In this chapter the honourable author has discussed the following subjects.

1. To seek severance with tyrants, despots and enemies of the progeny of the Prophet.

2. Ultimate outcome of those who denied A’imma Ahl Al-Bayt.

3. Final position of those who chose to fight Ali Ibne Abi Talib.

4. Preference of Fatimah Az-Zahra’ over women of all eras.

5. Infidelity of the assassins of the Prophets and Imams.

We shall discuss these, and a number of other relevant topics in somewhat detail in the following pages

Feud Between Right And Wrong

Struggle between truth and falsehood was continuous from the beginning of life. The apparent signs were that the chain of events that led to this strife, would continue for some time to come. When Ahraman and Satan countered Yazdan and Rahman, then what was left behind for one to be satisfied, as every reality was opposed by its converse? We could see Abel facing Cane, Pharaoh challenging Moses (‘a) and Muhammad (S) being countered by Abu Jahl, Abu Sufyan and Musaylima al-Kadhdhab.

Similarly, there was an artificial system of governance established against true religious structure. The fact of the matter was that the entire bloodshed that had happened in Islam so far, was related to this disparity between truth and charade. Truth declined to surrender before travesty and farce, even at the cost of its precious life. Falsehood, on the other hand also left no stone unturned to obliterate the true disciples of Islam. This conflict had a devastating effect on the permissible and religious aspects of the faith that resulted in major alterations of the legal working code.

Those who gained control of the Islamic state after the death of the Prophet moulded the direction of the state towards Greek and Roman patterns, thereby altering every concept that favoured true order of governance in Islam. This political demarcation resulted in the disfigurement of Islam.

According to the author of Al-Milal Wan-Nahl, this divergence was the greatest departure from Islamic ideals and it became the basis of the Shi’a-Sunni divide. Shi’as, so far as Imamate was concerned, started their count from Amir Al-Mu’minin Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), as their first Imam and ended with Imam Al-Mahdi (‘a) as the twelfth successor of the Prophet, in accordance with the Hadith of Ghadir, whereas the other group started their count with Abu Bakr and ended it with Marwan al-Omavi or perhaps Mu’tasim Billah Abbasi. The real terminal point of the caliphate was ambiguous for them.

Readers could refer to our book Asbat al-Imamah for further information on this subject.

Brief Account Of Hazrat Ali’s Caliphate

It was firm belief of the Shi’as that the Prophet had appointed Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) as his successor before his death, in accordance with the norm established by God. This succession was initially announced at the time of Dawat al-Dhul-Asheera, when a family gathering was arranged to invite near relatives to the religion of Islam. The tradition of such an appointment was observed in front of the whole family then and finally again near the wells of Ghadir, in front of the majority of his nation, after the last pilgrimage.

The Prophet had shown with his actions that his succession was a divine appointment and it could only come into place through the revelation and not from collective people’s decision. But alas, the old traditions prevailed and the real heirs of the Prophet were not allowed to assume their rightful place, and the reign of power was handed over to those who did not deserve it. The action of those who assumed power in the presence of Tahir Imams (virtuous leaders), was illegal and unjust as viewed by Imam Ali (‘a) and his progeny. Imam Ali (‘a) declared this in many of his sermons and speeches. He said in the sermon of Shaqshaqiyya, “The first caliph wrapped the robes of caliphate around his body, with perfect understanding that I had the same affiliation to this office as the pivot that holds the rotating wheel. I am sitting at such a lofty position where springs of knowledge are oozing out from me and no high flier can reach my pinnacle.”

Imams Of Ahl Al-Bayt And The First Three Caliphs

A letter from Imam Ali to Mu’awiyah, the rebel governor of Syria, was found in Nahj al-Balagha, in which he wrote a reply to his earlier communication, and showed his disgust towards the first three caliphates. “I do not owe any apology to the people for showing my disgust on the legality of the (first three caliphs).”

After the death of second caliph, when Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf, offered the seat of authority to him, conditional to the following of the Sunnah of Shaikhain (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar), he rejected the offer without giving it a second thought. This incident also showed that he considered the first three caliphates as usurpers and completely illegal and they were aware of this situation.

It was mentioned in Sahih Muslim that ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, the second Caliph admitted, when talking to Abdullah Ibn Abbas,

“You two not only consider me a liar, sinner, traitor and usurper but also have the same opinion about the one, who was better than me (Abu Bakr).”

Ibn Abbas kept quiet on this allegation, and his silence has put a stamp of confirmation on this allegation that they were really what they were thought to be.

Readers could refer to our book Asbat al-Imamah.

Logical Proof Of Dejection And Repulsion

As truth lay with the progeny of the Prophet, therefore, their fellowship and compliance, which was authorised by the Qur’an could not be perfected, unless we showed our disgust and repulsion to their enemies. This was very similar to the rejection and repugnance of those whom we had to deny before witnessing the Unity of God and the Prophethood of Muhammad (S).

The declaration of allegiance i.e. Kalima of Tawhid was the key for Ali-un-Waliullah. This conclusion was based on the true understanding of nature. Since Islam was a religion of nature and nature told that truthful and a liar, erudite and an illiterate, hypocrite and a faithful, aggressor and the defender, cheat and a virtuous could not be equal. As it was an undivided verdict of the mind that one would feel sympathy towards the innocent and repulsion against the oppressor, it became mandatory that false Prophets and Imams would be detested. No right-minded person of any religion or land would disagree with this approach.

However, Shi’as were the only sect among the Muslims, who had this approach of loving the pious and despising the ones not worthy of reverence. This was an integral part of their doctrine. This ideology was in line with the pronouncements of the Qur’an and Hadith. It was mentioned in Surah Ale Imran:

لَّا يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

“Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers” (3:28).

At another place in Surah Al-Mumtahinna the same advice was issued,

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا عَدُوِّي وَعَدُوَّكُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ

“O you who believe! Do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends” (60:1).

It was mentioned about Abraham (‘a) that when he came to know that his uncle was an enemy of God, he immediately withdrew from him. Allah praised this act of Abraham (‘a). This was the true interpretation of – Tawalla and Tabarra, which could not be denied by any fair-minded person, but the agitating and provocative Mullahs presented this concept in such a repulsive way that it was described as being a mode of abusing the companions of the Prophet.

It Is Inappropriate In Shi’a Faith To Abuse Anyone

We the Shi’as, in accordance with the Qur’anic verdict, disapproved the use of harmful language even for the infidels and mushriks. Then how could we make it permissible for those who had declared themselves as Muslims?

On the other hand – Lanat and Tabarra - were two different things that had been permitted by the Qur’an. Lanat literally meant separation from God’s blessings. Tabarra stood for displeasure or annoyance with the enemies of God and His Messengers. No man could claim to have reached the position of faith as long as he did not prefer the person of the Prophet to every asset, including his family and wealth, other than God, which was in line with the declaration of the Qur’an:

النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَىٰ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ

“The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves” (33:6).

or, as the Prophet had proclaimed for himself, “No person can claim to be a man of faith, unless he prefers me over everything, including his family and friends.”

In Shi’a Faith, The Love Of Virtuous Companions Of The Prophet Is Part Of The Faith

How was it possible for a believer to claim Iman, while feeling ghastly about the virtuous friends of the Prophet?

For some reasons, love for the companions of the Prophet was considered compulsory because they were Mu’mins and according to the Qur’an - all believers were brothers. The love of a believer was therefore, essential for another believer. As such, it was a religious duty.

Secondly, the companions of the Prophet had aided the Prophet. Moreover, respect for the associates of the adored one was naturally obvious. So, God favoured the companions of the Prophet, by virtue of their Jihad in His way.

Again, the companions were disciples of the Prophet and those who obeyed the Prophet were friends of God, in accordance with the Qur’anic assertions. It was therefore, important for the people to know that the respect for the companions of the Prophet was mandatory, and part and parcel of faith.

Muhaqqiq Shaykh Bahai wrote in his research paper, “It is our conviction that the love of those companions of the Prophet is an integral part of our faith that remained steadfast in their fellowship and did not disobey his will and his legatees, after his death. This is our perception of the companions of the Prophet, and we the Shi’as, in submission to our Imams take it as a routine to seek God’s favour for them.”

Imam Zayn Al-’Abidin (‘a) in a supplication to God talked about the companions of the Prophet, saying:

“O, God do not forsake those companions of the Prophet, who treated Your Messenger with affection and love, and fought relentlessly in his support and came forward to accept his message. O! God enhance their standing among thy blessings.”

There Were All Types Of People Among The Prophet’s Companions

It was revealed through the history that among the companions of the Prophets there were all kinds of people, including hypocrites, murderers, unjust, just, faithful, unreliable and some double minded individuals. Shi’as were of the opinion that this group should not be viewed with a single lens. Having such a practice was malice towards intellect and a civilised culture.

Some honest minded Sunni Scholars had to admit this reality with some hesitation. Therefore, Allama Taftani wrotes in Sharh al-Maqasid,

“The battles and disputes that took place among the companions of the Prophet, which were witnessed and recorded by history prove that some of the companions of the Prophet had diverted from the path set by the Prophet of God, and their behaviour was approaching impudence and apostasy. The reasons behind such behaviour were personal jealousy and greed for the world. This was because not every companion of the Prophet or anyone who happened to meet the Prophet was a spotless person.”

Hadith That All My Companions Are Stars Is Fake

These facts also revealed that the Hadith, which was very much touted by our Sunni brothers, wherein the Prophet had supposedly said, “My friends are like stars, you will be guided by following anyone of them”, was fake and a counterfeit Hadith.

Ibn Tamia wrote in Minhajul Sunna: “This Hadith is feeble because the great masters have said so.

Moulavi Abdul Hayee mentioned in Tuhfat al-Akhyar, the opinion of several scholars who proved deception of this Hadith. They said that Ibn Hazm had proven that this was an engineered work. Ibn Zahabi was of the same opinion.

If after some reservation we accepted this Hadith to be true, then we had to agree that it was Ali (‘a), Fatimah (‘a), Hasan (‘a) and Husayn (‘a), who were the subjects of this assertion. They were endowed with blood relations with the Prophet as well as his companionship. They were also virtuous in character and the Qur’an had laid down their love as a prerequisite for gaining high rank amongst the Ummah.

Allama Taftazani wrote to this extent, “We can only trust the virtuosity of those companions who had remained longer in the company of the Prophet and learned from his message, otherwise the rest of the companions are no different from common folks, who are a mixture of good and bad.”

Under these circumstances Shi’a faith could not treat all companions equally. The companions of the Prophet (S), who were steadfast in their belief, chose Ahl al-Bayt as their guide after death of the messenger of God, and paid their religious dues by submitting themselves to their command. We considered the soil under the feet of such companions as a source of vision for our eyes. However, we felt it was essential to disengage from those companions who did not fully comply with the assertions of the Prophet and moved away from Ahl al-Bayt after his death.

Ending Of Those Who Denied Imams Of Ahl Al-Bayt

In this respect, whatever the learned author wrote about those who had denied the Imamate of Ahl al-Bayt and thereby actually denied the Prophethood of all the Prophets was true under logical and reported assertions. We have already commented on this subject in the previous chapters, when we said that God had not handed over the task of Prophethood to various individuals, unless they had agreed to the Prophethood of the Prophet and the Caliphate or Imamate of Ahl al-Bayt.

We would now ask a simple question from the people of intellect. If a person apparently submitted to the office of the Prophets, but refused to recognise the Imamate of Ahl al-Bayt, who were initially responsible for the Prophets to receive the designation of Prophethood (from Allah), then what value would be left for his apparent stance on the Prophets. That was why the Prophet of God had said that whoever declined the Imamate of my legatees - was like a person who had declined the station of all Prophets.

Readers could refer to an exhaustive discussion on this subject in the seventh volume of Bihar Al-Anwar. According to our view, those who believed in four Imams or six Imams were equally wrong, since rejection of one Imam was equivalent to the refusal of all.

Treatment Of The Ahl Al-Bayt By The Ummah

Alas, instead of accepting the Ahl al-Bayt as their rightly guided leaders, people turned on them in cruelty and started extinguishing one flame of truth after another. They were so much insulted that the daughter of the Prophet had to say, “We have been subjected to such malice that if that hatred had fallen on the days; they would have turned into nights.”

Imam Zayn Al-’Abidin (‘a) has said about the treatment they had received from the Ummah, “I was paraded in the streets of Damascus, like a slave without protection.”

The Prophet of God was aware that this kind of treatment of his Progeny by the Ummah would occur, through the information provided by God. He had informed them and also advised them to remain patient. It was mentioned in Khasais al-Kubra of Jalaluddin Suyuti, “We are that family for whom God has preferred hereafter rather than this mundane world. My progeny will go through hideous pains, trials and tribulation and exiles.”

The Prophet in his Last Will to Amir Al-Mu’minin had specially asked him to remain patient and avoid the use of force. The authors of Marajun Nubuwwah and Rozat al-Ahbab mentioned, “O, Ali you shall reach me at the springs of Kawthar before anyone else. You will receive ghastly treatment after me, but be serene and do not let the robe of fortitude slip from your hands. Choose hereafter, when you see that the others have opted for the world.”

Reasons For Ali To Not Fight The Usurpers

Although, in the early period after the death of the Prophet, this family had suffered a lot, its leader kept his cool and did not resort to the use of force. The prime reason for this attitude was the will and instructions of the Prophet. Secondly, as mentioned in Nahj al-Balagha, the safety and the establishment of Islam was his primary concern.

The security and wellbeing of Islam was linked with peace and amity. If he had raised his sword against the protagonists, it would have certainly resulted in mutiny and internal strife. The enemies of Islam would have then used this occasion to demolish the efforts of the Prophet (S).

Battle Against Ali Is A Battle Against The Prophet

Since according to the Qur’an, Imam Ali (‘a) was the Nafs (being) of the Prophet, the behaviour towards one was reciprocated towards the other. There were several Ahadith to support this view in both Shi’a and Sunni books.

We have quoted a few narrations from Sunni sources. It was mentioned in Al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah and Tarikh ul Khulafa that the Prophet had said, “If anyone abused Ali (‘a), he has abused me. If anyone angered Ali (‘a) he has angered me. (One must know) that Ali (‘a) and the Qur’an are inseparable.”

On pages 17 to 171 of Al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, it was written, “Anyone who tormented Ali (‘a) has distressed me, and whosoever distressed me has angered God.”

It is quoted in Mishkat, regarding the Holy Five, “Whoever fights them; he will fight me and whoso makes peace with them will make peace with me.”

Despite these assertions of the Prophet, rulers of Bani Umayyah continued the contempt of Aali Muhammad for ninety years from every official and non-official platform of the state. Maulana Shibli Nu’mani wrote, “Compilation of Hadith has taken place during the era of Banu Umayyah, who insulted the family of Fatimah for ninety years throughout their kingdom, and manufactured many Ahadith in favour of Bani Umayyah, including regular desecration of Ali (‘a) in every sermon of Friday prayers.”

Assassins Of The Imam And Prophets Are Infidels

Imams Ahl al-Bayt were not only verbally tormented but active armed campaigns were waged against them to eliminate them from the scene.

Wherever sword was not possible, treacherous mode of poisoning was employed, despite the warnings that God had given out regarding the punishment that was in waiting for those who had killed one innocent person. The Qur’an mentioned:

وَمَن يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِنًا مُّتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَاؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَالِدًا فِيهَا وَغَضِبَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَعَنَهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَابًا عَظِيمًا

“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement” (4:93).

In the Shariah of Islam, the assassination of Prophets or Imams was classed as infidelity, therefore such a person might be a Muslim but he will revert to disbelief and his apology will not be accepted, even if offered.

Fatimah Is The Leader Of Women At All Times

There were numerous reports in both Shi’a and the Sunni books that Fatimah (‘a), the daughter of Prophet Muhammad (S) was the leader of women of all times. It was mentioned in some Ahadith: “Fatimah (‘a) is the leader of all women in the Paradise”, or as stated in Arjah al-Matalib, “Fatimah (‘a) is the leader of women of all times”.

Listening to this statement of the Prophet some companions asked about the status of Mary (‘a) - the mother of Jesus (‘a). The Prophet replied that Mary (‘a) was the chosen women of her time, while Fatimah (‘a) was the head of women at all times.

Some adversaries of the family of the Prophet had dragged some wives of the Prophet in this competition, which was a portrayal of their jealousy against Ahl al-Bayt. They must understand that the station of respect that Fatimah (‘a) held with God was not available to many Prophets, not to speak of the wives of the Messenger of God. The other statements like - Fatimah’s pleasure and anger was the elation and anger of God and the Prophet respectively, was well documented in Sunni books and its authenticity could not be challenged. The Qur’anic Verses such as Aayat al-Tatheer and other remarks were permanent arguments for her chastity.

A Brief Discussion On Fadak

Sadly, this Ummah did not care about this magnificent lady, and her estate, which was allotted by the Prophet to her in accordance with the Qur’anic decision. It was confiscated by the State. She made a petition to the first Caliph and he replied that the truth of her claim was not established1.

Lady Fatimah provided further evidence in support of her claim in the way of statements of Imam Ali (‘a) and her two sons Hasan (‘a) and Husayn (‘a) and Umm Aaiman. The evidence of her two sons Imam Al-Hasan and Husayn was rejected on the grounds as they were in juvenile age group, Umm Aaiman’s because she was a woman and that of Imam Ali because he was the husband of Fatimah.

Lady Fatimah then produced the written deed of occupation authorised by the Prophet, but it was rejected as well. At this juncture, Fatimah invoked the Qur’anic argument of receiving legacy of her father but the State, which had earlier relied on the slogan that the book of God was sufficient for them, pushed aside their earlier statements and invoked a fake Hadith at the spur of the moment, which stated, “We the Prophets neither receive nor leave any legacy.”

At this moment Fatimah was quoting Qur’anic Verses. This showed that the State was in the hands of opportunists who used any available tactics to deny the rights of Aali ar-Rasul by either refraining from the Qur’an or engineering fake narrations in the name of the Prophet.

Finally, Abu Bakr, as quoted by Bokhari refused to respect the claim of Fatimah and confiscated her estate. It has been stated that she died within three months of this decision and was secretly buried during the night and Abu Bakr and Umar were barred from participating in her funeral.

• 1. Tafsir al-Kabir by Fakhruddin Razi