considered it permissible to marry and have children from a jariya who had been taken prisoner by hadrat Abu Bakr, who you claim was not a rightly-guided imam or a lawful Khalifa?"


He said, "Perhaps hadrat Ali 'radi-allahu anh' asked his friends to give the jariya as a gift to him, and they married the jariya to him."


"You would need evidence to prove this," I said. The head Molla could not say anything. After a short pause, I went on:


"In order to avoid prolongation of the debate, I did not quote ayat al-karimas or hadith ash- Sharifs. For any hadith ash-Sharif quoted would be put to the question, both parties would be asked to produce their evidences, and thus the debate would hardly come to an end."


In the meantime, the talks that were made during the debate were reported accurately to the Shah (King). Upon this, he (the Shah) ordered that scholars from Iran, Bukhara and Afghanistan should come together, eliminate all the heretical elements, and make out an irrevocable written report, and appointed me his representative and president to this council of scholars representing three different nationalities. We went out of the tents. The Afghans, the Uzbeks, the Persians were pointing to me with their fingers. Seventy of the Iranian scholars assembled behind the blessed grave of Imam-i-Ali 'karram-allahu ta'ala wajhah'. Ali Akbar, the head Molla, was the chief of the Iranian scholars.


The head Molla showed me to Molla Hadi Khodja, who was the Bahr-ul 'ilm and a scholar from Bukhara, and asked him if he knew me. When the Bahr-ul 'ilm answered in the negative, he said, "This person is Suwaydi-zada Shaikh Abdullah Effendi, a prominent Sunni scholar. The Shah asked Ahmad Pasha to send him here to attend our debate and to preside over us as the Shah's representative. If we come to a unanimous agreement, he will bear witness for all of us and make the final decision for us. Now, let us clear out all the heretical elements whatsoever. Let us eliminate them in his presence. After all, Abu Hanifa does not call us disbelievers. However, let us ponder deeply over this matter. The book (Sharh-i-mawaqif) does not call the Imamiyya (Imamite) group disbelievers. Abu Hanifa 'rahmat-ullahi ta'ala alaih' states in his book (Fiqh-i-akbar), 'We do not call people who perform the namaz in the direction of qibla ( The direction which Muslims face as they perform the prayer called Namaz (or Salat). This direction is Kaba, in Mecca (Mecca).) disbelievers.' And it is written in the book (Sharh-i-hidaya) that the Imamiyya group are one of the groups of Muslims. However, the later generations (of Sunnites) called us disbelievers.


"And our later generations in turn called you disbelievers. Neither we nor you are disbelievers. Now, let us know our utterances that caused your later generations to call us disbelievers, so that we will cease from such utterances (beliefs)."


Hadi Khodja said, "You become disbelievers because you swear at the Shaikhayn (the two Shaikhs), that is, Abu Bakr and 'Umar 'radi-allahu ta'ala anhuma'."


The head Molla said, "We desist from swearing at the Shaikhayn."


Hadi Khodja: "You become disbelievers by calling the Ashab al-kiram 'radi-allahu ta'ala anhum ajmain' disbelievers."


The head Molla: "Now we say that all the Ashab al-kiram 'radi-allahu anhum' are Muslims and are true ones, too."


"You say that Mut'a nikah is halal."


"It is haram; only ignoble people would to it."


"You hold hadrat Ali superior to hadrat Abu Bakr, and say that it was Ali's right to become the (first) Khalifa."


"The second highest man after the Prophet 'sall-allahu alaihi wa sallam' is Abu Bakr-i- Siddiq. Next to him is hadrat 'Umar. Then comes hadrat 'Uthman. Hadrat Ali comes after him 'radi-allahu anhum ajmain'. Their (right of) succession to caliphate is in the order I have given above." The Bahr-ul 'ilm asked:


"What is your Madhhab (Muslims have two Madhhabs in matters pertaining to belief. They are: (1) Abulhasan-i-Ashari; and (2) Abu Mansur-i-Ma-Turidi. For detailed information, please see the books Belief and Islam, Endless Bliss, and The Sunni Path.) in belief?"


The head Molla: "Our creed is that of Abulhasan-i-Ashari."


"Now it is necessary to know correctly all the things that are stated (by Islam) to be halal and haram and to believe in them as such; in other words, you should not say haram about things that are stated to be halal, or halal about those which are stated to be haram."


"We accept this principle," he said. Upon this, the Bahr-ul 'ilm said:


"It is necessary not to do the actions which all the four Madhhabs of Ahl as-sunnat unanimously state to be haram."


The head Molla said they accepted this, too.


Then he added, "We accept all these. Now will you say we are one of the Islamic groups?" The Bahr-ul 'ilm paused for a while, and said:


"A person who swears at the Shaikhayn becomes a disbeliever."


"We have ceased from swearing at the Shaikhayn 'radi-allahu ta'ala anhuma'. We have accepted the other principles, too. Won't you consider us Muslims now?" The Bahr-ul'ilm repeated:


"It is disbelief to swear at the Shaikhayn." His purpose was to imply that "According to Hanafi Madhhab, if a person has sworn at the Shaikhayn, his tawba (repentance) will not be accepted. Iranians used to swear at the Shaikhayn before. Therefore they had become disbelievers. Their ceasing from swearing (at the Shaikhayn) now will not salvage them from the state of disbelief." Molla Hamza, the Afghan Mufti, said:


"O Hadi Khodja! Is there any evidence to prove that the Iranians swore (at the Shaikhayn) before this meeting?"


Hadi Khodja replied, "No, there is no evidence."


Molla Hamza: "Since they will not swear at them from now on, what other reason could there be for saying they could not be Muslims?"


Hadi Khodja: "If so, they are Muslims. This means to say that we agree on halals and harams, on good and evil." Upon this, they all stood up and made musafaha (shook hands in the manner prescribed by Islam); they turned to me and said, "Be our witness." Then we dispersed. It was a Wednesday evening, the twenty-fourth day of (the Arabic month) Shawwal. There were some ten thousand Iranians around us, all watching us.


As it was customary, at four o'clock after midnight the I'timad-ud-dawla (Grand Vizier) left the Shah and came to me. He said:


"Hadrat Shah sends you his thanks and salutations. He orders that tomorrow the same scholars (who attended the debate) should convene again, write down and undersign the decision made. And he asks you to register your testimony by putting your signature on top of the decision." I said I would do so.


Thursday afternoon I went to the place of the meeting first. Some sixty thousand Iranians had gathered there, so that they made up a huge crowd extending far away from the Merqad-i-Ali (his blessed grave) 'radi-allahu ta'ala anh'. When I arrived there and sat down, a long piece of paper was brought. With the command of the head Molla, Mufti Aqa Husain read it (aloud). It was in Persian. Its Turkish (English) translation is as follows:


The divine habit and hikmat of Allahu ta'ala is such that He has sent Prophets to men in order to announce His commands and prohibitions. Among Prophets, the final turn belonged to our Peygamber-i-zishan, hadrat (MUHAMMAD) 'sall-allahu alaihi wa sallam'. As the last Prophet, he accomplished his task of teaching the commandments and prohibitions of Allahu ta'ala, and passed away. After him the Ashab-i-Ghuzin assembled and unanimously agreed on the superiority of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq with respect to piety, goodness, and religious devotion, and elected him the Khalifa. Hadrat Ali, too, was among the electors. He used his vote on his own volition, not under compulsion or intimidation. Thus his (Abu Bakr's) caliphate was by the unanimous vote of all the Ashab al-kiram. All the Ashab al-kiram who elected him are just and true Muslims 'radi-allahu ta'ala anhum'. They are praised in Qur'an-i-azim-ush-shan, in the ayats that purport, "Muhajirs and Ansar, who are ahead of and above all others..." and "Verily, Allahu ta'ala loves those believers who promised thee under the tree." Also, the Fakhr-i-alam 'sall-allahu alaihi wa sallam' praises them: "My Ashab are like celestial stars. If you follow any one of them you will attain hidayat!"


After Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, hadrat 'Umar Faruq, commended by him, became the Khalifa. Hadrat Ali was again among the people who voted for him. Hadrat 'Umar commended six people before he passed away, and advised that after him these six people should elect the next Khalifa among themselves. Hadrat Ali was one of these six people. Five of them unanimously voted for hadrat 'Uthman and elected him the Khalifa. Hadrat 'Uthman was undecided in this election. After his martyrdom all the Ashab unanimously voted hadrat Ali to caliphate. When these four people lived together, no disagreement, no quarrel ever occurred among them. They always loved, praised and lauded one another. In fact, when hadrat Ali was asked about the Shaikhayn he said, "These two noble persons are the imams elected justly and rightfully." Also, when hadrat Abu Bakr as-Siddiq became the Khalifa, he said, "Have you voted for me, with Ali among you?"


O Persians! Superiority and fitness for caliphate among the four Khalifas follows this succession. If any person swears at them, censures them, or speaks ill of them, his household and blood will be halal for the Shah. May such people be accursed in the opinion of Allah, as well as in the opinions of Angels, Holy Books, and Prophets! When you made me the Shah at the Megan Square in the year eleven forty-eight (1148), I made some stipulations. Now I add this stipulation: I forbid you to swear at the Shaikhayn. You must certainly desist from it! If anyone gets involved in this abominable practice of swearing (at the Shaikhayn), his household shall be taken prisoner, and his property shall be confiscated, and he shall be killed. Formerly this ignoble practice of swearing at the Shaikhayn did not exist in the Iranian country. This atrocious deed was invented by Shah Ismail Safawi and his children, who followed his way. It held on for some three hundred years.


This agreement was undersigned and sealed by all the scholars. Then the (Ferman-i-ali), the firman issued by Nadir Shah in order to address the whole nation, was read aloud. The following is its Turkish (English) version.

[ALIASGAR_SHAH]

This si the preface of the debate;

[The book HUJAJ-I-QATIYYA was written in the Arabic language by AbulBarakat Abdullah Suwaydi of Baghdad. It was printed in Egypt in 1323 [A.D. 1905], and reproduced by offset process in Istanbul. Its Turkish translation, by Allama Yusuf Suwaydi, was printed in the Kurdistan printhouse in Egypt in 1326 [A.D. 1908]. Suwaydi Abdullah Effendi was born in Baghdad in 1104. After performing his duty of hajj in 1137, he was given an ijazat (certificate, diploma) from AbdulGhani Nabulusi [1050-1143] (A.D. 1730) Damascus], and another ijazat by Ali Effendi of Istanbul [1099-1149]. He taught for years in Baghdad. He wrote many valuable books. His thirtieth grandfather is Abu Jafar Abdullah Mensur, one of the Abbasi Khalifas. Nadir Shah [1099-1160 (A.D. 1746)], an Iranian ruler, convoked the scholars of Iran and Bukhara and commanded them to discuss and come to a bilateral conclusion on which one of the Sunni and Shii groups was right, and they appointed him as president of the debate. The book HUJAJ-I- QATIYYA, which gives an account of the talks made in this assembly, is very valuable. After a long discussion with the Shiite scholars in this assembly, he (Abdullah Suwaydi) proved that the Sunnis were right. The Shah liked this and congratulated him. He passed away on the eleventh day, Saturday, of (the Arabic month) Shawwal in 1174 [A.D. 1760]. He was buried near the tomb of Hadrat Maruf-i-Karhi 'rahmatullahi alaih', who had passed away in 200 [A.D. 815].


When Shah Husain Safawi, the ninth and last king of the Safawid dynasty in Iran, was killed by the Afghans in 1142 [A.D. 1729], a state of chaos began in Persia. The Shah's son, Tahmasib II, was an incompetent and pleasure-seeking person. Therefore his vizier named Nadir took over. He expelled the Afghans out of Iran and recaptured the capital, Isfehan. He besieged Baghdad, which was then governed by Ahmad Pasha. Eight months later an army commanded by Uthman Pasha, whose nickname was Lame, arrived from Istanbul and repelled the Iranian army

.

Nadir Shah became the Shah of Iran in 1148. He captured Delhi. He shed very much blood. Then he captured Afghanistan and Bukhara. He was given the nickname (Shahinshah). He sent ambassadors to the Ottoman State and proposed to arrange a scientific discussion to decide which one of the Sunni and Imamiyya groups was the right one. Organizing a great army, he moved towards Baghdad and Musul. Unable to capture them, he retreated to Nejef.


In order to eliminate the disagreeing principles of belief between the Sunnis and the Shiis and to unite the two groups in one by adhering to the right one, scholars from both groups came together upon the order of NADIR SHAH. Abdullah Effendi made such detailed, scientific, mental and documental speeches in front of the whole assembly that the Shiites were short of answering him. [The questions asked and the answers given by both sides were compiled in a book and published with the title (HUJAJ-I-QATIYYA)].


Ahmad Pasha, Governor of Baghdad, sent for me. When I went there Ahmad Agha, one of the officials of Ahmad Pasha, met me and said that the Pasha wanted to send me to Nadir Shah. I asked him why. He said, "The Shah asked for a Sunni scholar. You are to conduct a debate with the Shiite scholars to find out whether the Shiite tenets are right. If so, Shiism will be proclaimed as the fifth (true) Madhhab."


"O Ahmad Agha," I said. "Don't you know that the Persians are obstinate, headstrong people? Do you think they will admit my words? Especially their Shah is cruel and proud. How can I state the documents showing that their way is wrong? How can one ever talk to them? They already deny the hadith ash-Sharifs I am to put forward as documents. They reject the religious books. They interpret the ayat al-karimas in such a manner as will suit their purposes. How can I prove to them the fact that it is permissible to make masah (To wet the hands and rub them gently on mests.) on mests (Light, soleless leather boots worn with overshoes.) when making ablution? This facility has been made permissible by the sunnat-i-seniyya. The hadith ash-Sharif stating this permission has been narrated by more than seventy Sahabis. One of them is Hadrat Ali 'ker-rem-allahu wajhah'. If I tell them these facts, they will say that more than a hundred Sahabis have reported that this facility is not permissible. If I tell them that the statements they look on as hadith ash-Sharifs are mawdu', that is, they have been fabricated afterwards, they will tell me the same thing. They will say, 'Whatever you say, we will say it back to you.' For this reason, I beg Hadrat Pasha to excuse me from this duty."


He said, "This is impossible. The Pasha has chosen you for this duty. You have to obey him. Don't you ever object to his command."


The following morning I had a long conversation with Ahmad Pasha. He said, "Go and get to it. May Janab-i-Haqq give effectiveness to your tongue and argumentation! If they show obstinacy and vanity during the debate, talk briefly. Yet do not let them go without an answer! If they admit the facts and talk reasonably, do not hesitate to state all the facts that you know! Never be the losing party! Nadir Shah must be in Nejef now. Be there by Wednesday." I and a few other people set out. Throughout the journey I thought about the answers I was going to give and the evidences I was going to furnish. People I met on my way said that the Shah had convened almost seventy Shiite muftis.

[ALIASGAR_SHAH]

70 Questions for Shia

Question one:
This question is underlined under the saying of Allah (Subhanahu Wata’ala) in
Suratul Ma’idah verse 3 where he says;
“… this day, I have perfected your Religion for you, completed my favour upon you, and
chosen Islam as your Religion…”.
The above verse was revealed on the 10th year after migration (Hijra), ninety
seven (97) days before the demise of the Noble prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wasallam. This is
an automatic indication. that the Noble prophet has spent twenty-three years preaching
the Religion of Islam. However, it is also ten years after the establishment of Islamic
state.
The Religion of Shi’ism, its doctrines and politics, attempted rebellion of the
Religion all happened after the demise of the Noble prophet.
The question here is Shi'ism part of the Religion that was perfected on the day of
Arafah or not? If it is part of that Religion, then why didn’t the Noble prophet mention it?
Why didn’t he establish his Religion on it? Why didn’t he teach his students about it? An
if it was after the Religion has been perfected that the Religion (Shi'ism) emerged, then
what is its need?


Question two:
It is a known fact that when Sayyidina Uthman was martyred, the whole of the
Muslims paid homage to Aliyu bin Abu dalib Radiyallahu Anhu . The mantle of authority
and leadership was given to him unanimously. It was after he decided to change one of
the Governors he met in power, and that Governor has a massive support of his citizens,
further more, the blood compensation of one of the Governors household that was
murdered i.e. Sayyidina Uthman, and that was the point that triggered disagreement
between them. That was the motive the terrorist used to ignite their temper and caused
war.
The question here is, when Sayyidina Ali Radiyallahu Anhu was in position of
authority, why didn’t he proclaim Shi’ism? Why didn’t he produce a new Qur’an? Why
didn’t he decree temporary marriage (mut’ah) and perform it? Why didn’t he give the
acclaimed farm of Fatima radiyyahu anha that you always claim (fadaq) and hand it
over to her heirs? Why didn’t he abrogate “Assalatu Khairun Minan Naumi” that you said
is an innovation of the companions? Why didn’t he also add “Ashhadu Anna Aliyyan
Waliyullah” in the Adhan proclamation, since doing so is part of Religion in your
5
doctrines? Why didn’t he deviate from any of the things that the three Khalifs
(successors) did?
Is this not a clear indication that Aliyu is a Sunni and not shi’ite? And he has a
complete loyalty and affection to those successors that preceded him against your
insinuations?