What is the Difference between Sunnis and Shiites?
Religion
or History and Politics?
By: Ahmad ALKATIB
Preface
Part One : One Religion
Chapter One: The Doctrines
Study #1 : Similarities in Doctrines
(The basis of doctrines such as oneness of God, prophecy and
resurrection)
Study # 2 : Difference in Ideology
(The Imamate Doctrine)
Study # 3 : Ghulu and Ghulat (Those who
exaggerate)
Ahl Al Bayt Imams' Attitudes towards the Ghulat
The Position of Shiites on Ghulat
Recent Ghulu Phenomena
Ghulat and the Akhbari Curriculum
Study # 4 : The Discourse of Distorting the Koran
Study # 5 : Al Taqiyah (Dissimulation)
Chapter Two : Primary Sources of Legislation
Study # 1 : The Holy Koran
Study # 2 : Prophetic Tradition
Criticizing Sunni Hadith Books
Shiites Science of Men
Study # 3 : Consensus
Study # 4 : Rational Evidence
Chapter # 3 : Jurisprudence
Study #1 : Controversial Jurisprudential Issues
Temporary Marriage (Mut'a)
Shiites Evidence for its Permissibility
Sunni Evidence for Mut'a Prohibition
Degree of Prohibition
Divulging when
Necessary
Sahih Hadiths about Mut'a
Part Two : Dissimilarity in History and Politics
Chapter # 1 : History
Study # 1 : Attitude towards the Companions
1) The Early Islamic Theory
The Measure of Good
Deeds
The Great Schism
The Umayyad Propaganda
Muttazalites Criticize the Companions
2) The Sunni Theory about the
Companions
Definition of a
Companion
Absolute Generalization in Merit
The Equity of the Companions Theory
Keeping Silent about What Happened
between the Companions And the Obligation to Love and Praise them, also
Asking for Forgiveness for them
Charging those who Curse the Companions
with Disbelief
Selective Takfir (Proclaiming
Someone as a Disbeliever)
3) Shiite Stand Regarding the Companions
A) The Early Positive Stand
B) The Second Stand (After Adopting the
Imamate Theory)
Rewriting
History Attempt
The Legend of
Attacking the House of Fatima Al Zahra'
Tribal Power
Significance when Giving Allegiance to Abu Bakr
Sunni Narrations
Shiite Narrations
1) Ibrahim Al Thikafi Narration
2) Salim Bin Qays Al Hilali Narration
What Does Salim Narration Say?
Sheikh Al Mufid Position on Salim's Book
Safavids Role in Fueling Schism
C) Shiites Today
Chapter #2 : The Role of Supplications and Imams'
The Book : "Heavens' Key" as a Model
Fabricated Supplications
Containing Falsehood
"Al Kasa'" Narration
"The Day of
Ghadeer" Supplication
Imams'
Arafa Visitation
Ashura Visitation
The Major Comprehensive Visitation
Chapter # 3 : Politics
The Political Constitutional Theory Controversy
The Practical Significance
of this Controversy Diminished Today
Part # 3 : The Way to Unity
Practical Steps for Attaining Islamic Unity
Sources
Other Books by the Author
Translator's
Commentary
I was thrilled when Mr Alkatib told me that I can write a commentary on the
book to express my own views about it. I would like to sincerely thank him for
giving me such an opportunity.
A good number of facts presented in this book were news to me. While I agree
with a number of its points, I stand a bit confused at some other ones. Mr
Alkatib mentions a few times in his book the Sunni Theory about the Equity of
all of the Companions. He also mentioned a Muttazalilte Zaidi saying about how
Sunnis took the companions as gods. This statement came as a shock to me. Is
that how Sunnis are viewed by the rest of the Muslims? Do Sunnis actually
consider the companions infallible? My immediate answer is "Of course not!
How can Sunnis consider the companions infallible when they admit that Muawiyah
erred when fought against imam Ali? ". Is the "Equity of all of the
Companions" theory a misunderstood one? Do Sunnis refuse to dwell on the
past in order to avoid a new schism between Muslims?
Sheikh Shaltut from Al Azhar mosque, has issued a fatwa back in 1959 that had
accepted the Jafari school of thought as a valid Islamic school which can be
followed by Muslims. He made it as valid and equal to the other four Sunni
schools of thought. This has always puzzled me, how can that be? Sheikh
Shaltut, being a Sunni scholar, must have rejected the Godly Imamate doctrine
and this very belief is in contradiction with the rest of the Sunni schools of
thought. How can he then declare it to be valid? What had he seen in it that
many others have failed to see? After some discussions with Mr Alkatib, it
dawned on me. A school of thought must only include jurisprudential issues
while the Imamate ideology adopted by Twelver Shiites must be a political one.
I stand to be corrected but it is my belief that the Jafari school of thought
does not teach the Imamate doctrine.
The creation versus the non creation of the Holy Koran debate in this book also
surprised me. Can we so simply declare someone a disbeliever for not adopting a
firm stand on this issue? Would this mean that the average Muslim who has never
heard of this old debate, let alone take a stand on it, is considered to be a
disbeliever? Unsatisfied and unconvinced, I find myself wanting to further my
research on this topic.
What I liked the most about this book was the fact that it's open for
discussion. Mr Alkatib allows everyone to join in with their own opinions and
welcomes feedbacks. While the book doesn't solve all of the Islamic umma
problems, it at least brings some conflicts to the table to be discussed. It
sheds light on some misconceptions and misunderstandings on both sides.
Lastly, my whole intention of translating this book was to help bring Sunnis
and Shiites one step closer to understanding each other. We have a larger
purpose in life than to hold grudges against each other, life is too short to
waste it on hate. I urge everyone to help stop the shed of blood between
Muslims throughout the world. This book is a call to all Muslims to unite.
Perhaps if we learn to coexist then we can build a strong Islamic unity and
present the real picture of Islam to the world. We owe it to ourselves and our
children to show the love and compassion
that our religion teaches us. Let's leave this world just a little bit better
than the way it was handed over to us.
Any mistakes done in the translation is my own fault and any good that comes
out of my work is dedicated to my beloved brother Wael, may God have mercy on
his soul.
Hazar Audi
July,
2008
Preface:
Who are the Shiites? Who are the Sunnis?
It might seem to some people as a good thing to make the Shiite/Sunni
controversy seem as an ideological deeply rooted and imperishable conflict that
cannot be resolved till Judgment Day. I, on the other hand, believe that it is,
to a great degree, a political conflict that has been bypassed over the years.
Although at one point in the immemorial history it had a olitical meaning,
today it has lost its meaning and lost any reason for its continued existence
as Muslims lives have hugely evolved since the time it had started. And what's
left over of it are simple differences that don't amount to a serious conflict
, let alone a conflict that leads Muslims to kill each other over it. To get
rid of such bitter precipitates we should compare these differences
to all other different factors that had an effect on us in our daily
lives , which we should also get rid of to build a strong Islamic unity.
The denominational Shiite/Sunni controversy has not been and is not the only
conflict in our Islamic history. There have been and there are still bitter
differences within every sect, within Shiism and within Sunnism, in addition to
nationalistic, tribal, caste, and party differences that have caused huge
problems over the years and still do.
This enables us to say that the Shiite/Sunni difference is a lot smaller than
those other differences and that, in reality, there is no real serious conflict
on the outside except for personal psychological build ups and simple issues,
also the existence of some anxiety found in the hearts of extremists and
exaggerators (ghulat) in both sects. In any case, these extremists and
exaggerators are small in number and are secluded.
Before we go on any further, we should define the "Sunna" and
"Shia" terminologies so we can point out the differences between them
and and use it as a preliminary to resolve this conflict and get rid of its
bitter precipitates. It is for certain that the obvious clear meaning of
the first terminology (Sunna) is the following of the Sunna of the great
messenger Mohammad (puhhp). This cannot be in contradiction with Shiat Ahl Al
Bayt (siding with Ahl Al Bayt) which also include following the Sunna (of the
prophet). Based on this we see that Sunnis are Shiat Ahl Al Bayt and Shia
is an important part of Sunna. Some time passed before the birth of Islamic
sects during which no one felt a contradiction between the two concepts and no
one felt a need to belong to one or the other. It is possible that Shiat Imam
Ali Bin Abi Talib (pbuh) were Ahl Al Sunna wal Jamaa when it came to defend him
against Khawarij (those who opposed him). But later on both terminologies
(Shia and Sunni) grew apart and developed into two separate sects or more.
Before the two terminologies stabilized into what they're known today, back in
the second Hijra century the terminology of "Sunna" meant
"Hadith Nabawi" (ie prophet's hadith) as it was agreed on by
"Ahl Al Hadith" who labeled anyone who rejected the "Sunna"
as an innovator. In the third century Hanbalis (ie Ahl Al Sunna) labeled
Mutazala and Hanafis as innovators. At the time, also, Ahl Al Sunna (ie
Ahl Al Hadith) considered Ahl Al Bayt Imams as their own Imams. Ahl Al Sunna terminology
didn't widen up its circle to include the four schools of thought that are
known today (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii, and Hanbali) until
the fifth Hijra century despite the continued competition among the schools of
thought for a long time. Hanbalis and Ahl Al Hadith kept on questioning the
Hanafis', Asharites' and Maturidites' (who made up most of the Sunnis) Sunnism
until this day, and only accept them as Sunnis in a general sense as opposed to
Shiites and based on some standards.
Shia in the past was inclusive to all of Imam Ali's allies, followers, army and
the masses of people who loved him during his governing years. This made
up most of the Muslim public. However, the definition of "Shia" has shrunken over the years.
Throughout history a "Shia" became simply someone who preferred Imam
Ali over all other sahaba (prophet's companions) or someone who claimed that
Imam Ali had a Godly right to
the caliphate. Also a "Shia" (or Rafidha) became someone who
criticized Muawiyah Bin Abi Sufian or Uthman Bin Affan or anyone else
from the sahaba. Thus a lot of Muslims from Ahl Al Sunna
circle left it and entered the "Shia" circle despite the fact that a
mix of both circles was followed by a lot of people especially Ahl Al Hadith
sheikhs who used to mix between the two since both had a lot of common points.
Today the word "Shia" is used to label those who believe in the Godly
chosen Imams of Ahl Al Bayt, which include the Twelvers and the Ismailis. It
can also include Zaidis, who believe the imamate is exclusive to the progenies
of Imam Ali, Hassan and Hussein. "Sunni" today is used to describe
those who believe Abu Bakr was a legitimate caliph who was chosen by the
general Muslim population based on Shura.
This theoretical and historical disaccord would not have grown so much as to
separate between Muslims had it not been for the existence of a favourable
environment for it to grow in such as a lot of ignorance, prejudice, greed,
tyranny, social disintegration, immorality, lack of democracy and lack of
constitutional institutions that arrange for a peace process and control the
problem before it gets out of hand. The big fitnah that took place during the
first generation of Muslims, the generation of the great sahaba, presents a
clear proof about the existence of such an environment that helps the conflict
grow. And this happened before the birth of Islamic sects, Sunna and Shia. Had
there
been a clear constitution that arranges for power exchange and puts forwards
legitimate channels for opposition, the protest against Uthman's political
views would not have turned into a turmoil (fitnah) which led to the killing
the great companion and caused continuous wars among the greatest companions
(may God be pleased with them). Also the sectarian conflict that this
fitnah had caused would not have continued for so long, it also wouldn't re
start every now and then or lead to the shed of blood during bad and painful
turmoils.
Lastly, the Shiite/Sunni conflict might have had some meaning when it was
born. Today the general Muslim population on both sides do not perceive
any meaning for it, it's time that we buried this conflict and moved on.
The truth is today there is no one intact or official copy of either
sect (Sunni and Shia). The two sects are open for people's different
opinions and no one is obliged to adopt all the beliefs and opinions that were
written by the proceeding men in different domains, such as ideology,
jurisprudence and history. A person is free to pick and choose what
he/she feels makes sense to him/her (ijtihad) and can make his own copy of
beliefs that might not be the exact same copy of someone else's copy of the
same sect. This is because a Muslim is only obliged to believe and follow the
Islamic doctrine that's mentioned in the Holy Koran. Anything other than that
can be questioned, can be personal and differed on. Therefore we should not
form a general picture of either sect and make the individuals of either sect
representatives of that picture. We should, however, get to know everyone's
opinions and beliefs at a personal level especially that societies develop and
change overtime and do not sit still.
In any case, there are basic rules in religion that people should not differ
on. There are also ijtihadat that are built on questionable evidences
that should not cause a conflict within the Umma, it should be, though, open
for debate and discussion. The conflict between Shia and Sunni is not based on
the fundamentals of Islam but rather on minor issues that are based
on proof that are not so clear.
Forming a picture of the other person, be it a Sunni or a Shiite,
sometimes takes place in the midst of political conflicts and personal
bitterness towards the others. This leads us to look at the negatives in others
in order to disgrace them, stir up trouble against them and to provoke and
start a military action against them to get rid of them.
Such conditions make it next to impossible to weigh the negatives and the
positives and figuring out the big (religious) deviations from the small false
not so significant ones (ijtihadat) that can be tolerated. In these conditions,
a small negative point is usually blown out of proportion and thus becomes one
of the fundamentals of religion and hence justifies fighting and killing the
person who holds that different belief.
If the reader of this book is living such political conditions at this time,
it's better for him/her to close the book and put it aside until he's/she's
calmed down and is more ready to know right from wrong. To make this a bit more
understood, I'll give an example about a husband and wife who are fighting and
arguing and insisting on a divorce. Each one of them is trying to remember the
negative qualities of the other person so he/she can present it to the judge
trying to get a decision in his/her favour. At this time, it won't do any good
reminding them of the
good qualities of the other person. Unless they both have made an earlier
decision about staying together as a married couple despite all the problems
they'll face in their marriage, and unless they're both in a calm state, only
then they can see the problem as it is without blowing it out of proportion.
Only then they'll remember the positives and the negatives so they can deal
with it in a gentle loving manner.
The
important thing is wanting to coexist, after that things get
easier. Just like it's wrong to leave the negatives in a marriage grow
and build up because then it might explode and destroy the marriage, it is also
wrong to leave the negatives among different sects untreated because it will
work against unity and coexistence. We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand, we
should, on the other hand, try and deal with the problem lovingly and not
magnify it or fight it through the media.
The first step to solving a problem is to recognize and understand
it.Therefore, we must study this sectarian problem calmly and objectively. To
do so we must first analyze the problem and differentiate between the essential
elements and the collateral ones, the outdated ones and the present ones, the
fundamental ones and the subordinate ones, the relevant ones and the
irrelevant, the real ones and the made up exaggerated ones.
The idea of writing this book was proposed by the respected Sheikh Mohamad Al
Mukhtar Al Shankeeti who found the separation of Muslims painful. A year ago,
he invited me to co-write a book with him that studies the common points
between the two large Islamic sects (Shia and Sunna) and also the different
points. The title of the book, which he also helped choose it, points to the
fact that they agree on the fundamentals of the religion, and differ in history
and politics. I started off writing my point of view in June, 2005 and
waited a whole year for brother Al Shankeeti to write his views so the book
would include both of our views together. But I haven't heard from brother Al
Shankeeti so I decided to publish my part of it while still waiting for him to
write his part of it. Meanwhile I reffered back to the documents from the
conference that was held in Istanbul on 13th to the 15th of September 1993 that
was titled (Shiism throughout history and in our present day) that was nder the
supervision of the Islamic Studies Trust in Turkey, headed by Dr. Ali
Ozak. A number of Turkish university professors and Sunni and Shia
scholars attended the conference. I also had the honour to be a part of
it. I learned a lot from the Sunni scholars' comments and criticism of
different sides of Shiite way of thinking.
I also learned from the answers that were offered by the Shiite scholars. Of
course, I kept my own criticism of both sides to myself which I present in this
book. I invite everyone who reads the book to study the points I present and
give me their remarks so that we can strengthen the Islamic unity and move
forward with the Islamic Umma.
I ask God that I succeed in this.
Ahmad Al KATIB
God
the Almighty specifies the basis of the Islamic ideology at the beginning of
the Holy Koran, beginning of
The Salafi or the Wahabi interpretation of the oneness of God, (توحيد الله) which emphasizes the unification of
worshiping God (i.e. worshiping God exclusively) instead of stricting it to the
unification of Deism, probably
causes today the biggest disagreement among Muslims. Based on this
interpretation, some Wahabis consider the general Muslim population, Sunnis and
Shia who disagree with them on the emphasis of
the unification of worshiping God only, or interpreting it a certain way and
instead strict themselves to the belief of the unification of Deism, or
declaring the unity of God in a general sense, they consider such Muslims as
polytheists and ignorant unbelievers.
Some current Islamic leaders (such as the Egyptian thinker Ikhwani Sayyid
Kotob) walked in the footsteps of the Salafis (Wahabis). These leaders
considered Islamic societies ignorant polytheist societies because they don't
enforce the act of worshiping God exclusively as a law but instead follow and
befriend "infidel" leaders who don't follow God's orders.
Taking aside the fact that the Khawarij considered Imam Ali out of the folds of
Islam because he made truce with Muawiyah, just like they considered
those who committed one of the bigger sins as kafirs, we see that the first
serious ideological disagreement among the Muslim Umma was about issues such as
destiny, free will and devolution and whether man is free willed or destined.
It's well known that this disagreement
occurred among Muslims before they crystallized into different sects. Then a
more serious disagreement occurred which led to the birth of "Ahl Al
Sunna" troupe led by Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal. This controversy was carried
on with Imam Abu Hanifa, who believed in the legitimacy of one's opinion to
confront the large number of weak hadiths relaying to the prophet (pbuh). Based
on this Imam Ahmad believed in the non creation of the Koran, whereas Imam Abu
Hanifa and the Muttazalla believed the Koran was created. This fierce
controversy led Imam Ahmad to consider those who say the Koran is created as
kafirs and considered them innovators(أهل البدعة). He insisted that the belief that the Koran is created is an
innovation and goes against "sunna" ie the way of the prophet.
He even considered those who had no opinion about it as innovators. He said:
(Whoever says reading the words in the Koran (is created), and whoever has no
opinion about it and said "I don't know whether it's created or not
created, but it is God's word", such a person is an innovator just like
whoever says "It's created", it is the word of God therefore it's not
created).
Hassan Bin Ayoub asked Ahmad Bin Hanbal: What do you say about the Koran? He
said: God's words are not created. He asked: What do you say about one who says
it's created? He said: He's a kafir. He asked: What makes him a Kafir? He said:
According to God's verses ........the Koran is God's knowledge so whoever says
that God's knowledge is created is a kafir.
There are other narrations narrated by Ahmad Bin Hanbal's students that
stated that he used to consider anyone who believed the Koran is created as a
kafir, also whoever had no opinion about it . Abu Bakr (Al Khallal) said: ...Abu
Abdullah said: The Koran is from God's knowledge, doesn't He say (He taught the
Koran) and the Koran has God Almighty's names. We do not suspect God's names to
be non created, we do not suspect that God's knowledge is non created,
therefore the Koran is from God's knowledge and it has God's names. Hence, we
do not suspect that it's non created and it is the word of God Almighty and God
still speaks it. Then he said: And what infidelity is worse than this
infidelity? And what infidelity is more evil than this? If they claimed the
Koran is created, then they're claiming that God's names are created and that
God's knowledge is also created, but people make light of this issue and say
that the Koran is created and they think this is an easy lenient issue, yet
they don't know that they're committing infidelity by saying so. And I hate to
say this to everyone, but they ask and I hate speaking about this subject. So
it came to my attention that they're claiming that I'm withholding
information. So I said: Whoever says the Koran is created and doesn't say
that God's names are created and neither is his knowledge and didn't add
anything to this, I say he/she is a kafir? He said: that's how it is according
to us.
Abu Bakr Al Khallal also said: Hanbal Bin Isaac Bin Hanbal told me, through
someone, that he heard Abu Abdullah say: Al Jahamiyah is divided into 3 groups:
One group says that the Koran is created, a second group says that the Koran is
God's actual words and stops at this, and a third group says that our words as
we speak them while reading the Koran are created, all three groups are the
same to me.
Also it's been reported that he said: Whoever claims that the Koran is created is
a Jahami infidel. And whoever claims that the Koran is God's word but didn't
state whether it's created or non created, he's then worse than the first
person. And whoever claims that our words as we read the Koran are created and
that the Koran is God's word, he's then a Jahami, and whoever doesn't consider
all of these people (mentioned above) Kafirs then he's a Kafir just like them.
Although the Asharites gave up a lot of their Ashari beliefs in favour of Ahl
Al Hadith, the "real Sunnis" i.e. the Hanbalis still considered them
innovators and unhappily considered them Sunnis as opposed to Shia.
2:
Difference in Ideology (The Imamate Doctrine) In those early days when the
different doctrines originated, the imamate or caliphate issue was not
considered a fundamental Islamic belief since the Holy Koran did not speak
about it in details. However, a group of Shia that was known as Imamiah or
Rafidah in the second Hijra century, initiated the claim that the prophet has
chosen Imam Ali as his caliph, and that the right to the caliphate was
exclusive to the Alawi Husseini progeny. They backed up this claim using
certain interpretations of some Koranic verses and some weak and general
hadiths. All that raised the imamate issue to a doctrine level and made it a supplement
and a continuation to prophet hood. This pushed the Sunni mind to give
preference to the Rashidun Caliphate and made their preference sequential,
and also made it a part of their doctrine, although the Sunnis confess to the
unavailability of a Godly text regarding the caliphate and believe that it's
left up to Muslims to choose their caliph.
At the International Shiite Conference which took place in 1993 in Istanbul, Dr
Ali Ozak presented the common points between Sunnis and Shiites in his presentation
which was entitled "Imamate Shiite Opinion on (Koranic)
Interpretation". The common points are:
1. Oneness of God: There is no difference in this ideology between Sunnis and
Shiites, only Shiites are closer to the Mutazzala when it comes to issues such
as seeing God in the hereafter and whether he has a body, destiny and free
will...also in hadith issues.
2. Prophet hood: Shiites also believe in Mohamad's (pbuh) prophet hood.
3. Ma'ad: ie the belief in the hereafter, resurrection, judgment day, heaven,
hell and the likes. No big differences about these issues.
Then he carried on: "As for the issue that Shiites differ with the
Sunnis on is the imamate issue. Indeed, this is the keynote that both parties
differ on since the the imamate system is the basis of Shiism.
The Twelver Imamate Shiites build their whole doctrine on the principles of
prophet hood and imamah. An Imam to them- ie to the early Shiites specifically-
can create and pass law just like a prophet. Also the imam receives revelation just
like the prophet and solves problems using information that was revealed to him
as a guideline. The imams are responsible for administrative, political,
educational, economical, and sociological issues pertaining to people. Hence,
an imam can pass judgment, can pass religious verdicts and interpret Koranic
verses to
make it fit and agree with their beliefs. Based on this, people have to
absolutely follow him although he reserves the right to dissimulate his true
beliefs (al takiyah) depending on the circumstances and (his) interests".
Then he added " Shiism is a political trend more than it is a religious
ideology, however, this political trend turned into a religious doctrine with
time. Hence, it is a prerequisite for whoever wants to join Shiism for him/her
to believe that the caliphate is the absolute exclusive right of Ali's progeny.
In reality, this belief that is no more than a political trend (considering it
a religious ideology) is one that is in
contradiction with the teachings of the Koran and the Sunna at the same time.
This belief is also considered one of the deciding factors on whether a person
is a Muslim or not (ie he has to adopt this belief to become a Muslim) and this
is in accordance with early Shiite sources. Although Ayatoallah Makarem
Shirazi-during our meeting with him in September , 1991 in the city of
The imamate doctrine means that the president of a country must be infallible
just like a prophet. He would also receive revelations from God just like
prophets. Imams also posses the same qualities as prophets and have the right
and the validity to act like them (according to their claim) and as a result of
this doctrine which pertains to the Imam and the president of a country, Shia
believe that the Imam has a supernatural personality. They also believe that
every act an Imam does is correct and acceptable and people must endorse his
orders and avoid what he forbids. This is in agreement with the commandments of
Islam and what it forbids its followers from doing. By nature, this doctrine
causes a conflict with the rest of Muslims since they believe that Mohamad
(pbuh) is the seal of prophets and messengers like the Koranic verse # 30,
revelation has also been ended with Mohamad (pbuh). They also believe that
there is no one who is infallible on earth after Mohamad (pbuh).
This
is the reason that people from the two opposing opinions (Shia and Sunni) have
fought fiercely against each other over the years.
Therefore we must -firstly before anything else- induct some flexibility into
the two opposing opinions so we can improve their relations with each other. We
believe that the most important issue that differentiates Shia from the rest of
the Islamic denominations is the imamate issue".
Dr. Ozak also said: "A fact that the public (ie Muslim Umma) is aware of
is that the divine message has ended with Mohamad (pbuh), just like divine
revelation has also ended. Hence, people will follow three things till judgment
day and these things are the Koran, the noble Sunna and an an intact reasoning.
Therefore if we believed what the Shia claim regarding the imamah wouldn't we
be going against the teachings of the Koran and the implementation of the
prophet's (pbuh) sunna?Also if we said, like the Shia claim, that the messenger
of God wanted to choose a caliph after him but couldn't because people around
him stopped him from doing so. This saying is fallacious and also suggests that
the messenger of God kept some facts to himself in fear of some people. This
imperfects prophet hood although the prophet is infallible and cannot at all
keep some religious facts secret because of others who oppose him.
If he did, he would be unable to deliver his divine message, and this is
implausible.
Dr. Mahdi Al Husseini Al Rouhani answered Dr. Ozak regarding his sentence
"The Imam to Shia can create and pass law just like the prophet and he
also receives divine revelation like the prophet" and said "This
accusation is not true, there are a lot of Shia hadiths about their imams
(pbut) confessing that everything they (imams) say is taken from the
messenger's (pbuh) sayings (hadiths). For example, Al Baker says : Oh Jaber, if
we were to speak to you (ie teach you Islam) as we wish and please we would
have been doomed (by God). But our hadiths come from the messenger's (pbuh)
hadiths as we have collected them like others collect gold and silver. And in
another narration narrated by Mohamad Bin Shareeh from Al Sadik "By God we
do not narrate (hadiths) as we please and do not present our opinion in our
hadiths. We only say what God has said". And there are a lot of Shiite
narrations regarding this and any
narration from the Ahl Al Bayt Imams that opposes it is a lie.
It is strange that Dr. Ozak accuses Shiites of giving their imams the right to
create and pass law when it is Ahl Al Sunna who have done so with their Sahaba
and made a Sunna for the sahaba just like that of the prophet. Refer to
"A'lam Al Muwake'en" sentence 4 page 120 where there is more than 40
hadiths regarding this. One hadith regarding this issue is "Follow my
Sunna and the Sunna of the guided Rashidun caliphs. Hold
on tight to both (my sunna and theirs). He said "he compared his sunna to
that of the caliphs' (the caliphs' sunna is different than the sunna of the
prophet) otherwise it would be the sunna of the prophet".
Dr. Ali Ozak commented on Al Rouhani's answer by saying:
"
The truth is that when I refer to things that have been entioned about Shia in
the early days, I refer to it as opinions that some people had in the past. My
goal now is to reach a middle way where Ahl Al Sunna and the Shia can meet
because all people are held responsible before God about their beliefs and
those people from the past are not responsible for us and we're not responsible
for them. Therefore, we must unite on the fundamentals of religion. All I have
mentioned is found in the Shia's and Ahl Al Sunna 's books and interpretations.
They're gone now (early Shia and Sunnis) and we're here. We're here in this
meeting to study these opinions and accept the ones that are proper and reject
the ones that we disagree with so we can reach the truth which is Islam, Islam
that relies on the God's Holy book (Koran) and his messenger's (pbuh) proper
sunna".
Study
# 3: Ghulu and Ghulat (Those who exaggerate)
Muslims who believed in Godly chosen Imams don't seem too bad when compared to
the ghulats (those who exaggerate about the whole Imamate issue), who
became active towards the end of the first Hijra century. They thrusted
themselves in the Shia ranks and started disseminating their deviated ideologies,
which they conveyed from previous religions and cultures like Christianity,
Judaism, Parsee and Hermetica , in Ahl Al Bayt's name.
Their exaggeration revolved around raising the Ahl Al Bayt Imams from normal
humans to the level of prophets and even God. Some of the ghulat refused the
belief that Mohamad (pbuh) was the last prophet and believed in the necessity
of the continuation of divine revelation till Judgment Day. Some believe
that the Imams are the reincarnations of God and they do God's job in this life
and in the hereafter such as sustenance, creation, death, day of reckoning and
the likes. This belief raises them to the level of God.
Some of those ghulats were:
1.
Abdullah Bin Saba': He was the first one
to start ghulu (exaggeration) during the life of Imam Ali. He said: A divine
fragment took over Ali's body and united with it and through it he knows the
unseen, he came on the clouds , thunder is his voice and lightning is his
smile. This divine fragment gets reincarnated in one Imam after the other.
2.
There's a debate about whether this
person actually existed or not and about how big a role he played during the
big fitnah and the revolution against Uthman and whether this personality is
real or a legend. We can suppose that it's an exaggeration to ascribe all the
political moves and wars, that involved the greatest sahaba and the settlers of
Al Madina,
3.
Bayan Bin Sam'an Al Nahdi, during the time of
Imam Ali Bin Hussein.
4.
Almaghera Bin Sa'ed, during the time of Imam
Al Baker.
5.
Hamza Bin Ammara Al Barbari.
6.
Al Hareth Al Shami.
7.
Abdullah Bin Al Hareth.
8.
Abu Al Khattab Mohamad Bin Abi Zaynab Al
Asadi who said : Jaffar Al Sadik is th God of his time. Al Shahrastani
said: Al Sadik exaggerated when he disowned Abi Al Khattab and cursed him.
The names of the above ghulats arose in one of Imam Jafar Bin Mohamad Al
Sadik's hadith where he cursed them ; "Shall I inform you (O People), on
whom it is that the satans descend? They descend on every lying wicked
person.", then he said: They're seven: Al Maghera, Bayan, Sa'ed, hamza Bin
Amara Al Barbari, Al Hareth Al Shami, Abdullah Bin Al Hareth and Abu Al
Khattab". Based on what these ghulats and others preached, a number of
sects were formed such as : Al Bayaniah, Al Khattabiah, Al Sha'riah, Al
Magheriah, Al Ba'iya, Al Gharabiyah, Al Alia'iah, Al Mukhamasa, Al Bazi'iyah,
Al Mansouriah, Al Mofawweda. Al Mufawweda were the ones who claimed that God
created the Imams and then he resigned and left it up to them to create the
world and run it.
The Holy Koran speaks about prophets' miracles such as the turning of prophet
Moses's (pbuh) stick into a crawling snake, prophet Jesus (pbuh) raising
the dead and curing the blind and the leper, softening of a piece of iron for
prophet David (pbuh), prophet Solomon (Sulayman) (pbuh) having the wind under
his command, bringing dead birds to life by calling on to them by prophet
Abraham (pbuh). In the Holy Koran, Surat Al Imran, 49 prophet Jesus (pbuh)
says:"I have brought you a Sign from your Lord. I will create the shape of
a bird out of clay for you then breathe into it and it will be a bird by
Allah's permission. I will heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead to
life, by Allah's permission. I will tell you what you eat and what you store up
in your homes. There is a Sign for you in that if you are believers". The
ghulat interpreted such Koranic verses to mean that God has given the prophets
the authority to control all of the creatures and administrate their
surrounding. Therefore He has granted them what they called "Al Wilayah Al
Takweeniah" (ie Creation Management) because the Koran speaks about such
miracles as the doings of the prophets with the permission of God "No
messenger could come up with a Sign (miracle) without Allah's
permission". So whoever comes up with a Sign or a miracle or
performs a supernatural action is a prophet as the Koran shows but it happens
with God's permission. This, according to them, points to the notion of "Al
Wilayah Al Takweeniah".
From this point they went on trying to establish the "Wilayah Al
Takweeniah" theory regarding Ahl Al Bayt. To prove their point, they used
analogy by comparing the Imams to the previous prophets' disciples and the the
good men who were around the prophets. For example the friend of the Ifirit
Jinn (large, powerful Genie), or the friend of prophet Sulayman (pbuh) as in
the following verses : "he said (to his own men) Ye Chiefs! Which of you
can bring me her throne before they come to me in submission? A stalwart of
Jinn said: I will bring it to thee before thou rise from thy council: indeed I
have full strength for the purpose, and may be trusted. Said one who had
knowledge of the Book: I will bring it to thee before ever they glance returns
to thee.". Surat Al Namel, verses 38-40.
They also said: Since Sulayman's disciple (Asif Bin Berkhaya) and the Ifrit
Jinn were able to freely operate the universe, then the prophet's disciples
(pbuh) ,who are the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt, are able to come up with miracles and
also operate the universe. Therefore God has given them "Wilayah Al
Takweeniah". The ghulats also claimed that some Imams performed a
number of miracles, also they claimed that the Imams have knowledge of the
unseen. They said" Sulayman's disciple, Asif Bin Berkhaya, had knowledge
of the Book (Said one who had knowledge of the Book'. Imam Ali and the rest of
the Imams have the knowledge of the entire Book. They made this claim based on
their taweel (interpretation) of the following verse of the Holy Koran:"
And say God is a sufficient witness between me and you and he who has the
knowledge of the Book". Based on mutawatera narrations (a number of
narrations narrated from different people to mean the same thing hence reliable)
narrated by people of the same sect and people from different sects, they claim
that the previous verse was revealed about Ali and his progeny. One of the
ghulats says "There's no analogy (comparison) between the knowledge of
Asif Bin Berkhaya and the knowledge of our mawla amir al mumineen (pbuh) except
for the analogy of a mosquito that drinks water from the sea, according to Imam
Al Sadik (pbuh) analogy when he was asked about the similarity of the two
knowledges".(1) Then they claimed that "Ahl Al Bayt have the knowledge
of the Book and the knowledge of all the prophets and messengers, this is in
accordance with a number of mutawatera (reliable) narrations on the
interpretation of Koranic verses that spoke about the Imams (pbut)".
The ghulat based their previous claim on their first claim which states that
the imams of Ahl Al Bayt are the disciples of the prophet (pbuh) and that
they're chosen by him to lead the Islamic Umma till the Day of Judgment. They
considered the claimed "miracles" as proofs of their honesty and
signs of their Imamate despite the fact that no evidence has been brought up to
prove that any of the Imams actually performed a miracle or spoke of the
unseen. The ghulat, however, made up stories, narrations and hadiths and
ascribed them to Ahl Al Bayt and they believed such narrations and considered
them mutawatera ones that cannot be discussed.
When the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt denied the ghulats
claims pertaining to their knowledge of the unseen or the divine revelation or
performing miracles and being supernatural humans, the ghulat would claim the
the Imams are using taqiyah, therefore they would change the Imams sayings by
180 degrees and claim that the Imams tell them (the ghulat) in secret what they
cannot come out an say in public.
Maybe the best of examples is the story of Abu Al Khattab Al Asadi when Imam Al
Sadik cursed him because he (Al Khattab) claimed divine attributes to Imam Al
Sadik. When Abu Al Khattab learned about the cursing, he explained that the
imam meant another man who lived in Al Basra who was also named Abu Al Khattab.
Imam Al Sadik cursed Al Khattab again and this time he named him specifically.
Despite this, Abu Al Khattab who lived in Al Kufa didn't give up but justified
the cursing by saying that "Imam Al Sadik cursed him publicly to save the
ship from sinking just like prophet Musa's friend who breached the ship in
order to save it from the usurper king" just like in Surat al Kahf, verse
79: "As for the boat, it belonged to a certain men in dire want. I but wished
to render it unserviceable, for there was after them a certain king who seized
on every boat by force".(3)
While some ghulat, who claimed that the Imams were gods or prophets, went out
of the folds of Islam, they (Al Mufawweda) kept on clinging to the Shia trying
to pass on their deviated beliefs to the ranks of Imamate Shiism.
If the Shia in a general sense have refused the ghulat's extremist claims, some
of their beliefs such as the continued divine revelation to the Imams in one
way or the other, the claim that they have knowledge of the unseen and
performing miracles as a sign of divine Imamate and as a duty, have been passed
on to the Imamate thought. Some ghulat doubted the ending of prophet hood
(after prophet Mohamad (pbuh)) and believed in the necessity of the existence
of a Godly scholar who teaches the Book (Koran) and gives answers to people
regarding new matters, not through ijtihad and narrations of prophetic hadiths,
but through factious knowledge from God.
Of course, this belief isn't adopted by all Imamate Shia but only some. It has
some ghulu in it to a degree since it considers the imams are like prophets who
receive divine revelation, that they have the knowledge of the unseen and that
imams a bigger role than simply the exoteric political
caliphate and therefore preferred them to a lot of the prophets and messengers
except for prophet Mohamad (pbuh).
Maybe the mixing between the Imamate thought and the ghulat thought is what
made and still makes a lot of writers consider all Shiite groups ghulat, even
the Imamate. Although the Imamate Shiite consider the ghulat out of the
folds of Islam, disown them and curse them because the ghulat mixed in with the
Imamate Shiites and because of raising the Imams to high levels above the
original political role from which theology took off, and it is the legitimate
and enforced political role that Muslims need everywhere and all the time.
*Ahl Al Bayt Imams' Attitudes towards the Ghulat:*
Since the ghulat with their all different categories posed a danger on the
Shiite move, Ahl Al Bayt imams took a rigid standing against them. Imam Jafar
Al Sadik said "We're no more than servants to Him who chose us and made up
caliphs, by God we have no proof from Him, we have no (license of ) innocence
from Him. We are to die, to be resurrected and to be judged. Whoever likes the
ghulat then he hates us and whoever hates them then he loves us. The ghulat are
infidels and the Mufawweda are polytheists. May God curse the ghulat, be it
Christians, Kadaris, Marje'a or Haruriyah". (4).
He also said:"May God curse him who attribute to us what we do not
attribute to ourselves. May God curse him who says we're not God's servants,
Him who created us, and to Him is our return and in His hand our
forelocks." (5). Also said :"May God curse Abdullah Bin Saba'. He
claimed that ameer al mumineen (pbuh) is God. By God, amir al mumineen (pbuh)
was an obedient servant to God. Condemned are those who lie about us. Some
people say about us what we do not say about ourselves, we declare our
innocence of them, we declare our innocence of them". (6)
One of his friends, named Sadeer, said:"Some folks claim that you're gods
referring to the Koranic verse (And He is God in the heavens and God on earth)?
then the imam (pbuh) said:"Oh Sadeer, my hearing, my sight, my skin , my flesh and blood and hair are innocent of them.
God is innocent of their claims. They do not follow my religion or my fathers'
religion. And God will only join me with them on Judgment Day when He will be
discontented with them".(7)
Imam Sadik used to warn Shia against the ghulat saying:"Be aware that the
ghulat could corrupt your youth. The ghulat are wicked creatures who belittle
God's greatness and claim divinity to God's servants. By God, the ghulat are
more wicked than the Jews, the Christians, the Parsees and the
polytheists".
When Abu Al Khattab got killed, Imam Al Sadik said:"May God curse Abu Al
Khattab, those who got killed with him, those who haven't been killed and those
who feel mercy towards them".
Al Kashky narrated that Al Sadik (pbuh) said to one of
his friends:"Tell the ghulat to repent to God, they're lewd, kafirs and
polytheists".
A man asked Imam Al Rida (pbuh): What do you say about
tafweed (delegation)? He said: God Almighty delegated his religion (Islam) to
the prophet. then he said: Take what the messenger has brought you and leave
what he forbade. As for (delegating) creation and sustenance then no, then he
continued: God Almighty says"God is the creator of everything" and
"It is Allah who has created you, further He has provided for your
sustenance, then He will cause you to die and again He will give you life. Are
there any of your (false) partners who can do any single one of these things?
Glory to Him! And High is He above the partners they attribute to Him."
Abu Hisham Al Jafari narrates: "I asked Abu Al Hassan Al Rida about the
ghulat and the mofawweda. He said: the ghulat and the mufawweda are
polytheists. Whoever sits with them or mingles with them or eats with them or
drinks with them or kept in touch with them or intermarried with them or
trusted them entrusted them with something or believed their conversations or
helped them even with a word , whoever does any of that is out of God's, the
prophet's and us Ahl Al Bayt's wilayah".
He also said in a different hadith:"The imam is begotten and also begets,
gets sick and gets better, eats and drinks, uses the washroom, marries and
sleeps, forgets (wayas hoo?), becomes happy and becomes sad, laughs and cries,
lives and dies, gets buried and gets visited, gets resurrected, gets judged,
gets forgiven and credited and gets to intercede (with God)".
Al Khashki narrated that Imam Al Rida (pbuh) said"Binan used to lie on
behalf of Ali Bin Hussein (pbuh) so God gave him a taste of iron heat. Al
Maghera Bin Saeed used to lie on behalf of Abu Jafar (pbuh) so God gave him a
taste of iron heat".
Al Majlesi made a chapter of his book (Bihar Al Anwar) titled (Denying ghulu
regarding the prophet and the imams (pbut) and showing the meanings of Tafweed
and what should not be attributed to them and what shouldn't be). He presented
in it ninety four narrations about them (pbut) denying the ghulu and twenty
four narrations about tafweed (delegation), he also presented some Shiite
sheiks about this.
The Position of Shia on Ghulat:
Sheikh Al Sadouk (381H-?) said:"We believe that the ghulat and "Al
Mufawweda" are kafirs and they're more sinful than the Jews, Christians,
Parsee, Kadaris and Al Haruriah and the rest of innovators. No one degraded and
belittled God the Almighty as they did. God Almighty said:"It is not
(possible) that a man, to whom is given the Book and wisdom and the Prophetic
Office, should say to people :"Be ye my worshipers rather than
Allah's". On the contrary (he would say):"Be ye worshipers of Him
(who is truly the Cherisher of all) for you have taught the Book and ye have
studied it earnestly. Nor would he instruct you to take angels and prophets for
Lords and Patrons. What! Would he bid you to unbelief after ye have bowed your
will (to Allah in Islam.)", Al Omran, 79-80. The Almighty also
said:"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say
of Allah but the truth", Al Nisa', 171. Someone asked Imam Al Rida
(pbuh): Does the imam create and provide sustenance?...his spontaneous reaction
was to ask God the Almighty for forgiveness from such sayings:"Oh God I
hold myself innocent before you of the might and power and there is no might
and power save in you. Oh God, I seek refuge with you and I hold myself
innocent before you of those who claimed that we posses what we have no right
possessing. Oh God, I declare my innocence of those who said about us what we
haven't said about ourselves. Oh God, you create, from you is sustenance, you
we worship and from you we seek help. Oh God, you are our Creator and our
forefathers' and fathers' Creator. Oh God, Divinity only suits you and Deity
only fits you. Curse the Christians for they have belittled your greatness and curse (?) for saying (?). Oh God we are your slaves and the sons of your slaves.
We have no power over ourselves. Oh God, we're innocent of those who
claim we're god, and of those who claim we create and provide sustenance. Just
like Jesus tho son of Mary is innocent of Christians (and their claims about
him). Oh God, we did not ask them to make such claims so don't hold us
accountable for what they say and forgive us for what they claim about
us"Oh my Lord, leave not of the unbelievers a single one on earth! For, if
You leave (any of) them, they will but mislead Your devotees, and they will
breed none but wicked ungrateful ones."(8)
Sheikh Al Mufid said :"Ghulu is to exceed the limits and (thus) to lose
the meaning (of the subject). God Almighty said :"O People of the Book!
Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of Allah but the truth", Al
Nisa', 171. The Almighty prohibited us from exaggerating the person of the
Messiah and warned us from losing the meaning of his purpose
and made what the Christians claimed about him an extremist view (ghulu). The
ghulat who pretended to be Muslims are the ones who claimed
divinity and prophet hood to ameer al mumineen (Ali, the believers' prince) and
the imams from his progeny (pbut) and gave them preference (to everyone else)
in religion and in this life to an extreme which made them, the ghulat,
misguided kafirs. Ameer al mumineen (pbuh) sentenced them to death by burning,
and the rest of the imams considered them kafirs who were out of the folds of
Islam". He also clarified their extremist views in ascribing divine attributes
to regular people by saying:"what shows clear exaggeration is when
the ghulat claim that the imams are not caused but are infinite (existed
forever) with no cause and are gods. They claimed that the imams can create and
do things that normal humans (God's servants) are unable to do". He also
said:"Al Mufaweda is a part of ghulat. What distinguishes them from the
rest of the ghulat is their admittance to the fact that imams are caused and
created and are not infinite, although they still claim that the imams can
create and provide sustenance. They (Al Mufaweda) also claim that the imams
were God's "special" creation and he delegated to them the creation
of the universe with everything in it". (9).
Sheikh Al Mufid believed in the possibility of the existence of divine
revelations to the imams and the possibility of the imams carrying
through miracles as he says :"Reason allows the possibility of divine
revelation to the imams, although they're not prophets. God the Almighty
said:"So We sent this inspiration to the mother of Moses : "Suckle
(my child), but when when you have fears about him, cast him into the
river". She (Musa's mother) knew this (to place her son in the river) by
revelation from God and thus obeyed it. She was not a prophet or a messenger or
even an imam, rather she was a good servant of God. Reason also doesn't oppose
the possibility of God sending another prophet, after our prophet, to engross
his message". However, Al Mufid rejects this possibility based on ijma'
(consensus) of Muslims. He says :" This is not possible based on ijma' and
based on our knowledge that this (sending another prophet after Mohamad (pbuh))
goes against the teachings of Islam. All of the Imamates (Shia) agree on
this." (10)
It is for the above reason that Sheikh Al Mufid considered ascribing prophet
hood and divinity to the imams as a ghulu, only people who pretend to be
Muslims would say such a thing as we have seen earlier. He also answered
the ghulat (extremists) who hold on to unauthentic weak hadiths ascribed to Ahl
Al Bayt by saying :"What
was narrated weakly regarding this issue, even if it was narrated by thousands
of people, doesn't hold proof of
....?" (11).
Although Sheikh Al Mufid denied that the imams have knowledge of the
unseen (as a self attained knowledge), he still accepted the claim that God had
taught them (showed them) the unseen, he said :"To say that the imams
(pbut) know the unseen is a munkar (evil doing) corruption because such an
attribute is only worthy of the One who self attains knowledge, not someone who
needs it to be taught to him. This only belongs to God the Almighty. The
Imamate Shia agree with me on this, except for the extremists such as "Al
Mufaweda" and the ghulat that belong to them". Some Imamate Shia
narrated that a man asked imam Ali (pbuh): "Were you given the knowledge
of the unseen?, he answered him : Oh you brother of a Kalb! it's not knowledge
of the unseen, it is a knowledge that has been taught (to us)". This
agrees with some Imamates who claim that the imams have knowledge of the unseen
taught to them (by God), based on the incident of the messenger who was shown
the future as was told by God the Almighty. This is how the Imamates explain
the connection between the imams (or their deputies) with God the Almighty.
This, indeed, is one sort of ghulu that Imamate Shia believe in as a way to
save the Imamate theory (from being rejected) since it doesn't make sense
without such claims especially when speaking about the imams' knowledge
(Mohamad Al Jawad, Ali Al Hadi and Al Mahdi) whose fathers died when they were
still too young to gain knowledge from them. Therefore the Imamate Shia find it
urgent to believe that the imams gained all of their knowledge directly
from God without a mediator or a teacher. Also if the imams had gained
knowledge from someone, that person (teacher) would be more knowledgeable than
them and therefore has more right to the imamate.
This shows that there are different levels and degrees
of ghulu. It also differs from one person to another and from one group to
another. At the time when the Imamate Shia were disowning the
"Mufaweda" and the ghulat that gave the imams divine attributes, some
of them (Imamate Shia) were on the same line as the ones who became extremists
(ghulat). Thus over the years there can be seen a kind of inherency between the
divine imamate theory and the ghulu. A sense of obscurity took over (the
Imamate Shia's) position on the ending of prophet hood with prophet Mohamad
(pbuh) and the role of imams as an extension to prophet hood, or the necessity
of the continuation of divine revelation till the Day of
Judgment. The Imamate Shia didn't speak of this frankly since, if they did, it
would take them out of the folds of Islam as it rejects an essential part of Islam
(ie the discontinuation of prophet hood). They gave divine
revelation a broader definition to include the divine revelation that came down
to Musa's mother and used that to claim that it came down to the imams as well.
They claimed that there was a difference between the revelation that was sent
down to the prophets and that was sent down to the imams.
The prophets could see the angels (who carried the
divine message) but the imams could only hear them without being able to see
them.
If we proved the claim that the imams receive some
kind of divine revelation, like that of Musa's mother's revelation, then we
would be building a special connection between the imams and God. This would
make them higher than regular people who gain their (Islamic) knowledge through
narrations, studying or juristic deduction. To believe such a claim is in
itself a ghulu (an exaggeration).
Evey Shiite mujtahid, who gains his knowledge through
juristic deductions, had a different view regarding the ghulat. Some mujtahids
considered them ghulat while other considered them depreciators. Different
mujtahids considered them at different levels of ghulu. Imamate Shia sheikhs
(in the fourth and the fifth centuries) considered Al Mufaweda ghulat kafirs
who are out of the folds of Islam. Recent Imamate Shiites, however, such as Al
Wahid Al Kharasani accept Al Mufaweda beliefs very easily.
While Ibn Al Ghada'iri, who was one of the religious
scholars in the fifth century, took a negative stand against Al Mufaddal Bin
Omar Al Jahafi (one of Imam Al Sadik's friends) as he said :"A weak
exaggerator and adds a lot of (untruths) to his narrations. Ghulata used
his ghulu narrations a lot. His hadiths should not be written", others,
such as Al Khu'i held positive view of him and accepted his narrations.
The early Shia scholars in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Al Majlisi, Bihar Al Anwar, sentence 26, page 160.
2. Al Taqiya, that shiites used to practice, caused a delima with the Sunnis
who started to have a problem trusting Shiites. Sunnis even didn't believe
Shiites who rejected ghulu and ghulat beliefs thinking that Shiites
denied their true beliefs publicly while held on to them in secret.
Sunnis didn't realize that Shiites have actually left the practice of taqiya
and denounced ghulat beliefs publicly as well as in secrecy.
3.Al Ashari Al Qumi, The sayings and the groups (Al Maqalat wal Firaq), page
55.
4. Al Majlisi, Bihar Al Anwar, Book # 3, pages 51-52,
1301 H. edition.
5. Al Majlisi, Bihar Al Anwar, Book # 3, page 297 sentence 25. Rijal Al Kashi
(Kashi Men), pages 297 and 527.
6. Rijal Al Kashi (Al Kashi Men), pages 106, 170-174.
7. Al Kilini, Al Kafi Usool 1: 269.
8. Al Sudooq, Ideologies in Imamate Religion, page 74.
9. Al Mufid, Ideology Correction (Tas heeh al Itikad), page 131 Chapter:
Ghulu and Tafweed.
10. Al Mufid, Awael Al Maqalat (First Sayings), pages 78-79.
11. Al Mufid, The Chosen Chapters (Al Fosool Al Mukhtara), page 249.
Recent Ghulu Phenomena:
With the ending of the imamate era, the imamate theory reached a dead end after
the death of Imam Al Hassan Al Askari in the middle of the third Hijra century
with no offspring, even with the supposition of the existence in secrecy of an
absent son. During the occultation era, the
impossibility of the absent imam (Al Mahdi) to play the role of imamate (ie
caliphate and chairmanship) made the imamate theory take up a new form. It took
up a form of exaggeration to cover up its failure on one hand, and to give the
imam a practical role to fulfill during the time
of occultation, on the other hand. This lead the ghulat (the
"Mufaweda") to give him the
role of administering the universe and protecting the earth and the likes.
The exaggerated thoughts spread in a new wave with the
spread of the Akhbari movement in the last few decades before the Usooli school
of thought confronted it and brought Shiism back to its moderate and balanced
state. The Usooli school also denied much of the Akhbari's superstitious
legends. In the nineteenth century, a new school known as Al Sheikhia
emanated. It belonged to the Usooli school when it came to subordinate issues
but based its ideology on the Akhbari school.
The Usooli school, that was originated in Najaf and
narrators. Thus they fell in the ghulu turmoil and ascribed divine attributes
to Ahl Al Bayt imams, or claimed high ranks for the imams and supernatural
divine roles such as managing the universe, creation, providing sustenance and
the likes. This gave support to the "Wilayah Al Takweeniyah"
(Creation/Universe Management) theory that was started by
the "Mufaweda".
Sheikh Mohamad Hussein Al Waheed Al Khurasani, a teacher (Science of Usool) in
the imams are mediators between God and his creatures' actions. He also claims
that this delegation is true and does not contravene with the belief in God the
Almighty. Al Khurasani says :"The imams are the ones who are in
control of existence and existence comes from God. The imam
of the time became a slave and when he became a slave that made him a God. The
act of worship is a jewel, and divinity is its essence, whoever attains
that jewel he/she becomes divine (uniting with God) and is not
independent of Him." (1)
Another example of recent religious men who are ghulat
is Al Sayyid Mohamad Al Shirazi. He believes that God has
delegated enactment guardianship as well as universe management to the prophet
and to the imams of Ahl Al Bayt. That means that they (the prophet and the
imams) are in control of the world, they can do as they wish with it, from
existence to nothingness just like Gabriel is responsible for death. Also the
prophet and the imams are the intercessors for creating the world and the
reason for its creation. They're the cause of God's kindness and generosity
with the world and
they're the reason for the continued existence of the universe.(2)
Lately a new book titled "Torch of Guidance to Chairmanship and
Caliphate"(3) was published and ascribed to Imam Al Khomeni. I have not
been able to confirm it since the book was not heard of during Al Khomeni's
life and was published more than twenty years after his death.
The following has been mentioned in the book
:"They (the imams) have a number of ranks such as : Rank (Our affair is
difficult, no one can bear it except for an angel or a prophet or a servant (of
God) whose heart has been tested for its faith in God). Rank (We have cases no
angel, no prophet and no tested servant can bear). Rank (We have cases in which
we
are with God. In such cases we are Him and He is us, only He is He and we are
we). This rank was pointed at by Al Nahiyah Al Mukadasa (The Sanctified
Side) supplications in Rajab (And there's no difference between you and it
except that they're your slaves....). Also it was mentioned in the noble Al
Ziyara Al Jami'ah , comprehensive supplications read at the graves of the
imams, (Judging humans is for
you and their return is to you...). Also the saying of ameer Al
mu'mineen (pbuh) :"I am the one who lets people (those who deserve heaven)
enter heaven.." He is then the one who sends people to heaven and hell as
mentioned in mutawatir hadiths". Also "From what we have taught you
and brought you as proof, you can understand the saying of the master of the believers, the role model of
the knowledgeable ones,
and the prince of believers (pbuh) : I was with the prophets
esoterically and with the messenger of God exoterically. He (Ali, pbuh) has the
absolute exclusive mastership and since mastership is the concealed caliphate
and the absolute exclusive mastership is the concealed thus wise caliphate then
he (pbuh), based on his absolute mastership, stands upon every soul with all of
its deeds and is a divine self subsisting sustainer shadow who is one with all
things. A true divine self subsisting sustainer shadow." (4)
This agrees with what have been mentioned in "The Islamic Government"
book where he says:"One of the fundamentals of our sect is that our imams
have a rank that no angel and no prophet can reach. Also based on our hadiths
and narrations, the great prophet (pbuh) and the imams (pbut) were light before
the creation of this world. God made them surround his throne and gave
them ranks that only He knows how high
they are. Gabriel said, as mentioned in Miraj narrations: "If I got as close
as a part of a finger to it, it would burn". Also it was narrated that
they (the imams, pbut) have said :"We have cases with God that no angel
and no prophet can achieve".(5)
Also he says :"True unification of Deism cannot
be completed without accepting the imams' (pbut) guardianship (and
mastership)". Also :"(The lack of) the enforcement of
the mastership and (the earthly) chairmanship of the imam does not take away
from his high rank given to him by God , it also does not make him at the same
level as the ruler who opposed him. The imam has a glorified rank and an
exalted position and a "creation" caliphate that all the atoms of the
universe subdue to it". (6)
In this book, Imam Khomeni also says :"Those who are following the (Islamic)
Shariah (the imams), reject selfishness, deny themselves the act of being worshiped
with all of its purity, and do not proceed to show their almightiness,
sultanate and power. They, therefore, are in
the highest rank of unity and sanctification and at the greatest degree of
plurality. Plurality has never veiled unity for them nor unity veiled plurality
because of their strong conduct, their souls' purity and their non coming forth
as divine. Divinity is the absolute affair of God although matter is
under the command of the wali (imam), he does whatever he pleases with it.
The book was brought to them in this world
from God the Almighty, which the prophet (pbuh) has spoke about it relaying :
Addressing the people in heaven, the Ever Lasting Self Subsisting Sustainer who
does not die addresses the Ever Lasting Self Subsisting Sustainer who does not
die. If I order something to be , it becomes (what I order it) and I made you
able to do the same. Then the prophet (pbuh) : Therefore, people in heaven will
be able to order things to be what they want them to be. In this rank,
prophets and the rightly guided walis (pbut) do not show their ability to
perform miracles, the basis of which is divinity, almightiness, sultanate and
mastership in the upper worlds and the lower ones. They only show their ability
to perform miracles if there's a need to it and they also pray and ask God (for
help) shamefacedly, indigently, showing servitude and rejecting selfishness.
They delegate the issue (the one they're praying for) to God and ask for the
manifestation of its cause and the origin of its competence (?) although they
are divine (with the permission of the Almighty), yet they refuse to show their
divinity...". (7)
There's another saying for him in "The book of Fourty Hadiths"
:"There are hadiths regarding the substance of their bodies (the imams'),
the creation of their souls and issues such as how they were granted knowledge
of the unseen and knowledge of the prophets and the angels and other things
that are too great to cross anyone's mind. Such hadiths
that speak about their good ethics, have been conveyed to us in different
recognized books , especially Usool Al Kafi book. These many hadiths dazzle the
mind and no one but them (the imams) fully understand their actualities
and secrets." (8)
A book titled "The Imamate" that has been ascribed to Sheikh Murtada Al
Mutahhari has the following extremist views, he says :"The imams are
specialized in Islam (ie the science of Islam). This specialty and their
knowledge in Islam was not launched from their own minds nor did it depend on
their own thought since a knowledge and a specialty that are
gained this way would not be free of error. The imams, instead, gained their
Islamic knowledge from the prophet (pbuhp) in a secret way that we are unaware
of. This knowledge passed from the prophet (pbuhp) to Ali (pbuh) and to the
rest of the imams after him. There was an infallible
Islamic knowledge that does not err, which passes on from one imam to the
next." (9)
He also says :"There's a third level to the imamate (the first two being
the political leadership and the scholarly one) and it is the concept of
imamate. Shiite books are full of writings about this concept and this is
common also in Sufism. The pure wali (imam), who has perfect human attributes,
has qualities that are too deep for our minds to comprehend. One example of
such qualities is his power over the hearts (people's hearts) since he is a
wholly soul that surrounds all other souls." (10)
Then he adds :"In Shiism, wilayah means leadership but also much more than
that. It also mean that the wali is the proof of his time which means that
earth is never free of an imam or else earth would be annihilated with all of
its creatures". Therefore earth was never and will never be free of the
perfect human. Shia also believe that this perfect human has a lot of
different qualities and degrees (of perfection). We (Shia), in most of
our tahiyat (sending regards) and
ziyarat (supplications read at the graves of the imams) which we read,
acknowledge such a wilayah and an imamate, ie we believe that the imam has an
omnipresent soul. In the ziyarah that we all recite continuously, which is a
part of the basis of Shiism, we say :" I bear witness that you can see me,
can hear me and can answer my greetings". We speak to him when he's dead
and we believe he always had this quality, dead and
alive. This does not mean that he didn't have this Peace on you oh Ali Bin Musa
Al Reda" then I bear witness to him and confess that he can hear me and
answer my greetings". (11)
Al Mutahhari confirms this meaning of wilayah in the
second chapter of his book "The Imamate and the Assignment of Manifesting
the Religion after the Prophet", he says :"When we present the
imamate in this silly manner and give it only the meaning of leadership, then
we find that Ahl
Al Sunna's theory (regarding the caliphate matter) is more attractive than the
Shiite theory. We must not make such a mistake where we give the imamate the
meaning of government and ruling only. Making such a mistake gives the imamate
a simple naive meaning which leads, thematically and logically, to
consequences that such a meaning leads
to." (12)
He also says :"Today, this mistake keeps taking
place. Every time the imamate is mentioned, one's mind thinks of ruling as a
meaning to it. Truth is, governing is only one part of it and a very small part
of the imamate duties. We should not mix between the two matters (between
imamate and government).
What is the imamate then? The imam is the prophet's caliph in religious affairs.
The most important issue in the imamate is the succession of the prophet in
presenting the religion and signifying it without a divine revelation (ie
without the coming down of divine revelation to the imam). With no doubt,
divine revelation comes down only to the
messenger of God and it ends with his death just like the message of Islam has
ended as well".
Going back to the question : Is there a person, after the prophet, who presents
a source of and a reference to religious affairs, just like the prophet was
that source, reference and interpreter? Is there a perfect person with such
attributes?
In Nahj Al Balagha, imam Ali (pbuh) speaks of the prophet's friend Bahra' when
he was a young lad and how he heard the sound of the devil during the coming
down of divine revelation to the prophet. Then he said: Oh messenger of God,
what is this sound? The prophet answered
"It's the devil, he gave up on (people) worshiping him", you can hear
what I hear and see what I see although you are not a prophet". (Nahj Al Balagha,
sermon 192). We see similar words to these in a lot of other books. (13)
Although Al Mutahhari frankly denies the coming down
of divine revelation to imam Ali and admits that imam Ali does not share
prophet hood with the prophet, he still insists, one way or the other, that
imama Ali can still hear and listen to what the prophet can hear and listen to
(ie divine revelation). He says :"Imamate to Shia is a concept similar to
prophet hood. There is a remarkable verse in the Koran that comes
together with a number of other verses that speak about the imamate. This very
verse is connected to ameer al mu'mineen Ali Bin Abi Talib. It's even connected
to the imamate matter itself and has the same meaning we have presented earlier
and will come back to refer to it again". (14)
"We mentioned earlier that the earlier Muslim theologians made a big
mistake when they put forward the question of imamate as follows: What are the
stipulations of the imamate? This format of the question assumes that Ahl Al
Sunna's concept of the imamate is similar to our concept (ie
Shia concept). We differ with them on the stipulations, we believe
infallibility and divine text are two requirements that the imam must posses
whereas Ahl Al Sunna do not hold such a belief. Truth is, the imamate that we,
Shia, believe in is not what the Sunnis believe in at all. What Ahl Al Sunna
mean by "imamate" is only the temporal part of it. Prophet hood can
be used as an example since one of the duties of
the prophet is to be a ruler for Muslims. This does not, however, mean that
prophet hood means ruling and governing only. Prophet hood involves a lot more
than leadership and ruling. As we mentioned earlier though,
while the prophet is around, Muslims do not need another ruler since he is the
ruler.
Ahl Al Sunna consider imamate as a government and the imam as a ruler who lives
among the Muslim umma. He is a regular person who gets elected by the Muslim
community. Given this definition of imamate, Ahl Al Sunna did not give the
imamate more than the governing role. On the contrary,
to Shia, the imamate comes right after prophet hood. It is even higher than
some levels of prophet hood. Resolute prophets are the ones who are imams as
well as prophets. A lot of prophets were not imams, resolute prophets, however,
reached the rank of imamate at the end of the journey". (15)
"A theologian would say : We do not ask who the ruler is while the prophet
is still around. This is because the prophet has a side to him that is
supernatural (his connection to the heavens and his knowledge of the unseen).
Therefore, there is no sense in asking for another person to be a ruler while
the imam exists. The person who speaks about a ruler has his own
objective justifications in the case of the absence of the
imam (and that's when assuming the non existence of the imam or when he is
absent as it is so in the present time).
We should be careful not to mix the imamate with the government. We cannot ask
what the Sunnis position on it and what our position is based on this mix up.
Imamate is a matter other than governing and to Shia it is a phenomena and a
concept that resembles prophet hood in its highest
degrees.
In conclusion, our idea of the imamate is totally different than that Sunni
idea. They do not believe in it the way we do. Therefore, it is not that they
believe in it and differ with us on the stipulations of the imam. Imamate is a
continuation to prophet hood and it is not lower in rank than prophet hood. It
is similar to the prophet hood of the great prophets, those prophets also were
imams and thus became prophets and imams. Imamate is incorporeal". (16)
What has ended after the messenger is the message and also prophet hood, no new
person will come with a new message and a new religion after the prophet.
There's only one religion and it is Islam and with the prophet of Islam, the
message and prophet hood had come to an end. However, hujja (proof) and a
perfect human (since the first human was perfect and
therefore the last human should also be so) have not ended".(17)
Although, the position of sheikh Al Mut-hari (on the imamate) does not
represent the general Imamate Shia position (as can be seen from his
complaints that Shia do not understand the imamate concept), he presents an
example of the ghulat influence on the Imamate Shiism thought which
raises the imamate above the political caliphate and makes it similar to
prophet hood and sometimes even higher.
This can also be seen in a book for Sayyid Mohamad Taqi Al Madrasi where he
says :"A person who believes in divine revelation,which is a majestic
power of God the Almighty and also a mercy to humans, such a person must
believe in the imam the hujja (pbuh). God connected the earth with heaven
through divine revelation. His mercy, kindness and generosity with humans would
not leave us without a tie that connects earth with heaven after the death of
the seal of the prophets and messengers Mohamad (pbuhp). Since the existence of
man on earth until the coming of
the great prophet (pbuhp), earth has never been without a divine proof (hujja).
How would God the Majestic leave earth without a hujja? Were the earlier
generations closer to God the Almighty that he sent to them a hundred and
twenty four thousand prophets, not counting the disciples,
and then leave us after the death of the prophet Mohamad (pbuhp) without a
hujja? A person who believes in divine revelation must also believe in the
continuation of this divine revelation to the imams (pbut). Also this person
must also believe that this continuation elevates and grows
until it reaches its highest point and until the Islamic message has reaches
its climax and this is represented in the awaited hujja imam, may God fasten
his return." (18)
Ghulat and The Akhbari Curriculum:
As has been seen earlier, the new ghulat who believe in the delegation theory,
rely on weak unreliable narrations that have been inserted in Ahl Al Bayt's
heritage. For example, the Bayan Sermon which is ascribed to imam Ali (pbuh)
and which Al Sayyid Kathem Al Rashti considered it
authentic and widely spread. When, in reality, these narrations have no citation
and their source is unknown. Even sheikh Al Majlisi, the author of "Bihar
Al Anwar" (who collected all different types of narrations in his book)
refused such narrations. He pointed out that this sermon is
only found in ghulat books and their likes and said :"The many narrations
that we collected in Bihar Al Anwar do not support such beliefs except for the
performance of miracles although even that was not mentioned in reliable
narrations that we know of. The narrations that supported such beliefs such as
the Bayan sermon and its likes were
only found in ghulat books". The author of "The Good Omen of
Islam", Al Sayyid Mustafa Al Al Sayyid Haidar Al Khathemi said:"We
have not found a reliable backing to this sermon called Al Bayan. It has not
been proven
by theologians like sheikh Al Toosi and Al Kulini and others. The fact that Al
Majlisi has not mentioned it lessens its value since he's aware of different
narrations. He might have not even come across it although it's not eloquent,
gets repeated many times and its words are not clear". Al Sayyid
Jafar Murtada Al Ameli also wrote on the website
AlimamAli.net, which is managed and run by the Hawza in Qum, he wrote the
following about the Bayan sermon : "They have came up with three different
texts for this sermon. The three texts differ from one another a great deal and
none of the three has a reliable citation. The content of the sermon gives more
problems than the citation, no one line of the
sermon can pass without any problems". Sayyid Al Ameli spoke also
about the fallacious lies that were added to the sermon as well as its
distortion for devilish reasons that cannot be denied. He also said :"What
we have mentioned about the proceeds of some of the Bayan sermon
were very small (???). Some ghulat, batinis, sufis and maybe jews might have
had to do with this distortion to the sermon since they found this sermon a
good place for them to spread their lies and misguidance".
Sayyid Ali Al Husseini Al Sistani said :"It (the sermon) has not been proven
to be the words of Ali (pbuh)". The fact that this sermon has not been
mention in Nahj Al Balagha shows how weak it is and proves that it was
most likely the making of the ghulat. As for its contents, it presents even more
problems, every single line of it is disturbing. That's because of the bold
phrases in it that show extremism and the
delegation of creation to imam Ali (pbuh). These attributes that imam Ali
(pbuh) used to describe himself are all attributes of God's actions, no servant
of his shares any of it with him. And we also know that ameer al mu'mineen who
is the master of theists would not claim such divinely
attributes to himself. (19)
1) Al Waheed Al Kharasani, Devotional Extracts, Lecture : Shaban 13.
1411 in
2) Al Shirazi,
Mohamad : From Al Zahra' Fiqh, page 10-11 and 17 sentence
1. From the book : The worlds of Science and its mustadrakat (?), Book
of Fatima sentence 1.
3) http://www.al-kawthar.com/maktaba/moallef1.htm#imam
4) Al Khomeni, Torch of Guidance to Caliphate and Mastership, page 84.
5) Al Khomeni, Islamic Government, page 52-53.
6) ibid, page 25
7) Al Khomeni, Torch of Guidance, page 53.
8) Al Khomeni,
The Fourty Hadiths, page 489, hadith # 31, copy: Dar Al
Kitab Al Islami Institute, Translated by Mohamad Al Gharwi
9) Al Mat-hari, The Imamate, page 47
10) ibid, page 52
11) ibid, page 52
12) ibid, pages 67-68
13) ibid, pages 69-72
14) ibid, page 186
15) ibid, page 187
16) ibid, page 213
17) ibid, page 233
18) Al Moderresi, Imama Al Mahdi: The role Model of the Truthful, page 9
19) Jafar
Murtada Al Ameli, A Study in Signs of Emergence, Edition 1Beirut, House of
Eloquence 1992, pages 94-95. Mohamad Baker Al Majlesi,
Minds' Mirror, Edition 2, House of Islamic Books 1363 H, sentence 3,
pages 142-143. Mustafa Al Al Sayid Haidar Al Kathemi, Islam's Good Omen
regarding the Signs of the Emergence of The Man of The Time, Beirut,
islamic Books house, 1991, pages 81-82. Dr. Al Sayid
Qazwini, Ideological Matters, pages 61-74. For more information see
ImamAli.net
Study # 4: The Discourse of Distorting the
Koran
The imamate theme and its elevation to the level of ideology raised the question
about the reason behind the negligence of the Koranic text to speak frankly
about the imamate of Ahl Al Bayt, since it is such a fundamental issue in the
Islamic faith. This led some imamate ghulat, not all and not all Shia of
course, to claim that the Koran has been altered by omitting the verses in it
that spoke frankly of the imamate
of imam Ali and Ahl Al Bayt. Such ghulat backed up their false claims with weak
and fabricated narrations which they ascribed to some of the imams of Ahl Al
Bayt while the imams are innocent of such narrations.
These narrations have been mentioned by Al Kilini in
"Al Kafi", Mohamad Bin Hassan Al Safar al Qumi in "Insight of
Ranks", Ali Bin Ibrahim Al Qumi in "His Interpretation", also Al
Ayashi, Ibn Furat and others. However, this opinion did not become the public
or the binding opinion of the Imamate Shiism whose Usoli scholars criticized
Akhbari narrations and ignored ones that were incompatible with the Holy Koran.
Nevertheless, throughout history, some of the Imamate Shiite's enemies kept
bringing up this accusation (which was the making of the ghulat) against all of
the Shia in general and used it as a tool to bash them and to charge them
with infidelity and a deviated creed.
Dr Musa Kathem Yelmaz made a presentation titled "Shiite Opinion on
Koranic Science" during the Istanbul Symposium. He said :"We can say
that moderate Shiite scholars refused the claim that the Koran is distorted,
especially the ones who lived in the fourth and fifth Hijra
centuries. For example, sheikh Al Suduk who wrote "The Ideologies"
book who also died in 381. Another example is the sheikh of the sect, Abu Jafar
Al Toosi who wrote "Tafseer Al Tibyan" book, he died in 461. Also Abu
Ali Al Tabarsi who wrote "Majma' Al Bayan" (ie Compound Statement),
he died in 548. Unfortunately they only deny addition to the Koran but do not
deny the deduction of it prominently. They said that the deletion of some
of the Koranic verses is a matter that's not agreed upon, but they also add :
"What's correct of our sect violates (the preceding statement)", as
Al Tabarsi admitted in his interpretation".
Yelmaz used a number of Shiite scholars' saying throughout history who confirmed
the safety of the Koran from distortion, for example sheikh Al Baha'i who said
:"They differed on whether addition or deduction occurred in it (the
Koran). Truth is, the Koran is safe of both kinds of
distortions". (1)
Also Al Tabarsi conveyed one of Al Murtada's sayings :"The scientific
validity of the conveyance of the Koran is like the scientific validity of
different countries, big incidents, great accidents, famous books and written
Arabic poetry". (2) Also Mohamad Jawad Al Balaghi Al Najafi, a scholar of
the twentieth century and the the interpreter of "The
Almighty's Blessings", who said :"The Koran that is between our hands
is the same Koran that was sent down to Mohamad (pbuh) and not more than
that.". He also added :"Whoever claims that we say more than that is
a liar". (3) "And the efforts of the recent theologian (meaning Miraz
Hussein Al Nouri) in his book "Chapterفصل
الخطاب of Discourse" have
failed. All the narrations that he used as references to support the claim that
the Koran is missing some verses, all that effort have failed. He considered
all the narrations were those of the imams, Al Ayashi, Al Furats narrations and
others. Indeed, when one closely investigates such narrations, one will find
out that their isnads (a chain of narrators going back to the original
narrator) are most likely not sincere". (4)
Also Ayatu Allah Al Kho'i who said :"Among the Shiite scholars, it's well
known and understood that the Koran has not been distorted". He also added
:"A group of Shiite theologians and a group of Sunni theologians went to
say that the Koran is distorted. Both groups base their beliefs on
uncertainty and taweel (interpretation based on personal reasoning)" (5).
Al Tabataba'i, a contemporary interpretor who wrote "The Scale's
Interpretation", said :"A group of Shiite and Hashawi theologians, also
a group of Sunni theologians went to say that the Koran is distorted. Meaning
deduction (of the Koran) or changing in pronunciation or arrangement (of
verses), but that there has been no
addition (of words or verses to the Koran). No Muslim has accepted this".
(6)
Dr Musa Kathem Yelmaz added :"The scholars who denied the distortion in
the Koran used the following holy verse :"We have, without doubt sent down
the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)." To prove the maintenance
of the Koran and its protection from distortion,
change and exchange (of words or verses...). Also historical necessity
and the narrations pertaining to the inevitability of the adherence to the
Koran are the most prominent indications to the lack of distortion (in the
Koran). The most important of such narrations is the "Thaqlayn"
hadith. This hadith, according to Shiite scholars who don't believe the
the Koran has been perversed, is considered a strong evidence against the
distortion of the Koran. In this hadith the great messenger (pbuh) ordered the
Muslim community to adhere to the Koran and his house hold. Then, according to
the hadith, the adherence to the Koran is valid until Judgment Day. Therefore,
the distortion of the Koran is assertively
void. (7) The narrations that speak about perversion of the Koran are not used
as reference. This is because most of the narrations that speak about the
deletion of some verses of the Koran are weak and none of such narrations are
mutawatir ones. Non of such hadiths are full of peremptory proofs that force
one's mind to accept them. On the contrary, all of such hadiths are ahad (narrated by a single
individual), and the
ones that are authentic are not safe from fabrication. Anyone who has the least
bit of reasoning would know that what was mentioned in "Chapter of
Discourseفصل الخطاب " (that two thirds of the Koran falls between
prerequisites and penalty as in the Holy Koran "If ye fear that ye shall
not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice,
...") is fabricated. (8)
It's also well known that in some of Ahl Al Bayt narrations, there has been
mentioned that Ali has collected a mas-haf (a book that refers in most cases to
the Koran). However, the fact that Ali has made his own collection (of the
book) does not prove that his collections differed from Abu Bakr's (may God be
pleased with him) collection in any of the
religious matters unless it was in the arrangement of some of the verses (of
the Koran). If Ali's mas-haf differed from what the companions have collected,
he would have opposed them by protesting (against them) and defending his
collections. He would not have given up simply as they opposed his collections.
Also there hasn't been a narration by him (may
God be pleased with him) that pertains to the possibility of him using a verse
of "his wilaya" (from the Koran) to acknowledge his rights to it.(9)
Is it possible for a rational person to claim that all of the verses that the
enemies feel have been deleted from the Koran, all of these verses were about
the wilaya (of Ali) or that they were hidden from the
Muslim public? Or can it be imaginable that Ali (may God be pleased with him) would keep
silent about the distortion of the Koran so that he would protect the unity of
Muslims and so that they wouldn't be divided? Isn't perversion of the Koran
considered the greatest turmoil in religion?".
Dr. Yelmaz commented on that by saying :"It's apparent to the researchers
the existence of a great movement against the belief of the perversion of the
Koran and those who claim it.
This movement started with sheikh Al Sadouk ,who died
in 381, and still exists until this day with a lot of followers in the past.
Also there has existed, since the past, some Akhbaris who held on to weak
narrations that support distortion. Scholars who oppose such people always try
to answer them
scientifically. Therefore, such people, who claimed the distortion of the
Koran, were not only opposed by the Sunnis but were also opposed by the Shiite
scholars themselves. Despite all of this, it has not been easy for moderate
Shiite scholars to defeat a belief, such as the distortion of the Koran, that
has lived and has been strengthened throughout history in the Shiite
community. It is for this reason that we could meet people in the Shiite
community who actually believe in the
distortion of the Koran. However, as we have mentioned earlier, it is difficult
to find such opinions among the Shiite scholars and this is an issue that is
disliked by every Muslim with a sound creed." (10)
Dr. Mohamad Baker Hujati, a professor at the
the senior Shiite clerics believed about the compiling of the Koran at the time
of the prophet...This is in addition to other narrations where the words
"mas-haf" or "masahef" were used during the life of the
messenger of God. All this frankly indicates that the Koran was compiled during
his blessed life because "mas-haf" means what's written between
the two book covers...The narration that speaks about the debate that
took place during Abu Bakr time regarding searching for a name for the Koran is
a fabricated narration. This is because the narration mentions that the word
"mas-haf" was taken from the Habashi language". (11)
Dr Hujati used what imam Al Kho'i said about the theme
of distortion of the Koran as a reference, he said :" It is necessary to
mention a summary of what Al Kho'i presented regarding this matter. He
said :"We have to search for the contents of such narrations, this
was divided to four categories:
Category One : Narrations that show the distortion actually took place.
My answer to such narrations is that what seems to be
apparent from some of the narrations is that the interpretation of distortion
depends on the readers (and how they see it). The rest of the narrations speak
about distortion in the sense of interpreting some verses in a false manner
that has nothing to do with what the verses actually mean.
Category Two : Narrations that pointed out that some
verses mentioned the names of the imams (pbut) and there's a number of such
narrations.
The answer to this is that the narrations point to the
interpretation of the verses (that refer to the names of the imams) and not the
actual mentioning of the imams in the Koran itself. Therefore, the names of the
imams are not physically mentioned in the Koran but the interpretation
of the verses leads to that. If this explanation is not sufficient
enough then such narrations must be set aside (and ignored) since they violate
the Book and the Sunna and also the precluding evidence of distortion.
Category Three : Narrations that speak about
distortion as in addition and deletion. Also that the Islamic Umma after the
death of the prophet (pbuh) changed some words and replaced with with new ones.
The answer to this, setting aside the fact that the isnads for such narrations
are
weak, is that it violates the Book and the Sunna. It also violates the
consensus of Muslims on the absence of (human) additions to the Koran and that
all of what's written between the two book covers is the content of the Koran.
Examples of sheikhs who agreed with the consensus are sheikh Al Mufid, sheikh
Al Toosi, sheikh Al Baha'i and others from the greatest of Shiite scholars.
Category Four : Narrations that point out that distortion
of the Koran was done only in the sense of deletion. The answer to this is that
the meaning of addition in ameer al mu'mineen's (pbuh) mas-haf is the
interpretation of what the meaning of the words could be. Or an explanation to
what the revelation really meant. If it's not possible to accept such an
explanation then we should ignore such narrations based on the fact that they
violate the Book and the Sunna.
Most of these narrations have weak isnad according to Shiite.
A number of these narrations were mentioned in
"Revelation and Distortion" and "The Readings", two books
for Ahmad Bin Mohamad Al Siyari. Shiite scholars agreed on the corruption
of his doctrine, his weak hadiths, his estranged narrative stance, uses a lot of
mursal hadiths (hadiths with
no isnads) and also believes in reincarnation. The theologian, Al Nouri, used a
lot of Al Siyari's narrations and mentioned them in his book "Chapter
of Discourse
فصل الخطاب". For this
reason, Shiite scholars do not rely on what's found in the book
"Distortion of God's Book" and they prohibited
publishing it as if they considered it one of many misleading books....
In addition to all this, we have tens of books that were written by Immamate
Shiite scholars where they deny distortion (of the Koran) or they answer those
who claimed it:. (12)
Dr Hujati added :" The narrations that are contained in the Sunni hadith
collections regarding this issue are plenty. These narrations explicitly point
out that the Koran has been distorted to a great extent. However, we Shiites,
do not pay attention to such Sunni narrations nor do we pay attention to the
narrations found in Shiite hadith collections since
most of these narrations, but all of them are fabricated. Therefore, we
do not accuse Sunnis of believing that the Koran is distorted and the Sunnis
also should not accuse us of believing in distortion.
"Lastly I say : Since the term of prophecy of the
prophets (pbut) was limited, none of their original books and paper survived
but they were destroyed until eternity. However, the term of prophecy for
our prophet is not time restrained. It continues until Judgment Day and
therefore his book remained preserved from distortion, saved from any action.
The Glorious Koran, which is our underpin when it comes to following Islam, is
one to all of us. We do not differ, even in the slightest bit, on the
(authenticity) of our heavenly Book. Despite the fact that we accuse one
another of believing in the distortion of the Koran, practically we recite one
Koran, we follow one Koran and we rely on one Koran....
Muslims, with all of their differences in names and denominations, are the only
ones among the followers of heavenly Books who agree on one copy of their
heavenly Book, the Glorious Koran. It is found with all of
the different Islamic sects.
The Koran that's recited by a Shiite and a Sunni, the
Koran that's recited by an Imamate Shiite, a Zaidi and Ismaili, also the Koran
that is recited by a Hanafi, a Shafi'i, a Maliki and a Hanbali Sunni is the
same Koran and doesn't differ in any words or even letters." (13)
Then he asked rehotrically :"Do we not find in the fact that the Koran has
been preserved from all distortion in all Islamic sects and has been intact and
one among the Muslim Umma, do we not find a sign to regard? A sign that we
should strive to unify the word? Doesn't that fact, ie the unity of the Holy
Koran among all different Islamic groups, push us to stop defaming each other
and accusing each other of believing in
distortion (of the Koran)? Doesn't it make us want to stop exposing such
narrations that speak about distortion of the Koran found in both sects and
some of it are weak while others can be interpreted to have a different
meaning? From ancient time until now, we do not see a difference in our masahef
(Koran). We, Shiites and Sunnis, do not own
any other mas-haf (Koran). If a difference is found in one mas-haf (different
from other masahef), we consider it distorted." (14)
During the International Symposium on Shiites which took place in
Shiites of today believe in the same mas-haf that the rest of the Islamic world
believes in. He also said :" We have not found a copy (of the Koran) which
contents violate the contents of the Koran we posses at hand, not in
authenticity of the Koran but there is a difference in the way it is
interpreted." (15)
Dr Aouni Elkhan also, as well, confirmed :"Today's Imamate Shiite accept
the mus-haf that exists between our hands. Also the enemies of the Shiites ,who
accuse Shiites of believing in the distortion of the Koran, do not rely on
strong evidence to support their claim. It's possible that the reason for the rise
of accusations, that the Shiites do not believe the existing Koran is complete,
is based on Al Kulaini's narrations and its likes. He said :"Whoever
claims that he/she compiled the complete Koran as it was revealed is a liar. No
one compiled it and memorized it as God the Almighty revealed it except for Ali
Bin Abi Talib and the Imams after him (pbut). (16) There's no doubt that
solving this problem isn't difficult if we carefully studied the well known
Shiite scholars books. Sheikh Al Mufid says :"A group of the Imamate
Shiite said that the Koran isn't missing a word, or a verse or a chapter.
However, Ali's taweel and the interpretation of its
(Koran) true meaning and the reason for its revelation, all found in in mas-haf
ameer al mu'mineen (pbuh) were deleted. This was firmly established and
revealed although it isn't the word of God found in the miraculous Koran.
Taweel (interpretation) the Koran could be called Koran. (Al Mufid, The
Early Essays, 67-68).
Al Sayyid Mahdi Al Husseini Al Rouhani commented on Dr Aouni Elkhan's words,
especially his saying :"Today's Imamate Shiites accept the mas-haf
etc....". He commented : "This (sentence) makes the assumption that
the Imamate Shiites didn't accept the existing Koran in the old
days. That is a lie and a fabrication repeated by Shiite's enemies. Such
fabrications influenced our writer (Dr Elkhan), he spoke half a truth while the
fabricated lies stayed in his head. Truth is, Shiites firstly and lastly do not
recognize a mas-haf other than the one in their hands and in the hands of the
rest of Muslims." (18)
I do not believe that the claim, that Shiites believe in the distortion of the
Koran, is worthwhile. Especially after the Shiites have denied it over the
years and insisted on saying that the Koran is secure and has been preserved by
God the Almighty. Hence, we can say with confidence : All Muslims, thank God,
belonging to all different sects have one common
and firm creed upon which they do not differ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Mohamad Jawad Al Balaghi Preface, page 27.
2) Compiled Statements, sentence 1, page 83.
3) Al Balaghi Preface, page 26.
4) Al Balaghi Preface, page 27.
5) Al Kho'i Interpretation, page 201.
6) International Scientific Symposium on Shiism in History and in the Present Time, page 200
7) Al Kho'i, pages 210-211
8) The Scale, 12, 116, and Makarim Al Shirazi, Namouna Interpretation, 21, 30.
9) The Scale, pages 12, 116.
10) International Scientific Symposium on Shiism, pages 201-201
11) Ibid, page 206
12) Ibid, page 208
13) Ibid, page 210
14) Ibid, page 211
15) Ibid, page 242
16) Al Kilini, Fundamentals from Al Kafi, 441/1
17) International Scientific Symposium on Shiism, page 436
18) Ibid, page 447.
Study # 5: Al Taqiya (Dissimulation)
After we discussed ghulu and ghulat, we should mention an important theme that
relates to the Shiite/Sunni relations. The theme is "al taqiyah",
which has played a negative role in worsening the relationship between the two
groups. It has also become a problem to a lot of Sunnis that affected their
dealings with their Shiite brothers. Some Sunnis accuse any Shiite who tries to
get close to them and declares his
refusal to the extremist views, or declares his respect to the
companions for example, they accuse him of practicing taqiyah
(dissimulation). I, personally, declared my rejection of the imamate thought
and also my refusal to the principle of taqiyah and wrote a number of books
refuting the imamate theory. Despite all of that, I still faced a number of
Sunni skeptics regarding the truth behind my position. During the International
Scientific Symposium about Shiites that took place in
Therefore, it is necessary to shed some light on the the truth of "al
taqiyah". Is it a fundamental belief to Shiites or only a part of their
religion? Do they still practice it until this day?
When the Sunnis accuse the Shittes of practicing taqiyah, they rely on a famous
Shiite hadith. The hadith is about imam Al Sadik when he says :"Taqiyah is
my religion and the religion of my fathers. There's no religion for someone who
doesn't practice taqiyah". Usually, Shiite scholars justify this hadith as
a Koranic and a rational principle that anyone under extreme pressure or is
scared for his life and wealth resorts to it. God pardoned Ammar Bin Yasser who
spoke words of
infidelity in front of Quraysh while being tortured. The
Alimighty said :"save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still
content with the Faith ", Al Nahl, 106. He also said :" Let not
the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers.
Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard
yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah
biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.", Al
Imran, 28. Shiites resorted to practicing taqiyah in times of necessity
under specific circumstances. They didn't need to practice it under normal
conditions and do not practice it today.
If the Shiites did indeed practice taqiyah in past forgotten
circumstances when they were still a small group, then it wouldn't be
comprehensible for them to use it today after they became a large sect of
millions. The rules that apply to secret parties do not apply to nations.
What can they hide when they have published books about their opinions and
theories for hundreds of years now?
The problem, in fact, doesn't lie here. I do not believe that Shiites in
general were practicing taqiyah at one point or even know it, let alone their
imams of Ahl Al Bayt. It, instead, was adhered to them unjustly by the ghulat
who used to thrust themselves in the Shiite ranks and claim to belong to Ahl Al
Bayt sect while Ahl Al Bayt were innocent of them.
The ghulat used to try to ascribe extremist sayings and views to the Imams of
Ahl Al Bayt. Examples of such extremist views were the claims of prophet
hood or even divinity to the Imams, divine imamate, infallibility, and the
likes. The Imams used to deny such claims openly in public. They also used to
do the opposite of what the ghulat used to
ascribe to them. Thus, the ghulat found themselves pressured to justify the
apparent contradiction between the sayings of the imams and their denial to the
ghulat's fabricated lies by claiming that they used taqiyah.
According to Dr Musa Al Musawi, during the symposium in
prophet, Imam Ali's sayings and actions and the rest of Imams. With taqiyah, we
interpreted the prominent (Koranic) texts as we wished. Taqiyah is the legal
adaptation for juristic deduction of the text to suit our wishes, intentions
and purposes. The last thing I can say about taqiyah is that the role of
taqiyah in destroying the intellectual entity of man is the same as the role of
drugs in destroying the will entity of man. Anyone who takes the path of drugs
confuses goodness with evil. In the same way, anyone who takes the path of
taqiyah confuses right with wrong. Thus, I like to refer to taqiyah as the
"opium of Shiites"." (2)
I disagree with Dr Al Musawi in attributing taqiyah to the Shiite public.
I confine it historically to the ghulat and extremists who used to make up
their own views and ascribe them to Shiites. Then they would read
history, which is the opposite of their claims, in a reversed manner where they
make white black and vice versa. There is no historical evidence for the
adoption of the ghulat's sayings by the
Shiite public. Let alone their compliance to excersizing taqiyah when dealing
with their Muslim brothers.
It is wrong to hold the large Shiite audiences with their various trends,
parties and sects the responsibility of the existence of a fabricated
misunderstood hadith about taqiyah in their past hadith books. It is wrong to
make this a fundamental principle of their ideology and to look at them
skeptically until Judgment Day. It's also not right to ignore the massive
developments that took place and still take place in their ranks, and to not
believe them when declaring their refusal of the taqiyah principle and
practice. If we are looking for trust between Shiites and Sunnis, we cannot
expect
the Shiites to pass on a statement to declare their refusal of the belief of
the taqiyah principle, as sheikh Al Bouti asked. This is because the Shiites
are not a political party, a small gang or a limited group where all of its
members are complied to follow what their leader decides. We will keep seeing
some Shiites who will allege this hadith. The important thing is the general
view of the Shiite public to the
principle of taqiyah and the possibility of adopting it as an approach to the
analyze history. Also the evaluation of the statements of the Imams of
Ahl Al Bayt and the ratification of their attitudes and policies, or the lack
of it. This issue is of concern to Shiites before it is a concern of others
since it constitutes an important tool to understanding the Shiite
thought and to identifying the real Ahl Al Bayt's heritage and distinguish it
from exotic theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Ibid, page 727.
2) Ibid, page 743.
Chapter Two: Primary Sources for Legislation
Study #1: The Holy Koran
The general Sunni and Shiite public almost fully agree on the authority of the
Holy Koran. The Holy Koran is considered the primary and the more firm source
to Sunnis and Shiites. It's used as a reference to other sources and
anything that goes against it gets tossed away. The research about the
authenticity of the Koran is considered one of the most
important researches in the science of fundamentalism in Shiism. Especially
research on the explicitness of words, unequivocal and equivocal, instruction,
prohibition, inclusiveness, exclusiveness, the absolute, the evident, the
understood, the articulated, the abrogator and the abrogated and so on.
In the early times, some Akhbaris were skeptical about
the authenticity of practicing the externals of the Koran. They didn't allow
the direct dealing with it and understanding it except through Ahl Al Bayt's
narrations and interpretation of it. The birth of the Usooli school (based on
juristic deduction) in the fifth hijra century by the three sheikhs, Al Mufid,
Al Murtada, Al Toosi and some great leaders in recent centuries, all that
led the Akhbaris to retreat from some of
their sayings. They retreated from saying that the Koran is inauthentic and
that we cannot deal with it directly. They also reinforced the belief hat the
Koran is the primary source of religion since it's a definitive frequent source
that cannot be matched with any other source.
Unfortunately a lot of Sunni researchers ,while studying about Shiites, do not
pay attention to the conflict between the two schools, Akhbari and Usooli. They
ignore the fact that the Usoolis, and they are the overwhelming majority of
Shiites, have abandoned much of the Akhbari beliefs for centuries now. Dr Ali
Ozak is an example as he said :"The
Shiites have deliberately interpreted Koranic verses and also hadiths as they
wished. They did this any time they couldn't find proofs from the Koran to
support their beliefs...In a lot of cases, Shiites rely on Ahl Al Bayt
narrations, since they believe in the infallibility of the Imams and Ahl Al
Bayt. For this reason, they put a lot of weight on Ahl Al Bayt narrations
to interpret the Koran and they say : God has entrusted the interpretation of
the Koran to the Imam." (1) He also added :
"Twelver Imamate Shiism sees that the Koran includes concepts of
abrogation, unequivocal and equivocal, inclusiveness and exclusiveness,
connection and disconnection, duties, judgments, orthodoxy, manners,
lawfulness, interdiction, wiliness, permission, explicitness, obscurity,
limitation, and beginning. As for knowing the
definition and the difference among these concepts, that's only possible for
people who had divine revelation descend onto them and hence only the prophet
and his household. A hadith about the prophet (pbuh) says : "Whoever
interprets the Koran according to his own wishes will perish, even if his
interpretation was correct". In another narration : "he has committed
infidelity". Ozak used mula Mohsen Al Kashani in the second preface
in his interpretation titled "Al Safi" :"Knowledge of the Koran
belongs to Ahl Al Bayt...and separated between you and we know it...and a
narration's isnad that goes back to him (pbuh), he said : "We're the ones
who are firm in (Koranic) knowledge and we know its
interpretation."".
Also what Al Ayashi narrated about Abu Abdullah (pbuh) in his interpretation,
he said :"God still sends from us, Ahl Al Bayt, someone who teaches all of
His Book (Koran)". (2)
Despite the existence of such narrations which agree with the Imamate theory
and which give the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt the role of interpreters of the Koran,
Shiites throughout history didn't commit to a special interpretation of the
Koran. They didn't hold a special interpretation away from the Arabic language
and the explicitness of the Koran. They
also didn't retain a particular ta'weel except for some Koranic
vocabulary such as "the Book" or "the straight path".
This is recorded by Dr. Ozak, as he mentions Al Tabarsi interpreting the
Almighty's saying :" Guide us to the straight path" to mean the
prophet (pbuh) and the Imams who inherited his position. Also when Dr. Ozak
uses "Al Safi" author's interpretation of "path" to mean
the Imam, since the
Imam is the one who leads the path to God in this life. He, also made a mention
of Al Tabataba'i interpreting "the straight path" to mean ameer al
mu'mineen Ali (pbuh) as narrated by Al Sadik. (3)
Dr. Ozak uses more examples on Shiite ta'weel of the Koran. He makes a
reference from "Al Safi" in interpreting Almighty's saying "This
is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear
Allah" conveyed from Al Sadik: that is a sign that points to Ali and the
book is about him. The meaning of the book is the book of Ali. He also conveys
from "Al Safi" the interpretation (ta'weel) of "a guide to those
who fear Allah" explained by Al Sadik when he said "those who fear
Allah are our Shiites". (4)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Ibid, page 243
2) Ibid, page 243
3)
Ibid, page 244
4)
Ibid, page 244
Study
# 2 : Prophetic Tradition (Sunna)
As for prophetic tradition, there is no initial disagreement about it among
Muslims. Shiites and Sunnis, both, agree on the necessity of following the
proven actions of the Prophet (pbuhp). The controversy is about the approach
taken to follow the Sunna. Can Sunna be taught and followed through the companions?
Or through the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt? Do the Ahl Al Bayt narrations convey the
Sunna? Or are they a part of it?
It is well known that Ahl Al Sunna were initially divided into two groups, Ahl
Al Ra'i (Opinionists) led by Imam Abu Hanifa and Ahl Al Hadith (Hadithists) led
by Ahmad Bin
Hanbal. They differed on the framework of the "Sunna". Is it only the
practical frequent peremptory Sunna? Or does it also include the sayings (of
the Prophet) and also single weak doubted narrations? If we review the Sunni
hadith books, we would find a great deal of difference in the amount of hadiths
included in these books. Some have hundreds, thousands or even tens and
hundreds of thousands of hadiths. Despite the fact that Ahl Al Sunna consider
Bukhari and Muslim to be authentic books, there are still some Sunnis who doubt
the authenticity of some hadiths or refuse to ascribe some hadiths to the
Prophet (pbuhp).
Shiites, in general, have always doubted the validity of a large number of
hadiths which were wide spread during the Umayyad's era. They especially
refused to accept hadiths narrated by Abu Huraira, Muawiyah Bin Abi Sufian, Amr
Bin Al As, Al Maghira Bin Shu'ba, Marwan Bin Al Hakam, Samra Bin Jandab and Abi
Al Ghadiyah who killed Ammar. They didn't believe in the absolute fairness of
the companions. They distinguished between the just, the lewd, the believer and
the hypocrite. Shiites also have a narration about Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib
(pbuh) answering someone who asked about fad narrations and about the different
hadiths that are in contradiction with each other. He answered :" In
people's hands (meaning narrations) are facts and fallacy, truths and lies,
abrogator and abrogated, general and special, clear and the vague,
memorized ones and fabricated ones". There have been lies attributed
to the Prophet (pbuhp) in his time. He then stood up preaching to people
:" Whoever deliberately lies about me should expect a seat in hell fire.
Four types of men came to you with narrations (ascribed to the Prophet). A hypocrite
who pretends to be a believer and a Muslim, he doesn't feel the burden of his
sins nor does he get embarrassed and deliberately lies about the messenger of
God (pbuhp). If people knew he was a hypocrite and a liar, they wouldn't accept
his narrations or believe his hadiths. Instead they said : He's the Prophet's
(pbuhp) companion, he saw him, heard him, picked up (hadiths) from him and
therefore they accept his narrations. God has informed you about hypocrites and
described them to you as He did (in the Holy Koran). They survived him (pbuhp),
got closer to stray Imams and to those who invite to hell with their falsehood
and slander. Then they let such people take care of their business and
made them rulers over the rest of people. Thus they had control over this life
and people usually take the side of kings (those with power) and choose this
life except for those who were made impeccable by God". (1)
The Imamate Shiites accused most of the companions of turning against Ahl Al
Bayt and robbing them from their right to the Caliphate. Hence, the Imamate
Shiites took a negative stand against the companions and didn't trust them to
convey prophetic traditions. They also have accused some companions, narrators
and hadith collectors of withholding narrations that spoke about the virtues of
Ahl Al Bayt or about their right to the Caliphate. Dr Mohamad Jamal Sufo Oghli,
who participated in the International Scientific Symposium about Shiites, said
in his paper "Hadith According to Imamate Shiites": "The issue that
is almost agreed upon by many Shiite clerics (as Hashim Ma'ruf Al Hasani says
in "Studies" page 10, also Sadiq Najmi in "Shedding a Light on
the 2 Sahih Books" page 87) is that Caliph Omar, Al Bukhari, Muslim and
their likes of hadith scholars did not want to listen to the public. They
ignored the hadiths told by the public that spoke about the virtues of Ali Bin
Abi Talib and Ahl Al Bayt. Omar was very strict when it came to the issue of
narrating a hadith. The rest of the hadith scholars, mentioned previously, did
not include in their books the hadiths that were in favour of Ali and Ahl Al
Bayt." (2)
Hence,
Shiites limited the learning of the prophetic tradition to the Imams of Ahl Al
Bayt such as Imam Zain Al Abedein Ali Bin Al Hussein, his son Mohamad Al
Baqir and his son Imam Jafar Al Sadiq. Some Shiites, the Imamates, considered
the sayings of the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt and their opinions as a part of Sunna.
They held this belief because they viewed Ahl Al Bayt as the "itra"
(the household of the Prophet) or as one of the two thiqlayn that the Prophet
ordered us to follow in addition to the Holy Koran. This is based on the
prophetic hadith :"I leave you two thiqlayn : God's Book and my itra
(family)".
Dr. Oghli also says :"Shiites claim that the Prophet (pbuh) used to visit
his daughter Fatima and her husband Ali on a regular basis to speak to them.
Imam Ali used to write down the Prophet's sayings in a book. The book of Ali is
the most authentic hadith book and this book has been passed, later on, to the
infallible Imams. Since the Prophet (pbuh) dictated the contents of this book
to Ali, then it contains everything. Also the infallible Imams know everything.
Hence, there is no room for doubting the hadiths narrated by Shiites. According
to them, these hadiths were passed on to the Imams exactly as they were written
by Ali (may God be pleased with him). Some Shiites believe that the first
person to write down prophetic hadiths was the Prophet's friend Abu Rafi', who
is considered an excellent Shiite figure. It's been said that he has a book
titled "The Book of Prophetic Traditions, Judgments and Cases". (3)
Shiites wrote down Ahl Al Bayt hadiths during their era. They compiled such
hadiths in a book titled "The Four Hundred Fundamentals". A lot of it
got lost and in the fourth century, Sheikh Abu Jafar Mohamad Yacoub Al Kilini
(d. 329 H) compiled what was left over of it in his book "Al Kafi".
The book is divided into two parts : the fundamentals and the subordinates. The
fundamentals, as the name implies, consist of hadiths relating to ideology. The
subordinates section consists of hadiths relating to deeds and rules. The book
consists of 34 booklets, 346 chapters and around 16, 000 hadiths. (4)
After him, Sheikh Mohamad Bin Ali Babowiyah Al Suduq (d. 381 H) wrote a book
titled "What's not Attended by the Jurist". This book contains more
than nine thousand hadiths which have no isnad.
The next Sheikh to come was Sheikh Abu Jafar Mohamad Al Hassan Al Toosi
(380-460). He wrote a book titled "Refining Judgments" and the book
"Looking into Differences in Hadiths". He mentioned in them some
hadiths that were not mentioned in "Al Kafi". (5)
These books formed an important resource for Shiite scholars until three more
elaborate books were written in the eleventh century. These books are
"Shiite Means in Shariah Provisions" (Wasa'el al Shi'ah) written by
Mohamad Bin Al Hassan Al Hur Al Ameli ( 1032- 1104) which has been used for
jurisprudence since it's been written. 'Al Wafi" written by Mohamad Muhsin
Al Fayd Al Kashani ( d. 1091) and "Bihar Al Anwar" written by Mohamad
Baqir Al Majlisi ( 1027- 1111). These three encyclopedias were added to
the previous four with some disparity between them as well as the four
previous books. "Al Kafi" specialized in collecting narrations
regarding ideology and Shariah. It's considered a "compiler" such as
Sahih Al Bukhari, Muslim and Tarmathi to the public. The other three books are
specialized in prophetic traditions and provisions. Among the three more recent
books, "Al Wasa'el" is also specialized in prophetic traditions and
provisions. "Al Wafi"is a compiler of only the four hadith books.
Since it includes the narrations of "Al Kafi", this makes it a
"compiler". "Bihar Al Anwar"contains narrations not found
in the other four books. These narrations cover the areas of provisions,
ideology, history, signification, ethics, morals and others. It's considered a
"compiler" as well except for the fact that the terminology for
"a compiler" (Al Jami') and "prophetic traditions" that's
popular amongst Sunnis, is not prevalent amongst the Imamates.
A new encyclopedia was added to the previous four books in the fourteenth Hijra
century. It was titled "Inferred Means" (Mustadrak Al Wasa'el) and
was written by Sheikh Mirza Hussein Al Noori. (d. 1320). He offered in it
narrations that were ignored and not mentioned by the author of "Al
Wasa'el". Another encyclopedia titled "Fiqh Hadiths Compliler"
was written under the supervision of Imam Al Brojardi. He complied in it
all the provision contents of the previous "compilers" with the
combination and slurring between isnads and mitn (contents).
While Akhbari Shiites accepted narrations very easily, the Usoolis were more
selective as they scrutinized and examined the narrations carefully. They only
accepted hadith under specified conditions. They divided hadiths into mutawatir
(frequent) and non mutawatir. Then divided the non mutawatir to a single
hadith, mustafeed (thorough), mash-hoor (famous) and agreed upon with
comparison. They also divided the single hadith to sahih (correct), muwathak
(documented), hasan (good) and weak. They created a special science used to
study the men who transmitted narrations, they called it "Elm Al
Rijal" (Science of Men). They also gave the science of hadith terminology
the label "Elm Al Hadith" (Science of Hadith) or "Elm Al
Diraya" (Science of Knowledge). The door for criticism is still open since
they do not consider any of the hadith books as a sahih book. All hadith books
are subject to criticism, re-consideration, and close examination by different
mujtahids.
A long discussion has taken place among the Imamate Shiites about the
authenticity of the single hadith that's not definite -and most of their
hadiths are not inevitable. They backed up such hadiths using verses from the
Holy Koran and also from the agreed upon Sunna and consensus. A long search
about such hadiths took place. The early Imamates believed that "a single
hadith has no use theoretically or practically". Thus it has no importance
in the fields of ideology and Shariah. On the contrary, the Akhbaris
viewed all four books (Al Kafi, What's not Attended by the Jurist, Refining
Judgments, and Looking into Differences in Hadiths) as inevitable
hadiths. Usoolis saw it necessary to research and confirm the validity of
such hadiths found in those books and in others. Hence, Shiites do not have a
book called "Sahih" as Sunnis do. Every hadith's validity in these
four books and in others is open for discussion until proven valid.
Shiites also admit that a number of narrations found in the four books, if not
most of them, are non sahih, weak or hasan. Despite this, they still
consider the narrations found in the four books to be more correct (sahih)
compared to narrations found in other hadith books.
If we take a look at Shiite narrations, we would find that most narrations are
traced back to the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt. Only very few narrations are traced
back to the great Prophet. This is because Shiites consider the Imams of Ahl Al
Bayt (the twelve) a juristic source. They do not consider them as Islamic
scholars (mujtahids) who can be followed just like the imams of the other
schools of thought. Instead, they follow them as Imams of itra about whom the
Prophet (pbuhp) said : " I leave you two thaqlayn: God's Book (Koran) and
my itra (my household)". (6)
This is the most important point in the controversy between Shiites and Sunnis.
The other negative point used by Sunni scholars against Shiites is the issue of
putting more weight and actually choosing narrations that are contrary to the
public (meaning Sunnis). This is based on a narration by Omar Bin Hanthala who
ascribes the narration to Imam Al Sadik. It says : "I said : What if two
narrations about you were popular since narrated by trusted people? Imam Sadik
answered : Take the narration that agrees with the Koran, Sunna and the public.
I said : May I be sacrificed for you. What if both narrations agreed with the
Koran and Sunna but one agreed with the public and the other was contrary to the
public? He said : Wisdom is found in the one that is contrary to the
public". (7) This is a false narration and it indeed devotes distinction
between Muslims. (8)
Dr. Oghli recorded these remarks in his research paper titled "Shiites'
Hadith Books" that was presented in the International Scientific Symposium
about Shiites. He said :"Shiites have their own idea and
understanding about hadith. Unlike the Sunnis, they consider the sayings of the
infallible Imams hadiths. This understanding has a loophole in it and it cannot
be controlled. There are thousands of narrations in Shiite books that have been
ascribed to the Imams and hence considered hadiths. this is despite the
fact that Shiites scholars after Al Kilini have refused such hadiths. In Al Kilini's
book "Al Kafi", a number of narrations are mentioned about the
distortion of the Koran which include outrageous fabrications about the sahaba.
The sahaba have nothing to do with such lies and such narrations have never
actually taken place. This is a fundamental hurdle that prevents the
establishment of unity and reliability between Muslims. We wish for today's
scholars to pay attention to this important issue using the light of intact
reasoning. Although, after the time of Kilini, some scholars came out to
say that the Koran isn't distorted, this did not lessen the significance of Al
Kafi. Using good reasoning, our intention is as such: a serious study must be
done on this book until it is clear that the sayings regarded as hadiths are
not hadiths indeed but are fabricated sayings. A valuable study like this will
be well accepted and appreciated in the Islamic world". (9)
Sheik Mohamad Wa'ithzada Al Kharasani answered him and had a few remarks.
He said : " The concept of Imamate to Imamate Shiites has two parts to it.
The first is political and the second is scientific. The scientific part
involves deriving knowledge from the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt after the death of
the Prophet (pbuh). The first Imam is Ali (pbuh) and the last Imam is Al Mahdi
(pbuh). This second part is more important than the first one and a lot of
narrations have proved its importance. One of these narrations is the one that
says that Ali is the door to the Prophet's knowledge. This narration is
accepted by both Sunni and Shiite theologists. Hadith "Al Thiqlayn"
is at the forefront of these narrations and it is a mustafeed and even a
mutawatir hadith. The Prophet (pbuh) has said in a number of occasions "I
leave you with the thiqlayn, the Book of God and my itra". This narration
has been mentioned a number of times with a difference in pronunciation, some
addition or deletion. This indicates that the itra (family) of the
Prophet (pbuh) is the scientific reference (for Muslims). Therefore,
hadith to Imamate Shiites -and I mean the Imams' hadiths- derives its
legitimacy and authority from the "thiqlayn" hadith and others. To
clarify a point, when the Imamate sect uses the term Imam instead of Caliph,
they mean the Imam's job involves both the political leadership as well as the juristic
one". Al Kharasani then added :"The Imamates accept Sunni hadiths if
they fit the Imamate's hadith criteria. They also accept hadiths narrated by
the household of the Prophet without preferring one member over the
other". (10)
Al Kharasani explained why the Shiites accept the hadiths of Ahl Al Bayt. He
said :"The vast majority of jurisprudent and exegesis hadiths were
traced back to Imams Mohamad Al Baqir, Jafar Al Sadiq and the rest of the Imams
after them. That was in the chronicling era. Approximately four hundred
original hadiths were written by clerics who lived in the same era as the
Imams. According to Shiites, the Imams' knowledge is inherited from their
grandfathers and is traced back all the way to the Prophet (pbuh) and thus no
defects can be caused to the hadiths. Since the Imams existed among their
Shiites for two hundred and fifty years, they were able to review the hadiths
written by their companions and were able to guide them and pick out the
correct hadiths from the incorrect. The Imams announced the names of the liars
among the Shiites and declared their innocence from them so that the Shiites
would not transmit hadiths through those fabricators." (11)
Al Kharasani added :" There are a number of hadith books and encyclopedias
among the Shiites but the most reliable ones are the four books (mentioned
earlier). Despite the fact that those four books are favoured to the rest,
Shiites still do not call them "Sahih Books' as the Sunnis do with their
books. This is because there are correct, weak, documented, morbid and strong
hadiths found in the four books. There is a wide scope for distinguishing the
correct from the incorrect hadiths in the four books using common sense. If,
for example, the apparent meaning of the hadith refers to distortion in the
Koran, then this hadith is either interpreted using ta'weel or is rejected.
This is the case with the rest of the hadiths that are found to contradict the
Koran and the established Sunna or just don't make sense. This route is also
followed by Sunni investigators specifically the Mutazala sect when it comes to
hadiths that speak about anthropomorphism and tashbeeh (to liken God to
his creation) and so on." (12)
Criticizing Sunni Hadith Books
After Sheikh Mohamad Wa'ithzada Al Kharasani defended Shiite hadith books and
their raising the Imams' hadiths to the same level as the hadiths of the
Prophet (pbuh), he then started criticizing Sunni hadith books as viewed by
Shiites. He said :" As seen from the events and rifts that took place
after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), the idea that all the companions were
just was not raised nor was it recognized by the companions themselves. It
wasn't known during the Tab'een era but was raised later on and no one knows
exactly when it started. I believe that the idea that the companions are just
was suggested among religious jurists in relatively recent times to meet
two goals:
Goal One : To re conciliate between Muslim sects and to protect the dignity of
the companions who fought against each other. Such unfortunate events lead to
the division among their followers, each group defending a group of the
companions and justifying their actions.
Goal Two: It's probably the more important of the two: Protecting the Sunna of
the Prophet (pbuh) that wasn't complied in a book the way the Holy Koran was
compiled during the era of the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions. The Sunna was
memorized in the hearts of the companions and was passed on from one person to
another. The companions sayings would not be trusted unless they were found to
be just and fair. We believe that Sunnis insisted on the idea that all of
the companions were just and fair for that reason. Frankly, I say that in the
absence of this close link between the fairness of the companions and the Prophetic
Sunna, there is no need for us to speak about the companions and their actions.
That is unless we take a lesson from these events in our political reality
today." (13)
Al Khurasani added :"The problems with Sunni hadiths are not any less than
those of the Shiites, the Sunni hadith problems probably exceed the Shiite
ones. I'll summarize the problems in point form :
1. A lot of the companions who narrated hadiths were not reliable or trusted
especially when they were not all the immediate companions of the Prophet
(pbuh). The hadiths were not written down at the time of the Prophet
(pbuh), they were instead memorized by the companions. This raises another
question : Who is a companion? They did a lot of research about this issue.
2. The prevention of memorizing the hadith and transferring it. This prevention
occurred at the time of the second Caliph and lasted until the end of the
Umayyad era. This caused a large portion of the Sunna to be lost and a lot of
it got mixed up.
3. According to the consensus of all Muslims, the hadith was first written down
in the second century, in a discontinuous manner and in countries far away from
each other. When writing the hadith first took place, it didn't get written
collectively. No committees with hadith experts were involved either where
every expert presents his hadith to the rest and where analogy is used between
hadiths. Some of this took place in a much later time.
4. The prevalence of lying even in the era of the Prophet (pbuh), where a
preacher said : "There has been a lot of lies told about me. Whoever
deliberately lies about me, he should expect a seat in hell fire". The
content of the hadith might differ slightly from one narration to another.
5. The spread of Israeli influence on hadith before the era of recording the
hadith among the Tab'een (the generation after the companions) even among the
lesser companions such as Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira. And then the difficulty in
distinguishing between true hadiths and the Israeli influenced ones that filled
the hadith books, Koranic interpretation and also history. " (14)
As for Dr Oghli's request to review Shiite hadith books, Sheikh Mohamad
Wa'ithzada Al Kharasani said :"Since brother Dr. Oghli thinks that a new
study should be performed on Al Kafi, would he agree to do the same thing with
the Sunni hadiths? If his answer is positive then let's go ahead and create a
council to study Muslim's hadiths without making a distinction between any of
the Islamic sects. Let us weigh the hadiths and place them in a logical scale
or on one that is based on well established evidence agreed upon by all
Muslims. With this we can reach the Islamic unity that brother Al Katib wishes
for as well as all of the reformers in the Islamic world and also the world
council for bringing Islamic sects closer to each other." (15)
In any case, Shiites today do not accept every narration in their hadith books
as Akhbaris used to do in the early times. They no longer accept, theoretically
anyway, single hadiths to be the basis of their ideologies. They base their
fundamental beliefs on mutawatir hadiths. They, however, accept single hadiths
when it comes to subordinate issues. Al Sharif Al Murtada refuses single
hadiths and says that provisions of legitimacy cannot be built on such hadiths
since they cannot be used as a hujja. Sheikh Al Toosi and a number of scholars
today, however, accept single hadiths if they meet certain standards. They also
accept hadiths narrated by a non Imamate Shiite and follow them provided that
the narrator is known for his piety and honesty in narrating hadiths. (16)
Shiite Science of Men (Elm Al Rijal)
Shiites have opened the door to ijtihad or juristic deduction in the fifth
century. With it they also have opened the door to criticizing hadiths and the
men who convey hadiths. Shiites wrote a number of books regarding this issue.
The most important of which is "Knowing the Men" for Mohamad Omar Al
Kashi, it's also known as "Choosing the Knowing Men". Also
"The Men" written by Ahmad Bin Ali Al Najashi, the two books
"The Men and the Index" for Sheikh Al Toosi and the book written by
Ibn Al Ghada'iri. These books are known as "The Four Books of Men".
New great works took place in the following centuries. Examples are
"Scholars' Milestones" for Ibn Shahr Ashoob (d. 588 H), "The
Men" for Ibn Dawood Al Haliy (d. after 707 H) and "The Men" for
the scholar Al Hulai (d. 726 H).
As the Shiite Science of Men evolved, in the eighth century Allama Al Hulai
went on to divide hadiths into four categories : sahih (correct), hasan (good),
muwathak (documented) and da'eef (weak). A sahih hadith meant one that is
linked to the infallible Imam conveyed by all just Imamates. A hasan hadith is
one that is linked to a praised Imamate who is trusted without the necessity
of having a text on his just character. A
muwathak hadith is one that religious scholars documented the
integrity of its narrators who are not Imamates or ones with a corrupt creed
(meaning trusted narrators who are not Twelvers). A weak hadith is of
course one that lacks all three qualities that are previously mentioned.
Based on this classification of hadiths, late interpreters of "Al
Kafi" considered most of its hadiths as non sahih. They counted 9485 of
its hadiths as weak, 144 hadiths as hasan, 1128 hadiths as muwathak and 5027
hadiths as sahih or only two thousand hadiths as sahih.
It's been said that Allama Al Hulai denies the presence of shahih hadiths that
are traced back to the infallible Imam through just Imamates. In any case,
Allama Al Hulai wrote a new book where he compiled in it the sahih and hasan
hadiths from all four books. He gave his book the title "Pearls and
Corals".
Recently, Sheikh Mohamad Baqir Al Bahboodi selected almost one third of the
hadiths from "Al Kafi" and compiled it in his book "The Best of
Al Kafi".
Despite the advancement of the Science of Men and Hadith for Shiites and
despite the Shiites disposal of the superstitions, legends and the exotic
theories such as distortion of the Koran, despite all that, there are still a
number of hadiths that need to be looked over carefully. Criticism of
such hadiths has been confined to a narrow girdle and thus it didn't succeed in
re shaping the Shiite thought. The most prominent of which are the issues
of the Godly given Imamate to the Ahl Al Bayt, their infallibility, their
appointment through written text and the issue of the absent and awaited
twelveth Imam. All of these topics need further criticism and scrutiny since
they are the basis of the Twelver Imamate sect and such issues are the reasons
for their disagreement with the rest of Muslims. For the restoration of Muslim
unity, it is very important to investigate and ascertain whether the Imams of
Ahl Al Bayt are indeed an additional legitimate and exclusive source for the
Sunna and a continuation to it. This means that no other jurist can make a
religious ruling against their rulings. Or were they no more than trusted
narrators who transmitted prophetic hadiths as some narrations that were
narrated by Ahl Al Bayt confirm? Or were they mujtahideen (scholars who use
juristic deduction to make rulings) who had their own non-binding opinions?
To perform such a radical process of criticism would reduce the understanding
of the concept of "Sunna" according to Shiites. It would confine it
to frequent (mutawatir) narrations about the Prophet (pbuh) and would abolish
the belief that the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt are an extension to prophecy. It would
also relinquish the consideration that the Imams' hadiths are at the same level
as the Prophet's hadiths which cannot be argued or debated. It would lower
their ranks to the ranks of the Imams of the rest of the Islamic sects.
I was able to criticize a group of narrations (about a hundred narration) that
revolved around Twelverism and divine Imamate. I did so using history and the
Science of Shiite Men. I found all such narrations either weak or
fabricated, not one single narrations is sahih. This pushed me to accept the
Jafari fiqh (one that is ascribed to Imam Jafar Al Sadiq (pbuh)) and reject the
Twelve Imamate theory which includes the theory of the twelveth Imam
"Mohamad Bin Al Hasan Al Askari". I have not found a single evidence
regarding his birth, his existence and his continued existence until this day
since the third Hijra century.
Study # 3: Consensus
It is well known that consensus to Sunnis is considered a source of legislation
besides the Holy Koran and the pure Prophetic Sunna. Although they differ on
the understanding of consensus whether it is the consensus of Muslims,
companions or jurists in one era. This is based on the hadith that says :"
My Umma will never agree together on an error". On the contrary, consensus
is not considered a source of legislation to Shiites especially the Imamate
Shiites. This is because they refused the idea of "consensus" when
the companions all consented to choosing Abu Bakr as a Caliph after the death
of the Prophet (pbuh). They instead claimed a divine text that selected Imam
Ali to be the next successor to the Prophet (pbuh). Later on, they accepted the
word "consensus" based on the Kindness Theory that was brought up
forward by Al Sayyid Al Murtada in the fifth Hijra century. It meant that it is
a necessity for the absent Imam Al Madhi to sabotage
the consensus of the Shiites in any matter that is contrary to the truth or in
conflict with the Imam's opinion. I have said that the Shiites accepted the
word "consensus" because they didn't actually accept it in the real
sense. To them, consensus meant the opinion of the Imam more than it was considered
in itself a source of legislation or to be a hujja. Although a lot of Shiite
scholars used consensus to prove some saying and opinions that are differed
upon, they did so relying on the rules and fundamentals present between their
hands. They did not find a historical proof to validate "consensus"
based on the Kindness Theory. Hence, consensus to Shiites is nothing more a
backup to other proofs.
Shiites followed up consensus with "Biography of Muslims" or
"Biography of the Legislator". However, they didn't consider them a
hujja or an independent evidence unless revealed by the sayings of the
infallible Imam who is the hujja to them.
Apart from the Shiites position on consensus, I think that reconsideration of
the authenticity of consensus by Sunnis does not only provide a precise and
restricted limit for legislation sources and limiting it to the Koran and the
Sunna. It also allows an entrance for the reinforcement of Islamic unity
between Sunnis and Shiites.
Study
# 4: Rational Evidence*
What's meant by rational evidence is the essential and practical
reasoning such as the fundamentals of bara'a( allowing the maximum possible
freedom of action), istis-hab (presumes continuation of a fact until the
contrary is proved), taking precaution, and to making a choice. These
fundamentals are shared by both Sunnis and Shiites and are practiced in the
absence of Koranic and Sunna provisions. This covers a
large range of modern political, economical and social areas.
Opening the door to ijtihad by Shiites got them closer in this area to Sunnis.
This made some traditional Akhbaris accuse those Shiites of becoming Sunnis.
This was confirmed by Dr. Khayr El Deen Qaraman in the International Scientific
Symposium about Shiites which took place in
on the Koran, the Sunna, rational reasoning and ijtihad as sources of religious
knowledge and provision. This makes up a suitable ground for the attempts of
reconciliation among different sects in both the fundamental and the
subordinate issues.". (1)
Chapter 3 : Jurisprudence
Study # 1: Controversial Jurisprudential Issues
*
Most controversial jurisprudential issues between Shiites and Sunnis are simple
and partial issues that were found among the companions and the Tab'een. Such
simple differences are even found among the followers of a single
jurisprudential school of thought. Since the door to ijtihad (juristic
deduction) has been opened by Shiites which led to the existence of many mujtadis
in every age, this caused them to differ on a lot of jurisprudential matters.
They consider this to be normal and also a result of their belief in the
freedom of ijtihad and having the right to be different. This is also true with
the rest of the schools of thought where a mujtahid can differ on some issues
with another mujtahid. Also one school of thought could differ on some issues
with another school of thought or sometimes even a mujtahid can have a
different opinion on something than the Imam of his school of thought.
Shiites have not passed on a fatwa regarding the validity of following one of
the Sunni schools of thought. This is because they prohibit making an ijtihad
that might go against the infallible Imams since, according to them, the Imams
receive their knowledge from God. The Sunni Imams, however, didn't hesitate to
accept narrations about Ahl Al Bayt and also considered the Imams' opinions and
works as jurisprudence ijtihads just like the rest of the fiqh Imams. Hence,
Sunnis, compared to Shiites, were more open and welcoming of Ahl Al Bayt school
of thought. This is with the exception of some fanatics who went against
Shiites for the sole purpose of being different. (85)
The most popular Sunni fatwa regarding this issue is Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut
from Al Azhar mosque (1958-1963). He says in it that the Shiite school of
thought is valid and can be followed. The fatwa says :"Islam has not
forced any of its adherents to follow a certain school of thought. It is his
personal choice to follow any school of that he rationally thinks has correctly
been carried on to future generations,
and its laws and regulations documented in special religious books.
Anyone who follows one of these schools (four Sunni jurisprudential schools)
has the right to move to a different jurisprudential school (any
jurisprudential school). The Jafari school of thought, famously known as the
Twelve Imamate sect, is a school whose following is religiously allowed just as
it is the case with other Sunni schools of thought. Muslims should know this
and should distance themselves from fanaticism they might harbor against a
certain school of thought. This is due to the fact that Allah's religion and
teachings do not follow a specific school of though and will never be hoarded
or confined to a certain school of thought. All are considered mujtahids and
are accepted by Allah the Almighty. Those who are not mujtahids can follow any
of the
jurisprudence mujtahids. This is true for ibadat (issues pertaining to
worshiping God) and mu'amalat (worldly issues such as how to deal with
people)".
A major difference between Sunni and Shiite fiqh is
the way which the remaining inheritance, after giving the obligatory heirs
their share, is divided. According to Sunnis the remaining inheritance is given
to the isba (distant relatives). According to the Imamate Shiites, the
remaining inheritance is divided among the obligatory heirs except for the wife
and the husband. They denied isba any inheritance, instead they
gave the obligatory heirs and relatives the right to inheritance. They didn't
differentiate between the relatives of a man or a woman. An only daughter has
just as much right to inherit (her parents) as an only son does. (85)
Then comes the issue of compatibility in marriage. Hanafis. Shafites and
Hanbalis put Islam, freedom, lineage, and the handicraft (of the man) as
pre-requisites for compatibility in marriage. Shiites, on the other hand, only
put Islam as a pre-requisite when it comes to marriage.They base it on the Koranic
verse :"Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who
is) the most righteous of you". Malikis
are also in agreement with the Shiites.
Sunnis require witnesses for a marriage contract to be valid. Shiites don't
require witnesses but like it. On the contrary, when it comes to divorce
Shiites require the presence of two witnesses. They base it on the
Koranic verse :"And take for witnesses two persons from among you".
Sunnis see that this verse favours the presence of the
witnesses but it doesn't say it's a obligatory.
They also differ on the issue of the man pronouncing "I divorce you"
to his wife three times in a setting. Sunnis count it as three separate
divorces so that a man can't come back to his wife unless she marries someone
else before him. They imitate Omar Ibn Al Khattab who considered the three
pronunciations as three divorces. Shiites consider this as one
divorce. Sunnis probably base this on consensus or do it as an imitation of the
the companions specifically the two Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Omar).
Thus they didn't discuss this issue over the years
except for what's known about Ibn
Taymiyah's disagreement with it.
Shiites and Sunnis also have some differences when it comes to athan (call to
prayer) and iqama (call to line up for prayer). Shiites today add a statement
to the two shahadas, they add "I witness that Ali is Allah's wali, I
witness that Ali and his infallible progeny are Allah's hujja". In the
past, they rejected this statement and accused the ghulat of adding it to the
athan as Sheikh Al Suduq says in "What's not Attended by the
Jurist". Today they prefer that the "third shahada" be
mentioned but is not recognized as a part of athan of iqama. Al Sayyed Muhsin
Al Hakim says :" There's no problem of mentioning it during athan or
iqama. Such a statement in earlier times was considered a symbol of faith and a
representation of Shiism. In this sense, the mentioning of
this statement is preferred or can even be obligatory." (86)
Shiites also add another statement to the athan and iqama which says "Hurry
to the best of deed". they claim that it used to be mentioned at the
time of the prophet (pbuh) and that Omar Ibn Al Khattab abolished it.
There are also small detailed differences in a number of issues such as ablution,
prayers, khums (one fifth) and zakat. However, the issue of mut'a
marriage or temporary marriage has been the most major jurisprudential
difference between Sunnis and Shiites throughout history. According to
Sunnis, the mut'a verse that's mentioned in the Holy Koran has been abrogated
and forbidden by the prophet (pbuh) after
he had allowed it a number of times especially during wars and invasions. The
Twelver Imamate Shiites consider the mut'a marriage lawful and allowed by the
Holy Koran and hadiths by the prophet and Ahl Al Bayt Imams. They do not
recognize the prophet prohibiting it temporarily or definitively. They
say that the companions used to recognize this marriage and practice it until
the last years of Omar Ibn
Al Khattab's era as a caliph. He then prohibited it in a well known case and
said :"Two mut'as were practiced at the time of the prophet and I prohibit
them. They are Hajj mut'a and women mut'a". A number of of the companions
rejected Omar's prohibition.
I have done a research on this topic and found that Sunnis acknowledge the existence of a verse in the Holy Koran
that allows this type of marriage. They
also recognize a number of prophetic hadiths that support this marriage and
allow the companions to practice it. At the same time, they also affirm its
prohibition by the prophet a number of times. This
embraces the the multiple times it has been allowed. I then looked at the
hadiths that prohibited this marriage and found them* *ahad* *ones (narrated by
one person) that cannot abrogate the Holy Koran. This led me to conclude that
Sunnis prohibit it relying more on consensus and on Omar's prohibition of it
rather than relying on frequent and sahih
hadiths. This is in accordance with some Sunni school of thought that gives preference
to consensus when compared to other available resources. It also gives priority
to hadiths compared to the Holy Koran in the sense that the Holy Koran is
allocated or abrogated by a hadith (as per Ahmad Bin Hanbal).
It is possible to resolve this jurisprudential conflict between Shiites and
Sunnis. Either by having each group respect the other group's ijtihad and
search regarding this topic or by combining the ijtihad done by both
groups. This can be achieved by allowing mut'a marriage only in necessary
emergency situations.
At this point, I think it's helpful to go back to the study that I have written
around this topic and presented it at the Fifth Annual Conference of the Social
Islamic Society. This took place in
Here's a section of it:* Temporary Marriage (Mut'a) * It
is also known as mut'a marriage. It resembles a permanent marriage in terms of
contract, dowry and wali (having a guardian for the woman). However, the
duration of the marriage is determined beforehand and when the determined
period ends, no divorce is required. It's also different in some
provisions relating to marriage such as alimony, inheritance,
the number of wives a man can marry at one time and idda (the time the woman
waits after her divorce or her husband's death before she can re-marry).
*Shiites Evidence for its Permissibility *
Shiites rely on a verse in the Holy Koran, on the Sunna and on some companions'
narrations to make mut'a marriage permissible. They deny it being prohibited by
consensus. The Holy verse is :"For the enjoyment you have of them, give
them their dowry as a duty" Al Nisa' :24. It has been narrated that
a group of the companions, among them Abi Bin Ka'ab,
Abdullah Bin Abbas and Abdullah Bin Mas'ud that they read "For the
enjoyment you have of them for a specified time, give them their dowry as a
duty". This makes it clear that the intended marriage here is the mut'a
marriage. Al Razi said in his interpretation (of the Koran) :"The intended
meaning of this verse is mut'a marriage. It means a man can rent a woman
for a known amount of money and for a specified period of time for the purpose
of copulation".
There's a narration in Sahih Al Bukhari (page 176, sentence 2) about Omran Bin
Hassin that he said:"The verse of mut'a was revealed in the Koran so we
practiced it with the prophet (pbuhp). Nothing in the Koran was revealed
afterwards to forbid it or refute it. When the prophet (pbuhp) passed away, a
man gave his own opinion (about it)".
A narration about Abu Zubair in Sahih Muslim (page 1024, sentence 2) says
:"I heard Jabir Bin Abdullah saying : We used to pay a handful of dates
and flour for mut'a (marriages) at the time of the prophet (pbuhp) and Abu Bakr
until Omar refuted it in Amr Bin Harith's case". In Sahih Muslim (page
119, sentence 6), a narration about Qays says :"I heard Abdullah say :
During our invasions with the messenger of God (pbuhp), we had no women (with
us). We asked the prophet (pbuh) : Should we castrate ourselves? He prohibited
us to do so then he gave us permission to marry women for a period of time.
Then he read :" Oh ye who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which
Allah hath made
lawful for you but commit to excess for Allah loveth not those given to
excess." Al Ma'eda :87.
Also narrated in "The Marriage" book, Chapter 3:It was narrated by
Muhammad Bin Bashar, narrated by Muhammad Bin Jafar, narrated by Shu'ba that
Amr Bin Dinar said :"I heard Al Hassan Bin Muhammad narrated that Jaber
Bin Abdullah and Salma Bin Al Akwa' both said ; The prophet's (pbuhp) caller
came to us and said; The messenger of God (pbuhp) has permitted you to practice
women's mut'a (iemut'a
marriage)".
Omaya Bin Bistam Al Ishi narrated to me that Yazid (ie
Ibn Zura') narrated that Rawh (ie Ibn Al Qasim) narrated about Amr Bin....that
the messenger of God (pbuhp) came to us and gave us permission to practice
mut'a.
Al Hassan Al Hulwani narrated that Abdul Razak that Ibn Jareeh said :Ata' said
: Jabir Bin Abdullah came back from Omra so we visited him in his house and
people asked him about different things. Then he said ; "yes, we practiced
mut'a at the eras of the messenger of God (pbuhp), Abu Bakr and Omar".
It was narrated to me by Muhamad Bin Rafih that Abdula Razak narrated that Ibn
Jareeh narrated that Abu Zubair said: "I heard Jaber Bin Abdullah saying :
We used to pay a handful of dates and flour for mut'a (marriages) at the time
of the prophet (pbuhp) and Abu Bakr until Omar refuted it in Amr Bin Harith's
case".
It was narrated to us by Hamid Bin Omar Al Bakrawi
that Abdul Wahid (ie Ibn Ziad) narrated that Assem narrated that Nadra said
;"I was at Jaber Bin abdullah's when some one came in and said : Ibn Abbas
and Ibn Al Zubair cannot agree on the two muta's, Jaber then said : We
practiced
both of them with the messenger of God (pbuhp), then Omar prohibited them so we
never went back to practicing the two muta's".
It was narrated to us by Abu Bakr Bin Abi Shaiba, narrated by Younus Bin
Mohamad, narrated by Abdula Wahid Bin Ziad, narrated by Abu Amees that Iyas Bin
Salma narrated that his father said :"The messenger of God (pbuhp) gave us
permission to practice mut'a three times in the year of Awtas then he forbade
it".
It was also narrated to us by Qutayba Bin Sa'id, narrated by Layth that Al
Rabih Bin Sabrah Al Jahni narrated that his father Sabra said ;"The
prophet (pbuhp) gave us permission to practice mut'a. Then, I and another man,
went to a woman from Bani Amer who was like a virgin camel".
Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal narrated in his Masnad (page 52, sentence 1) that Abu
Nadra narrated that Jaber said :"We practiced muta's with the prophet
(pbuhp) and with Abu Bakr. When Omar became a caliph he made a speech and said
:"If the two mut'as were permitted during the era of the
prophet (pbuhp), I prohibit them and punish those who practice
them."".
Based on the Holy verse that has not been abrogated and based on the prophetic
traditions narrated by Sunnis and on other narrations narrated by Ahl Al Bayt
Imams, based on all this, Shiites permit mut'a marriage. They deny that the
great prophet has ever prohibited it and claim that it was the second caliph,
Omar Bin Al Khattab who prohibited it. They believe that he made his own
ijtihad after the incident of Amr Bin
Harith when he said :"Two mut'as were practiced at the time of the prophet
(pbuhp) and I forbid them and punish those who practice them. the two mut'as
are women mut'a and Haj mut'a". The sentence "And I forbid them and
punish those who practice them" points to the fact that the two mut'as
were permitted during the life of the prophet and during the life of the first
caliph, Abu Bakr. For this reason, a number of the
companions disagreed with Omar and believed in the legality of the mut'a
marriage. Among those companions were Imam Ali (pbuh) (87), Abdullah Bin Abbas
(88), even Abdullah Bin Omar (89) who used to be asked about his stand opposing
his father's and he would say :"Praise be to Allah, we tell you the
prophet said and you say Omar said" (90). This is in addition to a number
of other companions such as Omran Bin Haseen (91),
Abi Bin Ka'ab, Asma' Bint Abu Bakr (92), Jaber and Ibn Mas'ood, Mu'awiyah Bin
Abu Sufian 993), Amr Bin Harith, Abu Sa'id and Salma the sons of Umayya Bin
Khalaf. Also some Tab'een such as Mujahid, Qatada, Shu'ba, Abu Thabet
(94), Tawoos, Ata', Sa'id Bin Jubair and the rest of
Makka's jurists and among them is Ibn Jareeh. Then they differed on whether
this practice was abrogated and whether the abrogation was done by the great
prophet or by the caliph Omar Bin Al Khattab. Then they say that the
prohibition was not decision taken by the great prophet but was a decision
taken by Omar bin Al Khattab based on his own ijtihad. They believe that
there's no ijtihad against a divine text. They also say that it hasn't been
proven that the mut'a verse has been
abrogated. There aren't mutawatir hadiths about the prophet (pbuhp)
abrogating it. The hadiths that speak about the abrogation of this verse are
single hadiths and hadiths with weak isnad with contradictory content. Such
hadiths speak about its permissibility and its prohibition a few times and also
at different places such as the day of Khaybar, day
of Fath, Tabook foray, also during the farewell pilgrimage. This means
that the abrogation took place twice or three times or even more. Also these
hadiths are contradictory to Ahl Al Bayt's (pbut) hadiths. If an
abrogation actually took place, Omar would have made reference to it instead of
relying on his owm ijtihad.
*Sunni Evidence for Mut'a Prohibition
*Sunni Muslims admit that the great prophet has made mut'a marriage permissible
but they say that it was only for short periods of time. They also believe that
he prohibited it at different times and places. Also that he (phuhp) banned it
for life in his last days and therefore abrogated its initial ruling.
Imam Al Nawawi said :"Truth is the acts of prohibition and
permissibility of mut'a marriage took place twice. It was permissible before
Khaybar and then it was prohibited the day of Khaybar. Then it was made
permissible the day of Fath Mecaa and it's also the day of Awtas. It was then
prohibited forever three days later". Al Qadi said :"Islamic scholars
agreed that mut'a marriage was for a limited period
of time. Inheritance rules do not apply in such a marriage. Divorce does not
take place, both separate when the specified time period has ended. Later, its
prohibition took place by consensus of all scholars except for the Rafidi
scholars."
Among the recent Islamic scholars, Dr. Wahbah Al Zuhaili says :"The four
schools of thought and the sahaba audience have agreed that mut'a marriage and
its likes are prohibited". Also "the meaning of "the
enjoyment" in the verse "For the enjoyment you have of them" Al
Nisa' : 24 is (regular) marriage since it is mentioned at the beginning and at
the end of the verse. It started by Almighty's words :"And marry not women
whom your fathers married" Al Nisa' : 22 and ended with "If any of
you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women" Al Nisa'
;25. This shows that the word "enjoyment" used in the verse
refers to that brought by marriage and not by mut'a which is Islamically
prohibited. As for the word "payment", it refers to the dowry that is
given to the woman during a marriage contract. The verse "Wed them with the
leave of their owners and give them their dowers, according to what is
reasonable" Al Nisa' ; 25, ie their dowry. Also the verse "O prophet!
We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers"
Al Ahzab : 50, ie their dowry.
One would say that the dowry is given before the enjoyment but in this verse
the dowry is mentioned after the enjoyment. This is based on the (Arabic)
language that allows for the advancement and delay of some words. Thus
"give them dowry if you use them for enjoyment" means "if you
wanted to enjoy them". In the verse "O prophet! When ye do divorce
women, divorce them" Al Talak : 1, means if you wanted to divorce them.
Also "If you got up for prayers" Al Ma'eda : 6 means if you wanted to
perform prayers.
As for the permission of mut'a in prophetic tradition granted during some
conquests, that was for necessity during the time of war and
also because of celibacy during the time of travel. The prophet (pbuh)
then prohibited it forever as seen from many hadiths, some of which are the
following;
1) "O people, I have given you permission in the past to practice mut'a
with women. Now God has forbidden it until Judgment Day. If anyone has
such women he should let them go and do not take back anything you have given
them".
2) Salma Bin Al Akwa' said :"The messenger of Allah (pbuh) has given us a
license to practice mut'a with women for three days during the year of Awtas.
Then he forbade it".
3) Sabra Bin Ma'bad said :"The messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited mut'a on
the day of Farewell Haj".
4) Ali (ra) narrated that the prophet (pbuh) forbade mut'a and also the meat of
domesticated asses on the day of Khaybar.
As for Ibn Abbas, he used to allow mut'a only when it was badly needed.
Sa'id Bin Jubair narrated that Ibn Abbas said : "Glory to God, I have not
passed a ruling of such a thing! It (mut'a) is just like a non slaughtered
already dead animal which can only be eaten when no other food is
available".
However, the companions denied his opinion which makes his opinion irregular
and unique. Ali (ra) denied Ibn Abbas's opinion and said ; "You have gone
astray because the prophet (pbuh) forbade mut'a marriage and the eating of
domesticated asses on the day of Khaybar". Also Abdullah Bin Al Zubair
(ra) denied Ibn Abbas's opinion. Muslim has narrated that Abdullah Bin Al
Zubair stood up in
has blinded some people's hearts just like He blinded their sights. They allow
mut'a-hinting to Abdullah Bin Abbas- Then Ibn Abbas called upon him and said
:"You are unpleasant and harsh, mut'a was indeed practiced
at the time of the prince of believers (ie the messenger of God
(pbuh)."Ibn Zubair then said :"Try to practice it yourself. By God if
you did it I would stone you". Theologians then reported that Ibn Abbas
took back what he said. Al
Tirmithi narrated that he said :"Mut'a was practiced at the beginning of
Islam. A man would come to a new town where he knew no one. Then he would marry
a woman for the time of his stay. She then takes care of him and his stuff.
Then this holy verse was revealed :"Except with those joined to them in
the marriage bond or (the captives) whom their right
hands possess" Al Mu'minoon : 6. Ibn Abbas said :"Anyone other
than the two (wives and concubines) is forbidden". Al Baihaqi and Abu
Awana in his sahih book have narrated that Ibn Abbas has taken back his saying.
According to a lot of Islamic scholars, they consider the reports that
say that Ibn Abbas took back his saying as more reliable, This is confirmed by
the consensus of the companions on its prohibition for life. It is very
unlikely that Ibn Abbas would hold an opposing opinion.
Al Hazimi narrated in Al Nasikh wal Mansookh (The Abrogator and the
Abrogated) from Jabir Abdullah's hadith :"We and the prophet (pbuh)
went on Tabouk expedition. As we arrived at a narrow road in the mountain near
Al Sham, a few women came by so we remembered our mut'a marriages as they were
walking around our tents. The prophet (pbuh) then came to us and looked at them
and said :"Who are these women? We said :"O messenger of God, these
are women we had married (in the past) for mut'a. The prophet
(pbuh),then, got angry until his cheeks turned red and his face turned gloomy
then he got up to make a speech. He thanked
God and glorified him then he prohibited mut'a. Then we said farewell to each
other, men and women. We didn't and will never go back to it again. It was
because of it that it was called "Farewell Thaniyah".
Abu Awana narrated that Ibn Jareeh said while he was in Al Basra :"Be
witnesses that I have went back on saying that mut'a is permissible". This
is after he had made eighteen hadiths about it being permissible.
All of this points to the abrogation of mut'a. It is possible that Ibn Abbas
and some companions who agreed with him were not aware of the abrogation. If
the abrogation is proven then it must be applied and followed. It is also said
: Mut'a was forgiven and excused just like alcohol was at first. Then it was
prohibited by a clear and absolute text.
The Muslim public prohibited mut'a marriage relying on the Koran, the Sunna,
consensus and reason:
1) The following holy verses:"Who guard their modesty. Except with those
joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands
possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame. But those whose desires
exceed those limits are transgressors" Al Mu'minoon : 5-7.
These verses prohibited enjoying women unless enjoying them through marriage or
owning them as concubines. Mut'a is not a true marriage, it isn't a malak
yameen (a war captive) either therefore it is prohibited. The reason it's not
considered a marriage is for the fact that there is no divorce, no alimony and
no inheritance.
2) As for Sunna : All the previous agreed upon hadiths
that I mentioned about Ali, Sabra Al Jahni, Salma Bin Al Akwa' and other (ra).
They all clearly prohibit it the year of Khaybar, fifteen days after Fath Mecca
and also during the Farewell Pilgrimage.
3) As for consensus: The Umma, except for the Imamate
Shiites, agreed on its prohibition. If it was permissible, they would have made
a fatwa to allow it. Ibn Al Munthir said: "It was reported that the
earlier Muslims have made it (ie mut'a) permissible. Today, I don't know anyone
who makes it permissible except for Al Rafidah. There is no meaning to a
saying that goes against the Koran and the Sunna of the prophet (pbuh)".
Al Qadi Ayyad said :"All the Islamic scholars
have agreed on its prohibition except for Al Rafidah.".
4) As for reason: Marriage for life has been made
lawful for social goals such as achieving a peace of mind, procreating, and
making a family. Mut'a only provides a mean to fulfill someone's lust on a temporary basis, just as fornication. It
makes no sense to prohibit fornication and allow mut'a.
This shows the Muslim public's evidence for prohibition of mut'a. Logic and
Islamic Shariah can only accept that and an impartial unbiased person would
deny mut'a and the practice of it for ever. And God the Almighty knows
best." (95)
*Degree of Prohibition
*Sheikh Yousuf Al Qirdawi speaks about mut'a marriage and refers to the aim of
marriage, in his eyes, that mut'a marriage lacks. He says that the prophet
(pbuh) allowed it during travel and war conquests as a way of slow and gradual
prohibition and then prohibited it for ever. However, Al Qirdawi stops to
wonder what kind of prohibition it is: is it like the prohibition of marrying
one's mother, daughters or sisters? Or is it like the prohibition of eating a
non slaughtered dead animal or
eating pork which is allowed when no other food is available? He says:"In
Islam, marriage is a firm contract and a strong covenant. It's built on the
intention of both sides to live together forever to achieve the peace of mind,
the affection and the compassion that were mentioned in the Holy Koran. Its
objective is procreation and continuing the existence of human kind. On the
contrary, mut'a marriage does not meet
the objectives we have mentioned. The messenger of God (pbuh) allowed it before
the Islamic Shariah was settled. He only allowed it during travel and war
expeditions then he forbade it and prohibited it forever.
The reason it was initially permissible was because
people were in what we can call a transition state from the dark ages to Islam.
Adultery was widely spread in the pre Islamic era. When Islam came to be and
when men had to travel and go on war conquests for jihad, they found it very
difficult to spend time away from their wives. Some of these men were strong
believers and others were weak. The concern was
that the weak believers would commit adultery, the ugliest sin, and that the
strong believers would castrate themselves as Ibn Mas'oud had mentioned. For
this reason, mut'a was permissible to solve both groups' problems and it was
also a step closer to legalizing a strong and complete married life. A married
life where all marriage goals are met such as protecting one's self from
committing adultery, achieving a
peace of mind, procreation, affection, compassion and widening the clan circle.
The Holy Koran gradually prohibited drinking alcohol and taking bank interest
and they were both widely spread in the pre Islamic era. Likewise, the prophet
(pbuh) gradually prohibited mut'a marriage. He allowed it only when necessary
then he forbade this kind of marriage as narrated by Ali (ra) and a group of
the companions. In Sahih Muslim, it
was narrated that Sabra Al Jahni joined the prophet (pbuh) during Fath Mecca
expedition and the prophet (pbuh) then allowed them mut'a marriage. He said
:"And he didn't leave until the messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited
it". and in a different hadith "And God prohibited it until the Day
of Resurrection".
However, is this prohibition like the prohibition of marrying one's mother or
daughters? Or is this prohibition as the prohibition of eating a non
slaughtered dead animal, drinking of blood and eating pork which are all
allowed when no other means of food are met? Is it allowed when it's absolutely
necessary? Most of the companions saw that it is a clear cut absolute
prohibition that cannot be allowed at any time after the establishment of the
Islamic Shariah. Ibn Abbas had a different opinion and saw that it is allowed
when absolutely necessary. Someone asked Ib Abbas (ra) about mut'a of women and
Ibn Abbas allowed it and said :"It is only allowed
when absolutely necessary". Then he was asked : "Also when women are
not scarce?" Then Ibn Abbas said : "yes".
When Ibn Abbas (ra) saw that people abused this license and didn't confide it
to necessity then he took back his saying, and God knows best".
*Divulging when Necessary*
If we believed the Sunni evidence, that calls for prohibition, and tried to add
it to the Shiite evidence, that calls for permissibility, then we can reach a
middle ground. A new solution that doesn't make it an absolute prohibition as
the Sunnis say nor make it permissible at all times as Shiites say. A solution
that calls for mut'a permissibility only when absolutely necessary and when one
faces a great hardship.
This is based on the revelation of the holy verse number 24 from Al Nisa'
chapter :"For the enjoyment you have of them, give them their dowry as a
duty" that speaks about mut'a marriage and not regular marriage. This was
explained by some companions among whom was Abi Bin Ka'ab, Abdullah Bin Abbas
and Abdullah Bin Mas'oud. it says that they read :"For the enjoyment you
have of them, for a specified time, give them their dowry as a duty" and
this professes that the verse speaks about mut'a marriage. Al Razi said in his
interpretation to this verse :"This verse refers to mut'a marriage.
Prophetic hadiths that spoke
about the permissibility of mut'a supports this verse. We cannot ignore this
verse and also the hadiths unless another Koranic verse abrogates this verse or
if it's abrogated by mutawatir firm Sunna. And this cannot be found, no Koranic
verse is found to abrogate it (96) and no mutawatir hadiths that confirm an
absolute prohibition is found either. Senior
companions differed on this issue and some of them insisted on its
permissibility until later times. The narration about Imam Ali (ra) that speaks
about its prohibition during Khaybar does not refer to it being an absolute
prohibition. This is because the prophet (pbuh) allowed if after that hadith during
Fath Mecca and during the Farewell Pilgrimage
or Farewell Thaniya. The other hadiths that speak about its prohibition only
shows that it's permissible when necessary and not under normal conditions.
This explains why some companions continued practicing it.
We can explain Omar Bin Al Khattab's prohibition of it
based on the non existence of necessary conditions that call for it (97).
Another explanation would be that he feared that people were not abiding by its
requirements such bringing witnesses during the contract of a marriage (98). He
probably didn't mean an absolute forever prohibition. This is why he said
:"If they were- ie both mut'as- permissible at the time of
the prophet (pbuhp, I prohibit them and will punish those who practice
the,". This is narrated by Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Masnad (sentence
1, page 52) (99) while some companions adhered to the principal of its
permissibility. If the prohibition was absolute, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'oud, Ibn
Omar , the rest of the companions and even Omar the caliph would have known
since he didn't prohibit it until the end of his caliphate. This could explain
Ibn Abbas's saying to to Sa'ed Bin Jubair ;"It's like a non slaughtered
dead animal, it's only permissible when necessary". (100)
Al Tirmithi's narration about Ibn Abbas taking back his saying about mut'a
being permissible after the revelation of the verse "Except with those
joined to them in the marriage bond or (the captives) whom their right hands
possess" Al Mu'minoon: 6 and his saying "anyone else other than the
two is prohibited" is not in line with his insistence on its
permissibility during the time of Abdullah Bin Al Zubair. That's when Bin
Al Zubair stood up in
:"You are unpleasant and harsh, mut'a was indeed practiced at the time of
the prince of believers (ie the messenger of God (pbuh)."Ibn Zubair then
said :"Try to practice it yourself. By God if you did it I would stone
you". This was narrated by Muslim. Although some theologians reported that
Ibn Abbas took back his saying at that point, this does
not prove that he changed his mind, This only shows that he adhered to Ibn Al
Zubair's opinion under threat.
Likewise Ibn Jareeh taking back his saying on its permissibility in
As for consensus on its prohibition, this doesn't hold as a proof. It is a late
consensus by only Ahl Al Sunna whereas Jafari Shiites did not agree with them.
This consensus also didn't take place at the time of the companions since they
clearly held different opinions on it. (101)
Since there is doubt that its absolute prohibition by God the Almighty or by
the great prophet (pbuhp) (102), then it stays at least permissible at the
times of necessity and hardship. Perhaps sheikh al Qirdawi's wondering what
kind of prohibition it is, is it an absolute prohibition like the prohibition
of one marrying his mother, daughter or sister? Or is it a prohibition as that
of eating a non slaughtered dead
animal or eating of pork which doesn't hold at times of necessity? Perhaps this
sheds some light on this extraordinary provisional solution and pushes
researchers and jurists to study this issue in a more serious manner away from
the old sectarian disputes.
*Sahih Hadiths about Mut'a
*Bukhari, hadith # 1469 It was narrated
to us by Musa Bin Ismail narrated by Hammam narrated by Qatada who said : It
was narrated to me by Mutrif narrated by Omran (ra)
that he said :"We practiced mut'a during the era of the messenger of God
(pbuh), then the Koran was revealed and a man expressed his own opinion about
it".
Hadith # 4156 It was narrated to us by Musaddad narrated by Yahya narrated by
Omran Abi Bakr narrated to us by Abu Raja' narrated by Omran Bin Husain (ra)
said :"The mut'a verse was revealed in the Koran so we practiced it with
the messenger of God (pbuh). It wasn't prohibited or forbidden by the Koran
until the prophet (pbuh) passed away. Then a man said his own opinion about it.
Hadith # 4249 Abdullah (ra) said : "It was narrated to us by Amr Bin Awn
that it was narrated to him by Khalid narrated by Ismail narrated by Qays
narrated by Abdullah (ra) said ;"We used to go on conquests with the
prphet (pbuh) and had no women with us and we asked : Should we castrate
ourselves? Then the prophet (pbuh) forbade us to do so and allowed us to marry
women with a piece of clothes as a dowry and then read :"O you who
believe, do not make unlawful the good that God has allowed for you."
Muslim, hadith # 2497 It was narrated to me by Mohamad Bin Rafih narrated by
Abdul Razak narrated by Ibn Jareeh narrated by Abu Al Zubair said :"I
heard Jaber
Bin Abdullah say: We used to practice mut'a with a handful of dates and flour
at the era of the messenger of God (pbuh) and Abu Bakr until Omar refuted it in
the case of Amr Bin Harith.
Hadith # 2496
It was narrated to us by Al Hassan Al Hilwani narrated by Abdul Razak narrated
by Ibn Jareeh said :"Ata' said : Jaber Bin Abdullah came back from Omra
and we went to his house. Some people asked him about different things then
they mentioned the mut'a and then he said : Yes, we practiced it at the era of
the prophet (pbuh), Abu Bakr and Omar.
Hadith # 2135
It was narrated to us by Mohamad Bin Al Muthna and Ibn Bashar said that Ibn Al
Muthna narrated to us that Mohamad Bin Jafar narrated that Shu'ba said : I hear
Qatada speaking about Abu Nadra saying : Ibn Abbas used to allow mut'a and Ibn
Al Zubair used to forbid it. Then I told this to
Jaber Bin Abdullah then he said : This hadith took place in my presence : We
practiced mut'a with the messenger of God (pbuh) then Omar stood up and said :
God gave the prophet permission to do what He willed. The Koran tells you to
perform pilgrimage and Omra and so do so as God has
ordered you. And do not marry these women (for mut'a). If a man marries a woman
for a specified period of time comes to me I will stone him.
Masnad Ahmad, Masnad Ali Bin Abi Talib, hadith # 717
It was narrated to us by Mohamad Bin Jafar narrated by Shu'ba narrated by Qatada who said : Abdullah Bin Shaqiq said " Uthman (ra) used to forbid mut'a and Ali (ra) used to allow it. Then Uthman said to Ali : You are so and so. Then Ali (ra) said : I know that we used to practice mut'a with the messenger of God (pbuh). He said : yes, but we were scared.
Chapter Two: Primary Sources for Legislation
Study #1: The Holy Koran
The general Sunni and Shiite public almost fully agree on the authority of the
Holy Koran. The Holy Koran is considered the primary and the more firm source
to Sunnis and Shiites. It's used as a reference to other sources and
anything that goes against it gets tossed away. The research about the
authenticity of the Koran is considered one of the most important researches in
the science of fundamentalism in Shiism. Especially research on the
explicitness of words, unequivocal and equivocal, instruction, prohibition,
inclusiveness, exclusiveness, the absolute, the evident, the understood, the
articulated, the abrogator and the abrogated and so on.
In the early times, some Akhbaris were skeptical about
the authenticity of practicing the externals of the Koran. They didn't allow
the direct dealing with it and understanding it except through Ahl Al Bayt's
narrations and interpretation of it. The birth of the Usooli school (based on
juristic deduction) in the fifth hijra century by the three sheikhs, Al Mufid,
Al Murtada, Al Toosi and some great leaders in recent centuries, all that
led the Akhbaris to retreat from some of their sayings. They retreated from
saying that the Koran is inauthentic and that we cannot deal with it directly.
They also reinforced the belief hat the Koran is the primary source of religion
since it's a definitive frequent source that cannot be matched with any other
source.
Unfortunately a lot of Sunni researchers ,while studying about Shiites, do not
pay attention to the conflict between the two schools, Akhbari and Usooli. They
ignore the fact that the Usoolis, and they are the overwhelming majority of
Shiites, have abandoned much of the Akhbari beliefs for centuries now. Dr Ali
Ozak is an example as he said :"The Shiites have deliberately interpreted
Koranic verses and also hadiths as they wished. They did this any time they
couldn't find proofs from the Koran to support their beliefs...In a lot of
cases, Shiites rely on Ahl Al Bayt narrations, since they believe in the
infallibility of the imams and Ahl Al Bayt. For this reason, they put a
lot of weight on Ahl Al Bayt narrations to interpret the Koran and they say :
God has entrusted the interpretation of the Koran to the imam." (1) He
also added : "Twelver Imamate Shiism sees that the Koran includes concepts
of abrogation, unequivocal and equivocal, inclusiveness and exclusiveness,
connection and disconnection, duties, judgments, orthodoxy, manners,
lawfulness, interdiction, wiliness, permission, explicitness, obscurity,
limitation, and beginning. As for knowing the definition and
the difference among these concepts, that's only possible for people who
had divine revelation descend onto them and hence only the prophet and his
household. A hadith about the prophet (pbuh) says : "Whoever interprets
the Koran according to his own wishes will perish, even if his interpretation
was correct". In another narration :"he has committed
infidelity". Ozak used mula Mohsen Al Kashani in the second preface
in his interpretation titled "Al Safi" :"Knowledge of the Koran
belongs to Ahl Al Bayt...and separated between you and we know it...and a
narration's isnad that goes back to him (pbuh), he said :"We're the ones
who are firm in (Koranic) knowledge and we know its interpretation."".
Also what Al Ayashi narrated about Abu Abdullah (pbuh) in his interpretation,
he said :"God still sends from us, Ahl Al Bayt, someone who teaches all of
His Book (Koran)". (2)
Despite the existence of such narrations which agree with the Imamate theory
and which give the imams of Ahl Al Bayt the role of interpretors of the Koran,
Shiites throughout history didn't commit to a special interpretation of the
Koran. They didn't hold a special interpretation away from the Arabic language
and the explicitness of the Koran. They also didn't retain a particular ta'weel
except for some Koranic vocabulary such as "the Book" or "the
straight path".
This is recorded by Dr. Ozak, as he mentions Al Tabarsi interpreting the
Almighty's saying :" Guide us to the straight path" to mean the
prophet (pbuh) and the imams who inherited his position. Also when Dr. Ozak
uses "Al Safi" author's interpretation of "path" to mean
the imam, since the imam is the one who leads the path to God in this life. He,
also made a mention of Al Tabataba'i interpreting "the straight path"
to mean ameer al mu'mineen Ali (pbuh) as narrated by Al Sadik. (3)
Dr. Ozak uses more examples on Shiite ta'weel of the Koran. He makes a
reference from "Al Safi" in interpreting Almighty's saying "This
is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear
Allah"conveyed from Al Sadik: that is a sign that points to Ali and the
book is about him. The meaning of the book is the book of Ali. He also conveys
from "Al Safi" the interpretation (ta'weel) of "a guide to those
who fear Allah" explained by Al Sadik when he said "those who fear
Allah are our Shiites". (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Ibid, page 243
2) Ibid, page 243
3) Ibid, page 244
4) Ibid, page 244
Study # 2 : Prophetic Tradition (Sunna)
As for prophetic tradition, there is no initial disagreement about it among
Muslims. Shiites and Sunnis, both, agree on the necessity of following the
proven actions of the Prophet (pbuhp). The controversy is about the approach
taken to follow the Sunna. Can Sunna be taught and followed through the
companions? Or through the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt? Do the Ahl Al Bayt narrations
convey the Sunna? Or are they a part of it?
It is well known that Ahl Al Sunna were initially divided into two groups, Ahl
Al Ra'i (Opinionists) led by Imam Abu Hanifa and Ahl Al Hadith (Hadithists) led
by Ahmad Bin
Hanbal. They differed on the framework of the "Sunna". Is it only the
practical frequent peremptory Sunna? Or does it also include the sayings (of
the Prophet) and also single weak doubted narrations? If we review the Sunni
hadith books, we would find a great deal of difference in the amount of hadiths
included in these books. Some have hundreds, thousands or even tens and
hundreds of thousands of hadiths. Despite the fact that Ahl Al Sunna consider
Bukhari and Muslim to be authentic books, there are still some Sunnis who doubt
the authenticity of some hadiths or refuse to ascribe some hadiths to the
Prophet (pbuhp).
Shiites, in general, have always doubted the validity of a large number of
hadiths which were wide spread during the Umayyad's era. They especially
refused to accept hadiths narrated by Abu Huraira, Muawiyah Bin Abi Sufian, Amr
Bin Al As, Al Maghira Bin Shu'ba, Marwan Bin Al Hakam, Samra Bin Jandab and Abi
Al Ghadiyah who killed Ammar. They didn't believe in the absolute fairness of
the companions. They distinguished between the just, the lewd, the believer and
the hypocrite. Shiites also have a narration about Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib
(pbuh) answering someone who asked about fad narrations and about the different
hadiths that are in contradiction with each other. He answered :" In
people's hands (meaning narrations) are facts and fallacy, truths and lies,
abrogator and abrogated, general and special, clear and the vague,
memorized ones and fabricated ones". There have been lies attributed
to the Prophet (pbuhp) in his time. He then stood up preaching to people
:" Whoever deliberately lies about me should expect a seat in hell fire.
Four types of men came to you with narrations (ascribed to the Prophet). A
hypocrite who pretends to be a believer and a Muslim, he doesn't feel the
burden of his sins nor does he get embarrassed and deliberately lies about the
messenger of God (pbuhp). If people knew he was a hypocrite and a liar, they
wouldn't accept his narrations or believe his hadiths. Instead they said : He's
the Prophet's (pbuhp) companion, he saw him, heard him, picked up (hadiths)
from him and therefore they accept his narrations. God has informed you about
hypocrites and described them to you as He did (in the Holy Koran). They
survived him (pbuhp), got closer to stray Imams and to those who invite to hell
with their falsehood and slander. Then they let such people take care of
their business and made them rulers over the rest of people. Thus they had
control over this life and people usually take the side of kings (those with
power) and choose this life except for those who were made impeccable by
God". (1)
The Imamate Shiites accused most of the companions of turning against Ahl Al
Bayt and robbing them from their right to the Caliphate. Hence, the Imamate
Shiites took a negative stand against the companions and didn't trust them to
convey prophetic traditions. They also have accused some companions, narrators
and hadith collectors of withholding narrations that spoke about the virtues of
Ahl Al Bayt or about their right to the Caliphate. Dr Mohamad Jamal Sufo Oghli,
who participated in the International Scientific Symposium about Shiites, said
in his paper "Hadith According to Imamate Shiites": "The issue
that is almost agreed upon by many Shiite clerics (as Hashim Ma'ruf Al Hasani
says in "Studies" page 10, also Sadiq Najmi in "Shedding a Light
on the 2 Sahih Books" page 87) is that Caliph Omar, Al Bukhari, Muslim and
their likes of hadith scholars did not want to listen to the public. They
ignored the hadiths told by the public that spoke about the virtues of Ali Bin
Abi Talib and Ahl Al Bayt. Omar was very strict when it came to the issue of
narrating a hadith. The rest of the hadith scholars, mentioned previously, did
not include in their books the hadiths that were in favour of Ali and Ahl Al
Bayt." (2)
Hence, Shiites limited the learning of the prophetic tradition to the Imams of
Ahl Al Bayt such as Imam Zain Al Abedein Ali Bin Al Hussein, his son
Mohamad Al Baqir and his son Imam Jafar Al Sadiq. Some Shiites, the Imamates,
considered the sayings of the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt and their opinions as a part
of Sunna. They held this belief because they viewed Ahl Al Bayt as the
"itra" (the household of the Prophet) or as one of the two thiqlayn
that the Prophet ordered us to follow in addition to the Holy Koran. This is
based on the prophetic hadith :"I leave you two thiqlayn : God's Book and
my itra (family)".
Dr. Oghli also says :"Shiites claim that the Prophet (pbuh) used to visit
his daughter Fatima and her husband Ali on a regular basis to speak to them.
Imam Ali used to write down the Prophet's sayings in a book. The book of Ali is
the most authentic hadith book and this book has been passed, later on, to the
infallible Imams. Since the Prophet (pbuh) dictated the contents of this book
to Ali, then it contains everything. Also the infallible Imams know everything.
Hence, there is no room for doubting the hadiths narrated by Shiites. According
to them, these hadiths were passed on to the Imams exactly as they were written
by Ali (may God be pleased with him). Some Shiites believe that the first
person to write down prophetic hadiths was the Prophet's friend Abu Rafi', who
is considered an excellent Shiite figure. It's been said that he has a book
titled "The Book of Prophetic Traditions, Judgments and Cases". (3)
Shiites wrote down Ahl Al Bayt hadiths during their era. They compiled such
hadiths in a book titled "The Four Hundred Fundamentals". A lot of it
got lost and in the fourth century, Sheikh Abu Jafar Mohamad Yacoub Al Kilini
(d. 329 H) compiled what was left over of it in his book "Al Kafi".
The book is divided into two parts : the fundamentals and the subordinates. The
fundamentals, as the name implies, consist of hadiths relating to ideology. The
subordinates section consists of hadiths relating to deeds and rules. The book
consists of 34 booklets, 346 chapters and around 16, 000 hadiths. (4)
After him, Sheikh Mohamad Bin Ali Babowiyah Al Suduq (d. 381 H) wrote a book
titled "What's not Attended by the Jurist". This book contains more
than nine thousand hadiths which have no isnad.
The next Sheikh to come was Sheikh Abu Jafar Mohamad Al Hassan Al Toosi
(380-460). He wrote a book titled "Refining Judgments" and the book
"Looking into Differences in Hadiths". He mentioned in them some
hadiths that were not mentioned in "Al Kafi". (5)
These books formed an important resource for Shiite scholars until three more
elaborate books were written in the eleventh century. These books are
"Shiite Means in Shariah Provisions" (Wasa'el al Shi'ah) written by
Mohamad Bin Al Hassan Al Hur Al Ameli ( 1032- 1104) which has been used for
jurisprudence since it's been written. 'Al Wafi" written by Mohamad Muhsin
Al Fayd Al Kashani ( d. 1091) and "Bihar Al Anwar" written by Mohamad
Baqir Al Majlisi ( 1027- 1111). These three encyclopedias were added to
the previous four with some disparity between them as well as the four
previous books. "Al Kafi" specialized in collecting narrations
regarding ideology and Shariah. It's considered a "compiler" such as
Sahih Al Bukhari, Muslim and Tarmathi to the public. The other three books are
specialized in prophetic traditions and provisions. Among the three more recent
books, "Al Wasa'el" is also specialized in prophetic traditions and
provisions. "Al Wafi"is a compiler of only the four hadith books.
Since it includes the narrations of "Al Kafi", this makes it a
"compiler". "Bihar Al Anwar"contains narrations not found
in the other four books. These narrations cover the areas of provisions,
ideology, history, signification, ethics, morals and others. It's considered a
"compiler" as well except for the fact that the terminology for
"a compiler" (Al Jami') and "prophetic traditions" that's
popular amongst Sunnis, is not prevalent amongst the Imamates.
A new encyclopedia was added to the previous four books in the fourteenth Hijra
century. It was titled "Inferred Means" (Mustadrak Al Wasa'el) and
was written by Sheikh Mirza Hussein Al Noori. (d. 1320). He offered in it
narrations that were ignored and not mentioned by the author of "Al Wasa'el".
Another encyclopedia titled "Fiqh Hadiths Compliler" was written
under the supervision of Imam Al Brojardi. He complied in it all the
provision contents of the previous "compilers" with the combination
and slurring between isnads and mitn (contents).
While Akhbari Shiites accepted narrations very easily, the Usoolis were more
selective as they scrutinized and examined the narrations carefully. They only
accepted hadith under specified conditions. They divided hadiths into mutawatir
(frequent) and non mutawatir. Then divided the non mutawatir to a single
hadith, mustafeed (thorough), mash-hoor (famous) and agreed upon with
comparison. They also divided the single hadith to sahih (correct), muwathak
(documented), hasan (good) and weak. They created a special science used to
study the men who transmitted narrations, they called it "Elm Al
Rijal" (Science of Men). They also gave the science of hadith terminology
the label "Elm Al Hadith" (Science of Hadith) or "Elm Al Diraya"
(Science of Knowledge). The door for criticism is still open since they do not
consider any of the hadith books as a sahih book. All hadith books are subject
to criticism, re-consideration, and close examination by different mujtahids.
A long discussion has taken place among the Imamate Shiites about the
authenticity of the single hadith that's not definite -and most of their
hadiths are not inevitable. They backed up such hadiths using verses from the
Holy Koran and also from the agreed upon Sunna and consensus. A long search about
such hadiths took place. The early Imamates believed that "a single hadith
has no use theoretically or practically". Thus it has no importance in the
fields of ideology and Shariah. On the contrary, the Akhbaris viewed all
four books (Al Kafi, What's not Attended by the Jurist, Refining Judgments, and
Looking into Differences in Hadiths) as inevitable hadiths. Usoolis saw
it necessary to research and confirm the validity of such hadiths found in
those books and in others. Hence, Shiites do not have a book called
"Sahih" as Sunnis do. Every hadith's validity in these four books and
in others is open for discussion until proven valid.
Shiites also admit that a number of narrations found in the four books, if not
most of them, are non sahih, weak or hasan. Despite this, they still
consider the narrations found in the four books to be more correct (sahih)
compared to narrations found in other hadith books.
If we take a look at Shiite narrations, we would find that most narrations are
traced back to the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt. Only very few narrations are traced
back to the great Prophet. This is because Shiites consider the Imams of Ahl Al
Bayt (the twelve) a juristic source. They do not consider them as Islamic
scholars (mujtahids) who can be followed just like the imams of the other
schools of thought. Instead, they follow them as Imams of itra about whom the
Prophet (pbuhp) said : " I leave you two thaqlayn: God's Book (Koran) and
my itra (my household)". (6)
This is the most important point in the controversy between Shiites and Sunnis.
The other negative point used by Sunni scholars against Shiites is the issue of
putting more weight and actually choosing narrations that are contrary to the
public (meaning Sunnis). This is based on a narration by Omar Bin Hanthala who
ascribes the narration to Imam Al Sadik. It says : "I said : What if two
narrations about you were popular since narrated by trusted people? Imam Sadik
answered : Take the narration that agrees with the Koran, Sunna and the public.
I said : May I be sacrificed for you. What if both narrations agreed with the
Koran and Sunna but one agreed with the public and the other was contrary to
the public? He said : Wisdom is found in the one that is contrary to the
public". (7) This is a false narration and it indeed devotes distinction
between Muslims. (8)
Dr. Oghli recorded these remarks in his research paper titled "Shiites'
Hadith Books" that was presented in the International Scientific Symposium
about Shiites. He said :"Shiites have their own idea and
understanding about hadith. Unlike the Sunnis, they consider the sayings of the
infallible Imams hadiths. This understanding has a loophole in it and it cannot
be controlled. There are thousands of narrations in Shiite books that have been
ascribed to the Imams and hence considered hadiths. this is despite the
fact that Shiites scholars after Al Kilini have refused such hadiths. In Al
Kilini's book "Al Kafi", a number of narrations are mentioned about
the distortion of the Koran which include outrageous fabrications about the
sahaba. The sahaba have nothing to do with such lies and such narrations have
never actually taken place. This is a fundamental hurdle that prevents the
establishment of unity and reliability between Muslims. We wish for today's
scholars to pay attention to this important issue using the light of intact
reasoning. Although, after the time of Kilini, some scholars came out to
say that the Koran isn't distorted, this did not lessen the significance of Al
Kafi. Using good reasoning, our intention is as such: a serious study must be
done on this book until it is clear that the sayings regarded as hadiths are
not hadiths indeed but are fabricated sayings. A valuable study like this will
be well accepted and appreciated in the Islamic world". (9)
Sheik Mohamad Wa'ithzada Al Kharasani answered him and had a few remarks.
He said : " The concept of Imamate to Imamate Shiites has two parts to it.
The first is political and the second is scientific. The scientific part
involves deriving knowledge from the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt after the death of
the Prophet (pbuh). The first Imam is Ali (pbuh) and the last Imam is Al Mahdi
(pbuh). This second part is more important than the first one and a lot of
narrations have proved its importance. One of these narrations is the one that
says that Ali is the door to the Prophet's knowledge. This narration is
accepted by both Sunni and Shiite theologists. Hadith "Al Thiqlayn"
is at the forefront of these narrations and it is a mustafeed and even a mutawatir
hadith. The Prophet (pbuh) has said in a number of occasions "I leave you
with the thiqlayn, the Book of God and my itra". This narration has been
mentioned a number of times with a difference in pronunciation, some addition
or deletion. This indicates that the itra (family) of the Prophet (pbuh)
is the scientific reference (for Muslims). Therefore, hadith to Imamate
Shiites -and I mean the Imams' hadiths- derives its legitimacy and authority
from the "thiqlayn" hadith and others. To clarify a point, when the
Imamate sect uses the term Imam instead of Caliph, they mean the Imam's job
involves both the political leadership as well as the juristic one". Al
Kharasani then added :"The Imamates accept Sunni hadiths if they fit the
Imamate's hadith criteria. They also accept hadiths narrated by the household
of the Prophet without preferring one member over the other". (10)
Al Kharasani explained why the Shiites accept the hadiths of Ahl Al Bayt. He
said :"The vast majority of jurisprudent and exegesis hadiths were
traced back to Imams Mohamad Al Baqir, Jafar Al Sadiq and the rest of the Imams
after them. That was in the chronicling era. Approximately four hundred
original hadiths were written by clerics who lived in the same era as the
Imams. According to Shiites, the Imams' knowledge is inherited from their
grandfathers and is traced back all the way to the Prophet (pbuh) and thus no
defects can be caused to the hadiths. Since the Imams existed among their
Shiites for two hundred and fifty years, they were able to review the hadiths
written by their companions and were able to guide them and pick out the
correct hadiths from the incorrect. The Imams announced the names of the liars
among the Shiites and declared their innocence from them so that the Shiites would
not transmit hadiths through those fabricators." (11)
Al Kharasani added :" There are a number of hadith books and encyclopedias
among the Shiites but the most reliable ones are the four books (mentioned
earlier). Despite the fact that those four books are favoured to the rest,
Shiites still do not call them "Sahih Books' as the Sunnis do with their
books. This is because there are correct, weak, documented, morbid and strong
hadiths found in the four books. There is a wide scope for distinguishing the
correct from the incorrect hadiths in the four books using common sense. If,
for example, the apparent meaning of the hadith refers to distortion in the
Koran, then this hadith is either interpreted using ta'weel or is rejected.
This is the case with the rest of the hadiths that are found to contradict the
Koran and the established Sunna or just don't make sense. This route is also
followed by Sunni investigators specifically the Mutazala sect when it comes to
hadiths that speak about anthropomorphism and tashbeeh (to liken God to
his creation) and so on." (12)
Criticizing Sunni Hadith Books
After Sheikh Mohamad Wa'ithzada Al Kharasani defended Shiite hadith books and
their raising the Imams' hadiths to the same level as the hadiths of the
Prophet (pbuh), he then started criticizing Sunni hadith books as viewed by
Shiites. He said :" As seen from the events and rifts that took place
after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), the idea that all the companions were
just was not raised nor was it recognized by the companions themselves. It
wasn't known during the Tab'een era but was raised later on and no one knows
exactly when it started. I believe that the idea that the companions are just
was suggested among religious jurists in relatively recent times to meet
two goals:
Goal One : To re conciliate between Muslim sects and
to protect the dignity of the companions who fought against each other. Such
unfortunate events lead to the division among their followers, each group
defending a group of the companions and justifying their actions.
Goal Two: It's probably the more important of the two: Protecting the Sunna of
the Prophet (pbuh) that wasn't complied in a book the way the Holy Koran was
compiled during the era of the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions. The Sunna was
memorized in the hearts of the companions and was passed on from one person to
another. The companions sayings would not be trusted unless they were found to
be just and fair. We believe that Sunnis insisted on the idea that all of
the companions were just and fair for that reason. Frankly, I say that in the
absence of this close link between the fairness of the companions and the
Prophetic Sunna, there is no need for us to speak about the companions and
their actions. That is unless we take a lesson from these events in our
political reality today." (13)
Al Khurasani added :"The problems with Sunni hadiths are not any less than
those of the Shiites, the Sunni hadith problems probably exceed the Shiite
ones. I'll summarize the problems in point form :
1. A lot of the companions who narrated hadiths were not reliable or trusted
especially when they were not all the immediate companions of the Prophet
(pbuh). The hadiths were not written down at the time of the Prophet
(pbuh), they were instead memorized by the companions. This raises another
question : Who is a companion? They did a lot of research about this issue.
2. The prevention of memorizing the hadith and transferring it. This prevention
occurred at the time of the second Caliph and lasted until the end of the
Umayyad era. This caused a large portion of the Sunna to be lost and a lot of
it got mixed up.
3. According to the consensus of all Muslims, the hadith was first written down
in the second century, in a discontinuous manner and in countries far away from
each other. When writing the hadith first took place, it didn't get written
collectively. No committees with hadith experts were involved either where
every expert presents his hadith to the rest and where analogy is used between
hadiths. Some of this took place in a much later time.
4. The prevalence of lying even in the era of the Prophet (pbuh), where a
preacher said : "There has been a lot of lies told about me. Whoever
deliberately lies about me, he should expect a seat in hell fire". The
content of the hadith might differ slightly from one narration to another.
5. The spread of Israeli influence on hadith before the era of recording the
hadith among the Tab'een (the generation after the companions) even among the
lesser companions such as Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira. And then the difficulty in
distinguishing between true hadiths and the Israeli influenced ones that filled
the hadith books, Koranic interpretation and also history. " (14)
As for Dr Oghli's request to review Shiite hadith books, Sheikh Mohamad
Wa'ithzada Al Kharasani said :"Since brother Dr. Oghli thinks that a new
study should be performed on Al Kafi, would he agree to do the same thing with
the Sunni hadiths? If his answer is positive then let's go ahead and create a
council to study Muslim's hadiths without making a distinction between any of
the Islamic sects. Let us weigh the hadiths and place them in a logical scale
or on one that is based on well established evidence agreed upon by all
Muslims. With this we can reach the Islamic unity that brother Al Katib wishes
for as well as all of the reformers in the Islamic world and also the world
council for bringing Islamic sects closer to each other." (15)
In any case, Shiites today do not accept every narration in their hadith books
as Akhbaris used to do in the early times. They no longer accept, theoretically
anyway, single hadiths to be the basis of their ideologies. They base their
fundamental beliefs on mutawatir hadiths. They, however, accept single hadiths
when it comes to subordinate issues. Al Sharif Al Murtada refuses single
hadiths and says that provisions of legitimacy cannot be built on such hadiths
since they cannot be used as a hujja. Sheikh Al Toosi and a number of scholars
today, however, accept single hadiths if they meet certain standards. They also
accept hadiths narrated by a non Imamate Shiite and follow them provided that
the narrator is known for his piety and honesty in narrating hadiths. (16)
Shiite Science of Men (Elm Al Rijal)
Shiites have opened the door to ijtihad or juristic deduction in the fifth
century. With it they also have opened the door to criticizing hadiths and the
men who convey hadiths. Shiites wrote a number of books regarding this issue.
The most important of which is "Knowing the Men" for Mohamad Omar Al
Kashi, it's also known as "Choosing the Knowing Men". Also
"The Men" written by Ahmad Bin Ali Al Najashi, the two books
"The Men and the Index" for Sheikh Al Toosi and the book written by
Ibn Al Ghada'iri. These books are known as "The Four Books of Men".
New great works took place in the following centuries. Examples are
"Scholars' Milestones" for Ibn Shahr Ashoob (d. 588 H), "The
Men" for Ibn Dawood Al Haliy (d. after 707 H) and "The Men" for
the scholar Al Hulai (d. 726 H).
As the Shiite Science of Men evolved, in the eighth century Allama Al Hulai
went on to divide hadiths into four categories : sahih (correct), hasan (good),
muwathak (documented) and da'eef (weak). A sahih hadith meant one that is
linked to the infallible Imam conveyed by all just Imamates. A hasan hadith is
one that is linked to a praised Imamate who is trusted without the necessity
of having a text on his just character. A
muwathak hadith is one that religious scholars documented the
integrity of its narrators who are not Imamates or ones with a corrupt creed
(meaning trusted narrators who are not Twelvers). A weak hadith is of
course one that lacks all three qualities that are previously mentioned.
Based on this classification of hadiths, late interpreters of "Al
Kafi" considered most of its hadiths as non sahih. They counted 9485 of
its hadiths as weak, 144 hadiths as hasan, 1128 hadiths as muwathak and 5027
hadiths as sahih or only two thousand hadiths as sahih.
It's been said that Allama Al Hulai denies the presence of shahih hadiths that
are traced back to the infallible Imam through just Imamates. In any case,
Allama Al Hulai wrote a new book where he compiled in it the sahih and hasan
hadiths from all four books. He gave his book the title "Pearls and
Corals".
Recently, Sheikh Mohamad Baqir Al Bahboodi selected almost one third of the
hadiths from "Al Kafi" and compiled it in his book "The Best of
Al Kafi".
Despite the advancement of the Science of Men and Hadith for Shiites and
despite the Shiites disposal of the superstitions, legends and the exotic
theories such as distortion of the Koran, despite all that, there are still a
number of hadiths that need to be looked over carefully. Criticism of
such hadiths has been confined to a narrow girdle and thus it didn't succeed in
re shaping the Shiite thought. The most prominent of which are the issues
of the Godly given Imamate to the Ahl Al Bayt, their infallibility, their
appointment through written text and the issue of the absent and awaited
twelveth Imam. All of these topics need further criticism and scrutiny since
they are the basis of the Twelver Imamate sect and such issues are the reasons
for their disagreement with the rest of Muslims. For the restoration of Muslim
unity, it is very important to investigate and ascertain whether the Imams of
Ahl Al Bayt are indeed an additional legitimate and exclusive source for the
Sunna and a continuation to it. This means that no other jurist can make a
religious ruling against their rulings. Or were they no more than trusted
narrators who transmitted prophetic hadiths as some narrations that were
narrated by Ahl Al Bayt confirm? Or were they mujtahideen (scholars who use
juristic deduction to make rulings) who had their own non-binding opinions?
To perform such a radical process of criticism would reduce the understanding
of the concept of "Sunna" according to Shiites. It would confine it
to frequent (mutawatir) narrations about the Prophet (pbuh) and would abolish
the belief that the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt are an extension to prophecy. It would
also relinquish the consideration that the Imams' hadiths are at the same level
as the Prophet's hadiths which cannot be argued or debated. It would lower
their ranks to the ranks of the Imams of the rest of the Islamic sects.
I was able to criticize a group of narrations (about a hundred narration) that
revolved around Twelverism and divine Imamate. I did so using history and the
Science of Shiite Men. I found all such narrations either weak or
fabricated, not one single narrations is sahih. This pushed me to accept the
Jafari fiqh (one that is ascribed to Imam Jafar Al Sadiq (pbuh)) and reject the
Twelve Imamate theory which includes the theory of the twelveth Imam
"Mohamad Bin Al Hasan Al Askari". I have not found a single evidence
regarding his birth, his existence and his continued existence until this day
since the third Hijra century.
Study # 3: Consensus
It is well known that consensus to Sunnis is considered a source of legislation
besides the Holy Koran and the pure Prophetic Sunna. Although they differ on
the understanding of consensus whether it is the consensus of Muslims,
companions or jurists in one era. This is based on the hadith that says :"
My Umma will never agree together on an error". On the contrary, consensus
is not considered a source of legislation to Shiites especially the Imamate
Shiites. This is because they refused the idea of "consensus" when
the companions all consented to choosing Abu Bakr as a Caliph after the death
of the Prophet (pbuh). They instead claimed a divine text that selected Imam
Ali to be the next successor to the Prophet (pbuh). Later on, they accepted the
word "consensus" based on the Kindness Theory that was brought up
forward by Al Sayyid Al Murtada in the fifth Hijra century. It meant that it is
a necessity for the absent Imam Al Madhi to sabotage
the consensus of the Shiites in any matter that is contrary to the truth or in
conflict with the Imam's opinion. I have said that the Shiites accepted the
word "consensus" because they didn't actually accept it in the real
sense. To them, consensus meant the opinion of the Imam more than it was
considered in itself a source of legislation or to be a hujja. Although a lot
of Shiite scholars used consensus to prove some saying and opinions that are
differed upon, they did so relying on the rules and fundamentals present
between their hands. They did not find a historical proof to validate
"consensus" based on the Kindness Theory. Hence, consensus to Shiites
is nothing more a backup to other proofs.
Shiites followed up consensus with "Biography of Muslims" or
"Biography of the Legislator". However, they didn't consider them a
hujja or an independent evidence unless revealed by the sayings of the
infallible Imam who is the hujja to them.
Apart from the Shiites position on consensus, I think that reconsideration of
the authenticity of consensus by Sunnis does not only provide a precise and
restricted limit for legislation sources and limiting it to the Koran and the Sunna.
It also allows an entrance for the reinforcement of Islamic unity between
Sunnis and Shiites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Nahj Al Balagha, sentence 2, pages 188-189, Springs' Affection , sentence 3,
pages 409-410
2. The International Scientific Symposium about Shiites, pages 291-292
3. Ibid, pages 291-292
4. Ibid, page 292
5. Ibid, page 293
6. From this point, the Akhbari sect originated in the fourth Hijra
century. It was denied diligence and limited to the narrations of Ahl Al
Bayt since they were considered an ongoing divine source that deals with
existing events and gives religious opinion regarding such issues. However, the
absence of the Imams and the twelveth Imams's disappearance in whom Twelver
Shiites believed in his birth and occult in the middle of the third century and
since they were unable to reach him, all of that pushed them to open the door
to ijtihad. They opened the door to juristic deduction and analogy that was
frowned upon earlier.
7. Al Kafi, Book 1, page 68 from the book "The Advantages of
Knowledge". Al Tahtheeb 301:6, 845 for Sheikh Al Toosi, "What's not
attended by the Jurist" 5:3, 2 for Al Sudooq, "Al Ihtijaj"
page 355 for Al Tabarsi.
8. Dr. Al Sayyid Musa Al Musawi says :"Such narrations are fabricated and
ascribed to the Imam since in the Imam era there was no public and special
eras. Also such terminology was not known as there was no such as as the public
terminology as opposed to the special one. All Muslims at that time were one
Umma united upon the Koran and the Sunna. These terminologies are more recent,
they go back to the fourth Hijra century and that is the same era when such
fabricated narrations which were ascribed to Imam Al Sadik. It is important to
point out that the Abbassid Caliphs at the time of Imam Al Sadik and who also
lived around the same time as the eleven Imams (until the time of Imam Al
Askari), they did not belong to any of the four schools of thought. Thus, Imam
Al Sadik and the Imams after him did not have a need to practice al taqiyah or
to order people to practice it. On the contrary, the originators of the four
schools of thought were oppressed during the Abbassid era that existed at the
same time as the existence of the Shiite Imams". The International
Scientific Symposium about Shiites, page 740.
9. Ibid, page 295
10. Ibid, pages 298-299
11. Ibid, pages 301- 302
12. Ibid, pages 302-303
13. Ibid, page 300
14. Ibid, pages 301-302
15. Ibid, page 305
16. Dr. Khayr Al Deen Qarman, "The fundamentals of Jurisprudence and
Religious Evidence to Shiites", The International Scientific
Symposium about Shiites, page 363.
Study # 4: Rational Evidence
What's meant by rational evidence is the essential and practical reasoning such
as the fundamentals of bara'a( allowing the maximum possible freedom of
action), istis-hab (presumes continuation of a fact until the contrary is
proved), taking precaution, and to making a choice. These fundamentals are
shared by both Sunnis and Shiites and are practiced in the absence of Koranic
and Sunna provisions. This covers a large range of modern political, economical
and social areas.
Opening the door to ijtihad by Shiites got them closer in this area to Sunnis.
This made some traditional Akhbaris accuse those Shiites of becoming Sunnis.
This was confirmed by Dr. Khayr El Deen Qaraman in the International Scientific
Symposium about Shiites which took place in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Ibid, page 365
Part Two: Difference in History and Politics
Chapter # 1: History
Study #1 : Attitude towards the Companions
The issue of Muslim's position on the
companions' integrity, whether exaggerating or neglecting their rectitude, has
become a controversial matter between Shiites and Sunnis over the years. This
problem is much deeper than the conflict between the two sects. This issue is a
methodological one that stands alone and goes back to the values, morals and
ideals that are mentioned in the Holy Koran. It deals with such values'
compatibility with the lives of the companions, it is then a matter of a theory
and its application in real life. Muslims from both sects have dealt and still
deal with this matter away from the sectarian conflict and relying on a neutral
reading of history. Although it is a normal historical matter, it has become at
times a doctrine that separated between people to make one person a Muslim and
consider another outside of the folds of Islam worthy of Hell fire. Meanwhile
this issue was not of importance to the companions themselves or during their
era. It was not a part of the Islamic faith.
The companions of the messenger of God, Mohamad (pbuhpc) played the role of the
mediators who carried the Islamic message and the great prophet's tradition to
the next generations. They were the role models for the Islamic Umma that was
inspired by their many ethical features and their rich experiences. This is
because they were an ideal first generation that witnessed the Islamic message
and contributed to the foundation of the Islamic Umma. As a result of the
magnitude of their struggle, God th Almighty praised them in His Holy Book in
more than one occasion. He says :"Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for
mankind. Enjoying what is right, forbidding what is wrong and believing in
Allah" Al Omran : 110. He also said :"The vanguard (of Islam). The
first of those who forsook (their homes) and of those who gave them air. and
(also) those who follow them in (all) good deeds. Well pleased is Allah with
them as they with Him. Gor them hath He prepared gardens under which rivers
flow. to dwell therein frever. That is the supreme triumph." Al Tawba :
100. Also :"Allah's good pleasure was on the believers when they swore
fealty to thee under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts and He sent
down tranquility to them and He rewarded them with a speedy victory" Al
Fath:18. In the same Koranic chapter, verse twenty nine, God the Almighty
says :"Mohamad is the messenger of Allah and those who are with him are
strong against unbelievers (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt
see thm bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer) seeking grace from Allah and
(His) good pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of
their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat and their similitude
in the Gospel is like a seed which sends forth its blade then makes it strong,
it then becomes thick and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with
wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the unbelievers with rage at them.
Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds
forgiveness and a great reward." Al Fath : 29.
Unfortunately, because of the big fitnah (turmoil) that took place at their
time, the integrity of the great companions became controversial, questioned,
exaggerated and defamed. Throughout history, some people brutally attacked them
while others used extreme measures to defend them. This made the act of
speaking about the companions and whether agreeing or disagreeing with their
actions, it made this subject a fundamental one that is equivalent to the pillars
of Islam. It also payed a role in the division of society and in the formation
of sectarian cultural and religious identities. Hence, it is very important to
frankly study the subject of where Shiites and Sunnis stand in regards to the
great companions. It should be studied in details to serve as a prelude to get
rid of the burden of this nightmare and to dispose the residues of the past.
This should especially be done now since the Sunni/Shiite conflict itself is a
historical one that has no meaning anymore.
The controversy about the companions was a bitter fruit of the fruits of schism
that struck the companions' generation itself. The companions tried to overcome
this schism (big fitnah) and make peace amongst themselves. However, the
aftermath of the turmoil continued and continued some more until today. We ask
God the Almighty to grant Muslims the wisdom to pick up the remains of the
aftermath of that schism, to dispose it and to heal the rift between them.
To fully understand the problem of having an attitude towards the companions,
we should carefully study its historical development and its exaggerated growth
to become a doctrine. Who did this? And why?
The great companions were not infallible angels nor were they, God forbids,
evil. They were people who believed in God and his messenger and defended Islam
and for that they bore a lot of suffering. At the same time they were normal
humans with their own interests and desires, also they had their own struggles
and mistakes. Amongst them, there were the true believers and the hypocrites.
Perhaps the true believers amongst them also ranged in degrees of faith and
good ethics which only God knows. Their high places have been reinforced
because of their faith, the sacrifices they have endured, their good deeds and
their avoidance of committing sin. Although this Koranic fact is very clear,
some people believed and still believe that the companions deserved this high
place because they saw and befriended the great prophet, even for an hour.
Therefore no matter how much sin they commit after that, they are forgiven for
certain. Accordingly, they prohibited directing any criticism to the companions
or taking a negative stand against anyone of them. They considered such an act
as kufr (non belief), zandaqa (a person who professes to be a Muslim and
conceals his kufr) and ilhad (atheism).
If insulting a person who differs with us in the opinion is unacceptable then
it is only natural that insulting and cursing any great companion, whoever he
was, is strongly unacceptable. However, this does not prevent us from reading
history with honesty and from analyzing the events that took place among the
companions and learning from them. Also it should not stop us from applauding
their remarkable achievements and heroism and from avoiding the mistakes that
some of them made. We are instructed to follow the Islamic religion, to do good
deeds and to follow in the footsteps of our great prophet (pbuhp).
The problem arises from the extremists on both sides, the Sunnis and the
Shiites. Some attack the best of the companions and others defend even the bad
ones, that is if they admit the existence of bad companions or hypocrites among
them. If both sides agree on a common denominator that distinguishes the bad
from the good, there would be no need to address this issue. Also there would
be no excitement or tension around this subject.
In order to understand this issue, we will first
review the Sunni theory about the companions then review the Shiite one. Then
we will show the common points and the differing points or the points of
moderation and extremism on both sides. This is in hopes of arriving at a
common and moderate view of the companions that unites Muslims and removes
their differences and grudges they might have towards each other.
1) The Early Islamic Theory
In order to understand the Islamic measure for greatness and merit, in regards
to the companions and others, we should return to the Holy Koran. We see that
the Holy Koran links a high rank of any human with his/her good deeds even if
that person was a very close relative of the great prophet or even if that
person was the prophet himself. God the Almighty says :"But it has already
been revealed to thee, as it was to those before thee, if thou wert to join (gods
with Allah), truly fruitless well be they work (in life). And thou wilt surely
be among the losers" Al Zumar : 65. Also :"And had We not given thee
strength thou wouldst nearly have inclined to them a little. In that case We
should have thee taste double portion (of punishment) in this life and an equal
portion in death. And moreover thou wouldst have found none to help thee
against Us!" Al Isra' ; 74-75. God the Almighty also speaks about
his great prophet saying :"And if the messenger were to invent any sayings
in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand. And We should
certainly then cut off the artery of his heart. Nor could any of you withhold
him (from Our wrath)"Al Haka : 44-47. He also instructs his prophet
:"Say I would if I disobeyed my Lord indeed have fear of the chastisement
of a mighty day". This verse appeared twice, once in Al An'am chapter
verse # 15 and nother time in Al Zumar verse #13. The great prophet confirms
this understanding of the holy verses as he says :"One's soul is only
saved with a (good) deed and God's mercy. If I disobey (God) I would
sink".
Therefore, the value of any human including the prophets on the Islamic scale
is derived from their faith in God and their good deeds. It is not granted for
being friends with or relatives of the prophets or pharaohs. God the Almighty
says :"Allah sets forth , for an example to the unbelievers, the wife of
Noah and the wife of Lut. They were (respectively) under two of Our righteous
servants but they betrayed their (husbands). And they profited nothing before
Allah on their account. but they were told "Enter ye the fire along with
(others) that enter". And Allah sets forth, as an example for those who
believe, the wife of Pharaoh. Behold she said "O my Lord, build for me, in
nearness to Thee a mansion in the Garden. And save me from Pharaoh and his
doings and save me from those that do wrong"" Al Tahreem : 10-11
Based on this, God the Glorious speaks to the prophet's wives since they are
the closest to him. He says ;"O consorts of the prophet, if any of you
were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the punishment would be doubled to her
and that is easy for Allah. But any of you that is devout in the service of
Allah and His messenger and works righteousness, to her shall We grant her
reward twice. And We have prepared for her a generous sustenance" Al Ahzab
30-31
Hence Ahl Al Bayt's rank, especially the prophet's wives, is not derived from
their proximity to him. It is, instead, earned through God's obedience and
performing good deeds. On the contrary, Ahl Al Bayt's disobedience to God the
Almighty doubles their punishment because of their closeness to the prophet
(pbuh) and thus have no excuse. Likewise, the companions' ranks come from their
good deeds and their obedience to God and we can also say that their
disobedience doubles their punishment. They are not immune from error and they
do not possess a sacred halo around them that prevents them from making
mistakes and facing punishment. This shows that some hadiths, their
interpretations and some ijtihads that are found with the Sunnis (regarding
this issue) are weak and contradict the Holy Koran. They also generalize the
holy verses without noticing the other more specific ones.
The Measure of Good Deeds
God the Almighty assures the reward for those who have done good deeds,
believed in Him and in Judgment Day. This is shown in more than fifty verses in
the Holy Koran such as :
1) "Those who believe and do deeds of righteousness and establish regular
prayers and give zakat, will have their reward with their Lord. On them shall
be no fear, nor shall they grieve." Al Bakara : 277
2) "But to those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, He will give
their (due) rewards and more out of His bounty. But those who are disdainful
and arrogant. He will punish with grievous chastisement, nor will they find
besides Allah any protect to help them." Al Nisa' : 173
3) "Allah has promised to those among you who believe and work righteous
deeds that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land inheritance (or power)
ad He granted it tothose before them. That He will establish in authority their
religion the one which He has chosen for them. And that he will change (their
state) afte the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace. They
will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me. If any do reject faith
after this, they are rebellious and wicked." Al Noor : 55
These are general and absolute verses which include the companions and others.
How would God cancel this important measure for the companions generation for
the simple reason that they saw the prophet and listened to him without having
to abide by Islamic rules or respect its teachings? On the contrary, there are
verses that indicate the impossibility of making the believers who are good
doers equal to the corrupt, licentious and wrong doers. This is seen in the
following verses :
4) "Shall We treat those who believe and wrk deeds of righteousness, the
same as those who do mischief on earth? Shall We treat those who guard against
evil, the same as those who turn aside from the right?" Sad : 28
5) "Not equal are the blind and those who (clearly) see. Nor are (equal)
those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and those who do evil.
Little do ye learn by admonition!" Ghafir : 58
6) "If a man kills a believer intentionally, his
recompense is Hell to abide therein (for ever) and the wrath and the curse of
Allah are upon him. And a dreadful chastisement is prepared for him." Al
Nisa' : 93
In this last verse, God the Almighty confirms the punishment of the murderer
who kills intentionally and affirms that his place is in Hell fire forever.
Also God asserts his anger and wrath on such a person and He made no exception
for the companions since God's commandments are to be abode by all. If the
companions are honoured , it is the honour of their faith, obedience,
sacrifice, piety and defending Islam.
This leads us to the topics of faith and the faithful and also hypocrisy and
the hypocrites in the companion generation. Is it logical that whoever saw the
prophet believed (in Islam) in a magical way? Did everyone who publicly
believed in the prophet truly believed in him? And did everyone who truly
believed in him stay faithful until the last day of his life? And those who
stayed faithful, did the level of their faith stay at its highest until the
last day of their lives?
The prophet (pbuhp) said ;"whoever immigrates for (the cause of) God and
his messenger then his immigration is for God and his messenger. And whoever
immigrates for a woman or for an earthly cause then his immigration is for
that.". He also said :"Two harmful wolves entering a sheep ranch is
not more damaging than the damage done on a Muslim man's religion for loving
money and power."
There's a martyr known as a donkey's martyr or Um Amr's martyr. This means the
companions (could) face a worldly test particularly leadership which takes away
their piety, sincerity and good deeds. It could also lead them to hypocrisy and
apostasy.
Some of the prophet's (pbuh) companions who were
concerned about the notion of hypocrisy such as Huthayfa Bin Al Yaman (ra)
noticed the increase of hypocrisy after the death of the prophet. They became
more involved in worldly pleasures. Huthayfa says :"Hypocrites today are
worse than them at the time of the prophet (pbuh). Back then they used to hide
their hypocrisy, today they publicize it". He also says :"At the time
of the prophet (pbuh), it was called hypocrisy. Today it's known as blasphemy
after faith". Then he speaks to Muslims saying :"Oh Arabs! Today you
get involved in matters which were considered pure hypocrisy at the time of the
prophet (pbuh)." (103)
Thus, God the Almighty warns the companions from
falling into sedition, coup and apostasy. Then He threatens the deviated ones
with punishment and loss in the Hereafter. The Almighty says :"Allah will
not leave the believers in the state in which ye are now until He separates
what is evil and from what is good. Nor will Allah disclose to you the secrets
of the unseen. But He chooses from His messengers whom He pleases. So believe
in Allah and His messengers and if ye believe and do right, ye have a great
reward without measure." Al Omran :179. Then He speaks to the first
generation of Muslims after Badr battle saying :"O ye who believe! Give
your response to Allah and His messenger, when He calleth you to that which
will give you life. And know that Allah cometh in between a man and his heart,
and that it is He to whom ye shall (all) be gathered. " Al Anfal : 24
(104). God the Glorious also warns the companions : "Muhammad is no more
than a messenger, many were the messengers that passed away before him. If he
died or were slain, will ye then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back
on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah but Allah (on the other
hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with with gratitude." Al
Omran : 144. Again :"Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves
and fall into disputations after receiving clear signs. For them is a dreadful
chastisement. On the day when some faces will be (lit up with) white, and some
faces will be (in the gloom of ) black. To those whose faces will be black
(will be said) : Did ye reject faith after accepting it? Taste then the chastisement
for rejecting faith. But those whose faces will be (lit with) white, they will
be in (the light of) Allah's mercy, therein to dwell (forever)." Al Omran
: 105-107 .
We can see that this relative understanding of the superiority of the companions
is restricted with good deeds as in this verse :"O ye who believe! Obey
Allah and obey the messenger and make not vain your deeds." Mohamad : 33.
Also :"...Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from
your faith if they can. And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in
unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter.
They will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein." Al Bakara :
217. The day of Akaba, the prophet (pbuh) warned Muslims from disunity,
internal fighting and infidelity. He said :" O people! Your blood and
money are sanctified until you meet up with God just like the sanctity of this
day, this month and this place. Have I delivered the message? We said : Yes!.
Then he said : God be my witness! Then he continued : Do not turn back to
infidelity after me and kill each other." (105)
Bukhari has mentioned a number of narrations about the great prophet (pbuh) in
the book "Al Fitan", chapter : verse :"And fear the trial which
affecteth not in particular (only) those of you who do wrong" :
Hadith # 7048:
It was narrated to us by Ali Bin Abdullah, narrated to
him by Bashr Bin Al Sari, narrated by Nafi' Bin Omar narrated by Abi Malika who
said : Asma said that the prophet said : I am at my basin waiting for people to
come up to me. Some people are taken away from me so I call out : My Umma! Then
I'm told : You don't know! They walked backwards (after you)".
Hadith # 7049:
It was narrated to us by Musa Bin Ismail, narrated by Abu Awana that was
narrated by Maghira that was narrated by Abu Wael, he said: Abdullah said that
the prophet (pbuh) said :" I am at the basin before you and some men from
you are raised up to me. When I get down to give them (water), they get pulled
away. So I say : O God! My companions! He answers me : You don't know what they
did after you". In other hadiths ( # 7050 and 7051) :" Some folks,
whom I know and they know me, will come to me then we will get separated.
I say : They're from (my Umma) and then I'm told : You don't know what they
changed after you. So I say : Crushed, crushed are those who changed after
me".
Consequently, God the Glorious did not give the companions a blank cheque and
didn't promise them
Based on this measure, the companions themselves used to glorify each other and
appreciate each other's jihad and obedience. They also used to criticize those
among themselves, who they thought, had committed a sin even if they were Badr
or Ahad companions or even ones from the first Muhajirun and Ansar generation.
In Al Bukhari there's a hadith that says : "The prophet (pbuhp) said : Who
excuses me for a man who hurt my family? Then Sa'ad Bin Ma'ath stood up and
said : O messenger of God! By God, I excuse you. If he was from the Aous
(tribe) we shall cut off his neck and if he was a brother from Al Khazraj we
shall do to him what you command us. Then Sa'ad Bin Obada, the master of
Khazraj who was a good man but with bad temper stood up and said : You have
lied indeed! You won't kill him and you cannot kill him! Then Aseed Bin Hadeer
stood up and said : You have lied indeed! By God we shall kill him. You are a
hypocrite who argues in favour of hypocrites! The two tribes, Al Aous and Al
Khazraj, revolted and got up to fight each other while the messenger of God
(pbuhp) was at the podium and as he came down, they went silent and so did
he." (106)
In the above hadith we find that a companion is hurting the prophet! Also
another companion accuses a third companion,who is from Badr and in the
presence of the great prophet, that he is a hypocrite. This is because
the concept of unconditional and absolute perfection of the companions was not
known to them. Their view of each other was conditional which means they could
have a high view of each other when doing good and a low view of each other when
doing something bad. This explains the disagreement that the companions (ra)
had the day of Sakifa and Omar's anger towards Sa'ad Bin Obada, who refused to
give allegiance to Abu Bakr and said :"My God kill him!". (107)
Also Omar's saying to Khalid Bin Al Walid, after the latter killed Malik Bin
Nawira and copulated with his wife, he said : "O you enemy of God!".
Looking at the details of Shura that Omar entrusted to the best six companions
and his confirmation on electing one of them within three days and killing them
if they didn't, we see that Omar didn't think that the companions couldn't err.
His view of the companions was conditional and no one was above making a
mistake or deserving a punishment or even getting killed.
The Great Schism
If we go back to reading about the history of the Great Schism, we will find a
number of different positions taken by the companions and the Tab'een. This
shows that their concept of the greatness of a companion was conditional and
not absolute. We will also find that they believed in the possibility of the
absence of a high level of faith and the existence of hypocrisy, apostasy and
disbelief among some of the companions. The purpose of opening this old file is
not to re-open past wounds but to learn a lesson from it. Also to confirm the
conditional and relative understanding of the greatness of the companions so we
do not sanctify them all or believe in their absolute equity or infallibility.
(108)
Historians recall that Muslims started to criticize Uthman's political policy
in the last six years of his term for things that they held against him, which
we do not wish to speak about it now. A few of the most prominent critics of
Uthman were Abu Thar, Ammar Bin Yasser and Abdullah Bin Mas'ood. Their
punishment was torture and exile to the point that they were accusing Uthman of
hypocrisy, infidelity and changing the religion. (109) It was narrated that Al
Zubair was urging people to kill Uthman and saying :"Kill him, as he has
changed your religion!".(110) Also as was narrated that Lady Aisha said
:"Kill Na'athala (Uthman). He has turned into a disbeliever!" (111)
Al Baqalani said :"It was narrated that he (ie
Ammar) used to say : Uthman is an infidel! He also used to say after Uthman was
killed : When we killed him, he was a disbeliever...." (112)
On the other hand, some of Uthman's supporters such as Abu Al Ghadiah was
desperately longing to killing Ammar. He was able to kill him during Siffin
battle despite the prophet's saying :"Alas! Ammar will be killed by a rebellious
group!". Hence, Kulthum says :"I have never seen a man who has gone
more astray than this man! He has heard the prophet (pbuh) say what he said and
he still killed Ammar"....He also told Amr Bin Al As : "I heard the
prophet (pbuh) say: His killer is going to Hell". (113) This narration
promises Hell fire to the person who kills Ammar even if the killer was a
companion! How can we, after this, say that all companions are equitable? And
that they will all go to Heaven?
When Uthman violated the conditions under which he got Abdul Rahman Bin Aouf's
allegiance, which was for Uthman not to give his relatives authority over
people in consistency with the two shiekhs' traditions, Abdul Rahman said
to imam Ali :" If you wish, take your sword and I will take mine, he
has violated our agreement!" He swore never to speak to Uthman for the
rest of his life. (114) Uthman visited Bin Aouf during his illness but the
latter didn't speak to Uthman and died while still on non speaking terms with
him. He also asked that Uthman does not perform janaza prayers on him. (115) In
return, Uthman used to accuse Abdul Rahman of being a hypocrite. It was
narrated that Abdul Rahman said :"I have not expected to live to see the
day when Uthman calls out to me : O you hypocrite!". (116)
Perhaps the following statement, issued by the companions against Uthman in Al
Madina to their brothers everywhere, is the most difficult :"You have come
out to struggle for God's cause asking for Mohamad's religion! Mohamad's
religion has indeed been corrupted and abandoned. Get up and give rise to
Mohamad's religion!". Then they came from everywhere and killed him. (117)
Despite all the interpretations offered to explain the
conflict between the first Muhajiroon generation and their followers in the
Camel battle and blaming a third hypocrite group for the conflict, that
grinding war resulted in the killing of thousands of Muslims. It, therefore,
shows that the companions view of each other was relative and that the notion
of absolute equity or infallibility (of the companions) was non existent. It
originated centuries later by a group pf Sunnis.
The picture is more clear in Siffin. Imam Ali used to curse Muawiyah and a
group of his companions in his prayers. He used to say :"O God! Curse
Muawiyah, Amr, Abu Al A'war Al Salmi, Habib, Abdul Rahman Bin Khalid, Al Dahak
Bin Qays and Al Walid!". Likewise, Muawiyah used to curse Ali, Al Hassan,
Al Hussein, Ibn Abbas and Malik Al Ashtar. (118) Muawiyah continued to curse
imam Ali after his truce with Al Hassan. He ordered his governors to curse the
imam on the podiums. This, in turn, aroused a reaction by some of the imam's
companions such as the great companion Hajar Bin Odai. He protested against Al
Maghira Bin Shu'ba in Kufa for cursing the imam. As a result, Al Maghira
imprisoned Bin Odai and sent him with a group of his friends to Muawiyah who,
in turn, ordered them killed in Marj Athra' in Syria. A man from Al Marwan who
was appointed the governor of Al Madina called on Sahl Bin Sa'ad and ordered him
to curse Ali, Sahl refused. Then he said to Sahl :"If you refuse, then say
: May God curse Abu Trab". Cursing imam Ali on the Umayyad podiums
continued for about sixty years until Omar Bin Abdul Aziz's term. Then he
issued an order to stop the cursing. (119)
History recalls more sayings and positions, of a
similar nature, taken by Tab'een and the next generation. Some of these people
are well respected by the Sunni imams (120). Also some of these Tab'een were
the early Abbassid caliphs who used to criticize a number of companions. This
shows that there was no consensus, in the early times, on the sanctity of the
companions or the belief of their equity. This was before the concept of
absolute equity was developed by some theologians in the second Hijra century
and before the emergence of the Sunni Theory about the Absolute Equity of the
Companions. (121)
It was narrated that Al Hassan Al Basari said :" There were four qualities
in Muawiyah and if there were only one of them in him it would have been enough
for him to be doomed : Giving power to the foolish as to forcefully rule the
Umma without consulting any of the companions with good virtues. Passing on his
the caliphate to his son who was an alcoholic,who used to wear silk and play
tambourine. His claiming Zaid (as his brother) although the prophet (pbuh) had
said :"The offspring belongs to the owner of the bed (the legal husband),
and the fornicator is to be stoned". And his killing Hajar. Woe to
him, woe to him!". (122)
Regarding Muawiyah, not many companions and Tab'een considered him a faithful
companion or a fair caliph. When he passed away, the Shiites of imam Ali in Al
Kufa had a meeting and send imam Hussein a letter asking him to come to them.
It says the following :"To Al Hussein Bin Ali, from Suliman Bin Sard, Al
Maseeb Bin Najyah, Rufa'a Bin Shaddad Al Bajli, Habib Bin Mathaher and the rest
of his faithful Shiites and Muslims from Al Kufa: Salam upon you, Glory to God
and there's no God but He....furthermore : Thank God for breaking your forceful
and stubborn enemy who forcefully ruled over this Umma and took its Fay money
(money returned to Muslims). Then he killed the best of its men and blessed its
vicious ones. He also made a state out of people's money and placed it under
the control of the rich and the mischievous. He has drifted away just as
Thamoud did. He is not our imam! So come, hopefully something good will come
out of our union". (123)
There are also Sunni hadiths which confirm that some companions will end up in
Hell fire. This is in contradiction with the Theory of the Equity of all of the
Companions which originated in the second or third Hijra century.
It was narrated by Yacoub Bin Sufian narrated by Obeid Allah Bin Ma'th narrated
by his father narrated by Shu'ba narrated by Abu Salma narrated by Abu Nadra
narrated by Abu Huraira that the prophet (pbuh) said to ten of his companions
:"Last one to die from you is in Hell". Among them was Samra
Bin Jandab, Abu Nadra said that Abu Samra was the last one to die. Al Bayhaqi
said :"The narrators of this hadith are well trusted except that there was
no proof that Abu Nadra Al Abdi heard this hadith from Abu Huraira and God
knows best". Then it was narrated by Ismail Bin Hakim narrated by
Younus Bin Obeid narrated by Al Hassan narrated by Anas Bin Hakim who said
:"I was passing through Al Madina when I saw Abu Huraira. The first thing
he asked me was about Samra and when I told him he's in good health he was
happy about it. Then he said : We were ten in one house. Then the prophet (pbuh)
stood up and looked at our faces, held the door knob and said : The last one of
you to die is in Hell. Eight of us have passed away already and only
Samra and I are still alive. The dearest wish that I hold in my heart is the
wish of death". There's another witness (to this hadith) in the following
narration: It was narrated by Yacoub Ibn Sufian narrated by Hajjaj Bin Minhal
narrated by Hammad Bin Salma narrated by Ali Bin Zaid narrated by Aous Bin
Khalid who said :"Whenever I came to Abu Mahthora he would asked me about
Samra and whenever I came to Abu Samra he would ask me about Abu Mahthora. Then
I asked Abu Mahthora : Why is that when I come to you you ask me about Samra
and when I go to Samra he asks me about you? Then he said : Abu Huraira, Samra
and I were in a house when the prophet (pbuh) came and said : The last one to
die of you is in Hell. Then he said : Abu Huraira passed away then Abu Mahthora
and then Samra. (124)
The Umayyad Propaganda
Consensus on the equity of all companions was not heard of during the early
times of Islam. On the contrary, a relative conditional view of the companions
was in existent and their ranks were determined by their good deeds in
consistency with the Holy Koran and mutawatir trusted hadiths. All this makes
us question some of the single hadiths that refer to the equity of all of the
companions and forbid cursing them. Anyone who saw the prophet even for
an hour or heard at least one word from him, is given a special status of
dignity according to such hadiths. (125) Such hadiths, that formed the backbone
of the extremist Sunni view of the companions, could have been a fabrication by
the Umayyads especially during Muawiyah's ruling days. Muawiyah "the
free" who fought imam Ali, Muhajirun and Ansar and wrested power from him.
Then he tried to introduce himself in the ranks of the "companions"
in order to impose himself as a caliph and do as he pleases.
It seems that the intention of the narrations that forbid insulting the
companions was more to prevent criticizing Muawiyah than it was to forbid
insulting the best of companions. Such narrations do not mention how Muwaiyah
and the Umayyads used to insult imam Ali, his progeny and his Shiites. (126)
Muttazala Criticize the Companions
Ibn Abi Al Hadid narrates in "Interpretation of Nahjul Balagha" that
some Muttazala Zaidis say:"We saw the companions themselves criticizing
each other and even cursing each other. If the companions' status was above
being criticized or cursed, they would have known this since they know more
about themselves than the present ordinary people know about them. Talha, Al
Zubair and Aisha and their followers saw no sin in criticizing Ali. Muawiyah
and Amr Bin Al As didn't hesitate to hit him (imam Ali) and his companions with
their swords. Also it was narrated that Omar defamed Abu Huraira's narration,
insulted Khalid Bin Al Walid and ruled him out to be wicked. He also considered
Amr Bin Al As and Muawiyah traitors who stole people's Fay money and caused it
to stop from getting returned. Very few of the companions didn't get criticized
by him. History recalls many of similar incidents. The Tab'een viewed the
companions the same way and spoke against the deviated ones among them. People
after that took them as gods. In fact, the companions are a group of people
with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. We condemn the
wrong doers among them and show our gratitude to the good doers. They only had
the advantage of seeing the prophet and living at the same time as him. Perhaps
their sins are even greater than other people's sins since they have witnessed
the revelations and miracles, and therefore, our sins are lighter since we
didn't witness such things."
The companions themselves didn't consider those who considered them infidels as
infidels. Imam Ali (pbuh) announces his position on Al Khawarij, who considered
him out of the folds of Islam and used to ask him to repent making truce with
Muawiyah, he says :"We have three obligations towards them : That we don't
prevent them from praying in the mosques, that we don't stop giving them Fay
money and that we don't start a fight with them." He might have felt it to
be necessary to fight them when they rebelled against him and killed some of
his companions but he forbade fighting them in the future. He said :"Don't
fight Al Khawarij after me. One who searches for the truth but misses it is not
the same as someone who searches for falsehood and achieves it."
Imam Ali was asked about the people of the battle of the camel, who came to
fight him : "Are they polytheists? He said : They have ran away from
polytheism. Then he was asked : Are they hypocrites? He said : Hypocrites only
mention God very little. Then they asked him : What are they then? He said :
Our brothers who turned against us."
When he heard some of his companions in Siffin swear at Syrians, he said
:" I hate for you to be of those who swear." This is in consistency
with God the Almighty's say :"Revile not ye those whom they call upon
besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance". Al
An'am : 108.
2) The Sunni Theory about the Companions
In our study, we will use the latest book produced by the Sunni (Salafi)
bookstore about the companions. The book is titled "Revealing the
Companions' Rank and Status", written by sheikh Hamad Bin Abdullah Ibrahim
Alhumaidi and presented by sheikh Abdullah Bin Abdul Rahman Sa'ad. Both
sheikhs are professors of the sciences of hadith, ideology and preaching in
Definition of a Companion
Sheikh Al Sa'ad says in "The
Chapter of The Boundaries of Companionship" : "Many definitions of
companionship have been offered but the one definition that is backed up with
evidence is as follows : Anyone who met the prophet (pbuh), believed in him and
died while still faithful. The length of the meeting is not important".
(128) Then he adds :" One of the indicators that companionship is defined
by meeting (the prophet), believing in him and dying while still faithful is
the narration by Ibn Shayba....narrated that Waela Bin Al Aska' said : The
prophet (pbuh) said : You are still in good shape as long as there are among
you ones who saw and accompanied me. By God! You are still in good shape as
long as there are ones among you who saw who saw me and accompanied who
accompanied me." (129) Also narrated by Yacoub Bin Sufian in
"History" : "Blessed is he who saw me. Blessed is he who
believed in me and didn't see me, indeed he's blessed and has a good return to God".
(130) Al Sa'ad takes on Al Fayoumi's opinion :"A companion is someone who
saw (the prophet) and sat with him". He also says :"This is what the
public have agreed upon and it is popular among Ahl Al Hadith, Ahmad says :
Anyone who accompanied him for a year, a month, a day or an hour or anyone who
saw him is a companion. The longer the duration of companionship, the greater
the companion." (131) "Al Bukhari said in his Sahih (2/5) : Any
Muslim who accompanied the prophet (pbuh) or saw him is a companion. Al Waqidi
said : I heard Islamic scholars say : Anyone who saw the prophet (pbuh),
achieved puberty, became a Muslim, understood and accepted Islam, he is to us a
companion even if he only accompanied the prophet for one hour. The companions,
however, have different ranks depending on their progress in Islam". (132)
"Also Abu Mohamad Bin Hazam said in "Provisions" ( 5/89) : As
for companions (may God be pleased with them): they are people who sat with the
prophet (pbuh) even for an hour and heard him speak at least one word or
witnessed the prophet (pbuh) perform a matter with their own eyes. As long as
they were not hypocrites whose hypocrisy was famed until they died as such and
were not exiled by the prophet (pbuh) such as Hayt Al Mukhnath and whoever followed
in his footsteps.....". (133)
What if a companion turns into apostasy? Would he still be considered a
companion?
Ibn Hazam answers this question as sheikh Abdullah Al Sa'ad tells us :" As
for those who became apostates after the (death of the) prophet (pbuh) and
after they met him, then they went back to Islam and their situation improved
such as Ash'ath Bin Qays, Amr Bin Ma'adi Karb and others, then they're still
companions. They are, with no doubt, companions of the prophet (pbuh) since he
said : When someone becomes a Muslim he/she will be rewarded for all the good
deeds they did before they turned into Islam". They are all refrained,
virtuous, and will end up in
Since the term "companionship" is a customary one and not an Islamic
one that is specified in the Holy Koran or prophetic tradition, then it was a
subject for ijtihad by the companions themselves, Tab'een and later on by Sunni
jurists. It was narrated by Ibn Al Salah that Anas Bin Malik said that a
companion and someone who saw the prophet are two different things. He narrated
in "The Science of Hadith" page 146: "Shu'ba narrated that Musa
Al Silani said : I came to Anas Bin Malik and I said : Are there any companions
left after the prophet (pbuh) other than you? He said : There are still some
Arabs who saw him but no one who accompanied him is left". However, Al
Sa'ad explains that this refers to a special type of companionship. (135) He
also rejects the narration by Sa'id Bin Al Maseeb that said :"Companions
are ones who spent a year or two with the prophet (pbuh) and went on a a battle
or two with him." (136) He says :"This narration is untrue in its
isnad and its mitn (content)". (137) Then sheikh Abdullah Al Sa'ad
narrates Abi Hamid Al Ghazali's opinion that is mentioned in his book "The
Chosen One" 1/165 : " Who is a companion? Is he someone who lived at
the time of the prophet (pbuh)? Or someone who met him once? Or someone who
accompanied him for an hour? Or someone who accompanied him for a long time?
And how long is the time period for the person to become a companion? We say :
A companion is only someone who accompanied him. It's good enough to say that a
companion is someone who accompanied him (the prophet , pbuh) for even an hour.
However, it is customary for the word "companion" to be used for
someone who accompanied him many times". (138)
Consequently, the first generation of muhajireen and ansar, free men, slaves,
Arabs, hypocrites and even short time apostates are considered companions.
However, shiekh Al Sa'ad admits the existence of two groups of companions,
general companions and private ones. For example, Abdul Rahman Bin Aouf is
considered a private companion and Khalid Bin Al Walid is a more general one.
This way the latter doesn't leave the circle of companionship after he had
cursed Abdul Rahman and the prophet (pbuh) saying to him :" Do not abuse
my companions! If any of you were to spend gold equal to (mountain of ) Uhud
(for the cause of God), it would not equal a handful of one of them or
even half of that." (139) He also says :"As for this speech being
addressed to Khalid Bin Al Walid and others, this does not indicate that he's
not a companion. He is, by consensus, a companion. Companionship in this
narration refers to the private one." (140)
As the Sunnis widen up the terminology for "companionship", they
narrow down the circle of hypocrites to a very small degree. They consider all
the companions to be faithful except for ones who have been proven for a fact
that they were hypocrites. As we have seen, they even considered those who
turned against Islam for a while before coming back to it as companions. They
also believe that whoever proclaims himself to be a Muslim under any
conditions, he is then a Muslim and a companion who will be firm in his faith
for ever. They do not accept the possibility that the "companion"'s
faith might decrease or turn into polytheism and disbelief or becoming a
hypocrite and an apostate. They still consider him a companion even if he
committed great sins or killed an infallible or a great companion as happened
with Abi Al Ghadiyah who killed Ammar Bin Yaser. He did this despite the sahih
hadith about the prophet (pbuh) when he said :"Alas! Ammar will be killed
by a rebellious group...His killer is going to Hell". This hadith is
narrated by Al Sa'ad taken from different sources. However, he only
accepts the first part of the hadith "Alas! Ammar will be killed by a
rebellious group" and questions the second part "His killer is going
to Hell" in consistency with his theory that all companions go to
Note : Are there in Islam two different standards, one for the companions and
another for everyone else? If a companion commits a great sin, such as killing
another great companion such as Ammar, he still goes to Heaven? And whoever
curses a companion, he becomes a disbeliever and goes to Hell?
Absolute Generalization in Merit
After defining
"companionship" and stretching its meaning, the Sunni scholars (or at
least some of them) say that there is a special merit in accompanying and
seeing the prophet (pbuh) regardless of one's deeds. Thus they take the Koranic
verses that praise the companions to mean all of the companions making no
stipulations or exceptions. They rule them all out to be refrained and
trustworthy. Sheikh Abdullah Al Sa'ad comments on this verse :"Mohamad is
the messenger of Allah and those who are with him are strong against
unbelievers (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them
bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer) seeking grace from Allah and (His)
good pleasure. On their faces are their marks (being) the traces of their
prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat and their similitude in the
Gospel is : Like a seed which sends forth its blade then makes it strong. It
then becomes thick and it stands on its own stem (filling) the sowers with
wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the unbelievers with rage at them.
Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds
forgiveness and a great reward. " Al Fath : 29 . He says :" This Holy
verse includes all the companions (God be pleased with them) since they were
all with the prophet (pbuh). (142)
He also comments on the following verse :"The vanguard (of Islam). The
first of thos who forsook (their homes) and of those who gave them aid, and
(also) those who follow them in (all) good deeds, well pleased is Allah with
them as they are with Him. For them Hath He prepared gardens under which rivers
flow, to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme triumph." Al Tawba :
100. He says that "this verse also includes all of the companions
(God be pleased with them). (143) Also the hadith :"Don't curse any of my
companions. If any of you spent a large amount of gold (for the cause of God),
he will not reach their level (of merit) or even half of it.". He says
:"This hadith includes all the companions (Gbpwt) since the prophet (pbuh)
specifically said : Don't curse any of my companions. Hence, Abu Hatim Bin
Habban wrote a chapter in his sahih book "As in Ihsan": 16/238, where
he mentioned this hadith that indicates that all of the prophet's (pbuh)
companions are refrained and trustworthy." (144) Al Sa'ad narrates Ibn
Omar's famous hadith: "Don't curse Mohamad's companions! Being in their
position for an hour is better than your lifetime (good) deeds". (145)
Then he says :"The following support the previous hadith: narrated by
Ahmad 4/363, Al Tabarani in "The Great" 2438, Al Hakim 4/80 who made
it sahih and Abu Na'im in "Asfahan's Narrations" 10/145. All were
narrated by Al Thawri narrated by Al A'mash narrated by Musa Bin Adbullah Bin
Yazid narrated by Abdul Rahman Bin Hilal narrated by Jarir Bin Abdullah Al
Bajli narrated that the prophet (pbuh) said :"The free men from Quraysh
and the slaves from Thuqayf are each other guardians in this life and the
Hereafter. The muhajireen and the ansar are also each other guardians in this
life and the Hereafter.".
I say : This hadith mentions all of the companions. It mentions the muhajireen,
ansar, free men and slaves. The prophet (pbuh) confirmed that they are
guardians of each other, in this life and the Hereafter. The mentioning of the
"Hereafter" by the prophet (pbuh) indicates their true faith in Islam
since guardianship wasn't only given to them in this life but in the afterlife
as well. And God knows best....All this shows that God the Glorious and His
messenger (pbuh) praise all of the companions (God be pleased with them).
Given God the Almighty's knowledge of the unseen, He specifically chose the
prophet's companions since He knew (how faithful they would be)." (146)
Sheikh Hamad Bin Abdullah Alhumeidi affirms sheikh Abdullah's opinion about the
absolute generalization in merit of all the companions. He narrates that
Abdullah Bin Masood says :" God has looked in the hearts of His servants
and found Mohamad's (pbuh) heart the purest so He chose him to send His
message. Then He looked at the hearts of His servants after Mohamad's (pbuh)
heart and found his companions the purest so He made them His messenger's
viziers fighting to protect His religion. What Muslims see as good, it is good
by God and whatever they see as bad, it is bad by God." (147) He comments
on a number of Koranic verses that speak about the companions such as :"No
equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled and
those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their good deeds and their
good persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight
with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in
faith) hath Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight hath He
distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a great reward." Al Nisa' :
95. Also :"How is it with you that you don't spend in the cause of Allah?
For to Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth. Not equal among
you are those who spent (freely) and fought before the victory (with those who
did so later). Those are higher in rank than those who spent (freely) and
fought afterwards. But to all has Allah promised a goodly (reward). And Allah
is well acquainted with all that ye do." Al Hadid : 10. He says that these
verses speak about all of the companions. He uses Al Qurtobi's saying in
interpreting :"And all God had promised a beautiful reward" :
"This includes the early former companions and the latter ones. God has
promised them all
Ibn Katheer interprets the following verses :"Those who believe and
emigrate and fight for the faith in the cause of Allah. As well as those who
give (them) asylum and aid, these are (all) in very truth the believers. For
them is the forgiveness of sins and a provision most generous. And those who
accept faith subsequently and emigrate and fight for the faith, in your
company, they are of you. But kindred by blood have prior rights against each
other in the Book of Allah. Verily Allah is well acquainted with all
things." Al Anfal : 74-75. He says :" When the Almighty mentioned the
ruling of the believers in this life, He also mentioned their reward in the
afterlife. He confirmed their true faith and thus will be rewarded with
forgiveness for any sins they have committed. He also promised them a generous
sustenance which is a continuous never ending noble and fine livelihood which
isn't wearisome for its goodness and diversity. Then He mentioned their
followers in this life, who were faithful with good deeds, that they also
belong with the believers before them in Heaven". (150)
Ibn Jarir interpreted the following verse :"Mohamad is the messenger of
Allah and those who are with him are strong against unbelievers (but)
compassionate amongst each other...." Al Fath : 29. He said : " It
was narrated to us by Bashr narrated by Yazid narrated by Sa'ed narrated by
Qatada : (compassionate amongst each other) means God has placed compassion in
their hearts towards each other". (151)
In addition to the previous holy verses, Sunnis also depend on a number of
hadiths to build their theory about the equity of the companions. An example is
the following hadith :"The best of people are the ones of my time then the
ones after them then the ones after them. Then comes after them a people who
will give witness before they are asked for it and vice versa". Also
:" The stars are trust-keepers for the heaven, and when the stars wane,
the heaven is brought what was promised (i.e. corruption of the world). I am a
trust-keeper for my companions, so when I go my companions will be brought what
was promised to them (i.e. division). My companions are trust-keepers for my
community, so when they go my community will be brought what was promised to
them". It was also narrated by Anas (God be pleased with him) that the prophet
said on Trench day :"O God! Goodness is goodness of the afterlife. So
please pardon the ansar and the muhajireen". Also the prophet's (pbuh)
saying :"Perhaps God looked at the people of Badr and said : Do what you
please, I have already pardoned you (your sins)". (152) They also narrate
hadiths about the merits of some companions who were differed upon such as
Uthman Bin Affan, Muawiyah Bin Abi Sufian and Amr Bin Al As. Ahmad narrates in
his "Masnad" : It was narrated to us by Harun Bin Ma'roof narrated by
Damra narrated by Abdullah Bin Shathoob narrated by Abdullah Bin Al Qasim
narrated by Katheer Mawla Abdula Rahman Bin Samar narrated by Abdul Rahman Bin
Samra who said : "Uthman Bin Affan came to the prophet (pbuh) with one
thousand dinar while the prophet got Al Asra army ready and said : He placed it
(the money) in the prophet's (pbuh). The prophet (pbuh) then turned it with his
hand and said : Nothing Affan does after today will harm him. He said it many
times". (Masnad Ahmad, Al Tirmithi, Al Sunna for Khilal and Al Ajra in
Shariah). Ahmad also said :" It was narrated to us by Mohamad Bin Jafar
narrated by Shauba narrated by Ibn Aoun who said : " I heard Mohamad Bin
Hatib say : I asked Ali about Uthman and he said : He is one of those who
believed then feared (God) then believed then feared (God)". (153)
As for Muawiyah, they narrate direct and indirect hadiths about his integrity
such as the hadith that was narrated by Samra and it is found in both Bukhari (
#7222 and #7223) and also Muslim (#1821). It was narrated by Abdul Malik Bin
Omeir narrated by Samra who said :" I heard the prophet (pbuh) say: The
affairs of people will continue to be conducted (well) as long as they are
governed by the twelve men". (154) Although this hadith is vague and ahad,
sheikh Abdullah Sa'ad says :" Muawiyah (God be pleased with him) is one of
the twelve men mentioned in this hadith. This is because he was from Quraysh,
was in power and Islam was glorious and invincible at his time. Therefore, this
hadith applies to him especially in the Al Sha'bi and Sammak who narrated that
Jabir said: This matter (in another narration, matter is substituted for Islam)
continues to be glorious over the ruling period of twelve caliphs". This
narration indicates that the glory and invincibility (of Islam) continue from
the time of the first caliph after the prophet (pbuh) who was Abu Bakr (Gbpwh)
until the twelveth caliph. Hence, Muawiyah is one of those caliphs especially
that he was given allegiance by all Muslims and that year was named the year of
consensus as it is well known. In conclusion, this hadith indicates that
Muawiyah was a legitimate caliph and that Islam was glorious and invincible at
his time. Therefore, he must have followed Islamic law and the Sunna during his
governing years otherwise Islam would not have been glorious and invincible at
his time and God knows best." (155)
Based on the previous hadith, it seems as if sheikh Al Sa'ad believes that
Yazid Bin Muawiyah was also a legitimate caliph and that he brought glory to
Islam, as some extremist Sunnis say. However, he did not actually admit to it.
In any case, he adds :" The prophet (pbuh) praised Muawiyah and said the
following about him : O God! Guide him and make him a guide (to others) and a
reason for guidance". It is believed that the prophet's (pbuh)
supplication is answered. It's narrated in Bukhari (hadith # 2924) that Omeir
Bin Al Aswad Al Ansi narrated that Um Haram heard the prophet (pbuh) say
:" The first army of my umma to foray into the sea will go to Heaven".
The first army to do such a thing was led by Muawiyah and this is a great merit
for him. (156)
Ibn Al Sa'ad narrates that Abu Huraira said :" The messenger of God said :
Both of Al As's sons, Amr and Hisham, are faithful". Then he adds
:"The isnad of this hadith is not bad and a bit strange. It was made sahih
by Al Hakim in its initial state following the requirements of Muslim. Al
Jourqani said : This hadith is hasan and popular. There are other texts with
this meaning and there's no doubt that this is a great merit for him
acknowledged by the prophet (pbuh)". (157)
Sunnis interpret the companions' fighting each other as a form of ijtihad, good
intentions and a quest for reform on the companions' part. Sheikh
Abdullah Al Sa'ad says :" The picture is clearer during the Camel battle
than it was during the Siffin battle in regards to the fighting that took place
among the companions (Gbpwt). Talha and Al Zubair (Gbpwt) were of the ten who
were promised
Al Sa'ad says about Siffin battle :"There's no doubt that Ali Bin Abi
Talib (Gbpwh) and his followers were more on the right path than the others.
Muslim (hadith # 1065) narrates that Al Qasim Bin Fadl Al Hadani narrated that
Abu Nadra narrated Abu Sa'ed saying :"The prophet (pbuh) said : A split
takes place among a group of Muslims. The one closer to the right path will
finish off the other one".
Also mentioned in Muslim a narration by Qitada who narrated that Abi Nadra
narrated that Bin Sa'ed said (The prophet (pbuh) said :" There will be two
groups in my umma. A dissenting group will emerge among them and it will be
killed by the group that is more righteousness".
Another narration in Muslim by Habib Bin Abi Thabet who narrated that Al Dahak
Al Mashriki narrated that Abi Sa'ed said (that the prophet (pbuh) said)
:"Out of the two groups, they will be killed by the group that's closer to
righteousness".
Abu Zakariah Al Nawawi interpreted Muslim's hadith 7/168 and said :" These
narrations state clearly that Ali (Gbpwh) was in the right and that the second
group, Muawiyah's and his followers (Gbpwt), were rebellious. These narrations
also clearly imply that both groups are faithful and their fighting against
each other doesn't make them unfaithful or lewd. This is our
doctrine." A H
Abu Al Abbas Ibn Taymiyah said in his "Fatawa
Collections" (4/467) :" This sahih hadith indicates that both
opposing parties, Ali with his followers and Muawiyah with his followers, are
in the right. It also shows that Ali and his followers were closer to the truth
than Muawiyah and his followers." A H
Ibn Al Arabi mentioned something similar to the above in "The
Capitals" (page 307, full edition).
Abu Al Fida' Ibn Katheer said in "The Beginning" (10/563) :"
This hadith is an indication of prophet hood since the prophet's (pbuh) future
prediction took place as he has said. It also confirms that both parties, the
Syrians and the Iraqis, were faithful Muslims. This is contrary to what Al
Rafidah group, people of ignorance and injustice, claim as they make the
Syrians disbelievers. It also shows that Ali's followers were the closer of the
two groups to the right path. This is the doctrine of Ahl Al Sunna and Jama'a,
that Ali was the one in the right although Muawiyah used his own judgment
(based on the Koran and Sunna) in his decision to fight. He was at fault but ,
God willing, he will be rewarded for it although Ali was the one in the right
and his reward, God willing, will be doubled. A H
I say : What clarifies the previous hadith is the
narration by Bukhari (#3609) and Muslim (# 2214): Both narrate that Mu'ammar
narrated that Hammam narrated that Abi Huraira said that the prophet (pbuh)
said : The Reckoning Hour won't take place until two groups, who preach the
same belief, have a great fight." (160)
Al Sa'ad adds :" The following narration clarifies the previous one. The
narration is found in Bukhari (#2704), narrated by Al Hassan Al Basari who said
: I hear Abu Bakra say: I saw the messenger of God (pbuh) and Al Hassan Bin Ali
beside him as he said : This son of mine is a sovereign and perhaps God will
make him a cause for reconciliation between two great groups of Muslims....This
hadith lauds Al Hassan and makes him a sovereign and his relinquishing the
caliphate was an act of his sovereignty. The hadith also describes the group
that was with Al Hassan and Muawiyah as a Muslim one. It also praises Muawiyah
since the prophet (pbuh) praised Al Hassan's act of relinquishing the caliphate
in order for Muawiyah to take it over. Had Muawiyah been unworthy of the
caliphate, the prophet (pbuh) would not have applauded this reconciliation."
(161)
Sheikh Hamad Alhumadidi adds to the above :" Ibn Askar narrated....that
Mujahid said : Had you seen Muawiyah, you would have said : This is the Mahdi
(the guided one). Al Zahri also said : I asked Sa'ed Bin Al Maseeb about the
companions of the prophet (pbuh) and he said to me : Listen Zahri! Who ever
dies while he loves Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman and Ali and believed that the ten
companions will end up in Heaven and also asked for mercy for Muawiyah's soul,
God will not question him on Reckoning Day. (162) Ibn Asaker also
narrated.....he said : Ibn Al Mubarak was asked about Muawiyah, he was asked :
What do you say about Muawiyah? Who is better, Muawiyah or Omar Bin Abdul Aziz?
He answered : The dust in Muawiyah's nose while he was with the messenger of God
(pbuh) is better than Omar Bin Abdul Aziz. Al Khatib also mentioned in his
"History" : A man asked Al Mu'afi Bin Omran: Where does Omar Bin
Abdul Aziz stand in comparison with Muawiyah? He got angry and said : No one
can be compared to the companions of the prophet! Muawiyah was his companion,
his relative through marriage, his writer and was trustworthy with God's
revelation (to the prophet (pbuh))." (163)
Alhumeidi comments saying :" So congratulations to Muawiyah (Gbpwh) on
his companionship with the prophet (pbuh). He wrote down the revelations
(Koran), performed jihad with the prophet and was related to the prophet
through marriage. Omar and Uthman made him the governor of
The Equity of the Companions Theory
As a result of all of the mentioned
above, Ibn Al Salah said :" All of the companions are special that their
equity isn't questioned. It is well granted that they are absolutely just based
on the Koranic text, the Sunna and the consensus of well trusted people of this
umma." (165) Ibn Katheer said :" The companions are all refrained
according to Sunnis. This is based on God praising them in His Holy Book and on
prophetic tradition as it applauded their morals and actions and everything
they sacrificed for the prophet (pbuh) in hopes of a great reward from
God." (166)
Ibn Batta said :" We witness that all of the muhajireen and ansar will end
up in Heaven and will be forgiven (for any mistakes they might have made) by
the Almighty. Rest assured that a man who saw the prophet (pbuh), had faith in
him and followed him even for an hour is better than someone who has never seen
him even if the latter did all the good deeds that guarantee him
Alhumeidi also says :" It is the doctrine of the Sunnis that all of the
companions (Gbpwt) are refrained and their equity isn't questioned. They have
been regarded as equitable by God the Almighty and his messenger. This is a
high and an honourable rank that no one else after them can achieve regardless
of how righteous he or she is. Whoever accuses them of felony is
harming the religion of Islam". (170)
Keeping Silent about What Happened between the Companions And the Obligation
to Love and Praise them, also Asking for Forgiveness for them
Based on all of the above Koranic verses and hadiths,
Sunnis take a positive stand regarding all the companions ignoring what
happened between them. Sheikh Abdullah Al Sa'ad says :" This is some of
what has been passed on to us about the prophet (pbuh) regarding this issue.
There's no doubt that it is every Muslim's obligation to accept and acknowledge
all that came (sahih hadiths) about the prophet (pbuh) since this makes him/her
a believer. Hence, it is necessary to love the prophet's (pbuh) companions, to praise
them and to ask God to forgive them. On the contrary, we should not speak ill
of them or look for their flaws or defame a group of them and belittle them. A
Muslim who defames the companions concentrates and directs all of his/her
energy and attention on dishonouring the companions. He over analyzes small
issues and makes them great and follows falsehood". (171) Then he adds
:" A lot of our scholars apoke about keeping silent about what happened
between the companions (Gbpwt) that a consensus regarding this issue has taken
place. Abdul Rahman Bin Abi Hatim said : I asked my father and Abu Zar'a about
the Sunni doctrine and about the belief of the scholars of
I say: The following holy verse reassures this belief : "And those who
came after them say : Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who came before us
into the faith and leave not in our hearts rancour (or sense of injury) against
those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed full of kindness, most
merciful." Al Hashr : 10. Also the prophet's (pbuh) sayings :"
Don't curse my companions...." and "If my companions are mentioned
then keep silent...." (173). Abu Mohamad Bin Hazam said in
"Provisions" ( 5/89) :"....whoever meets such requirements is a
companion. They are all fair, imams, virtuous and content. We are obliged to
regard them with reverence and greatness, to love them and to ask God to grant
them mercy". (174)
Whenever Omar Bin Abdul Aziz (God have mercy on his soul) was asked about the
battles of Siffin and the Camel, he would answer :" It was a matter that
didn't involve me, thus I don't speak about it". Al Khilal narrated
:" Abu Bakr Al Marwathi said : While we were in the military, a messenger
(named Yacoub) of the caliph came to Abu Abdullah and asked him : What do you
say about what happened between Ali and Muawiyah (God have mercy on their
souls)? Abu Abdullah answered : I only say good things about it, may God have
mercy on all of their souls".
Ahmad wrote to Musaddad Bin Musarhad a letter which included the following :
"Only speak about the virtues of the prophet's (pbuh) companions and do
not speak about the conflict that took place among them. Do not speak about
their misdeeds and do not consult a person of innovation in your religion nor
travel with him. " (175)
Ibn Qadama Al Maqdisi said in "A Faith's Sparkle" : " It is a
prophetic tradition to keep quiet about their (the companions') misdeeds and
about what happened between them. Likewise the belief that they had good
virtues and faith".
Ibn Taymiyah, the sheikh of Islam, said in "The Middle Path Creed":
" And they keep silent about what happened between the companions and they
say: Some of the news narrated about them were lies and some were either
exaggerated or minimized and changed. They were excused in what they did : they
were either mujtahids making the right decision or mujtahids making the wrong
decision".
Al Ashari said in "Al Ibana" : "As for what happened between
Ali, Al Zubair and Aisha (Gbpwt), it was all a result of their ijtihad and Ali
was the imam. They were all exercising their personal judgment based on the Koran
and the Sunna. The prophet has proclaimed that they were to enter
Al Qadi Ayyad said in his interpretation of Sahih Muslim : " And Muawiyah
is a refrained, gracious companion . All that happened between him and Ali and
all the bloodshed between the companions was a result of their own ijtihad.
Each one thought he was on the right path". (176)
Regarding the great schism, Ibn Batta (God have mercy on his soul) said:
"We should keep silent about the schism that took place between the companions
of the prophet (pbuh). They have witnessed the events with him and have
succeeded people in graciousness. God has forgiven them and has instructed you
to ask for forgiveness for them ad to love them. He has imposed this through
His prophet's (pbuh) tradition when the Almighty knew they were going to fight
each other. They have been chosen above all others and thus their mistakes and
their fighting against each other has been forgiven. Do not look into the
battles of Siffin, the Camel one and the rest of the conflicts that took place
among them. Do not write about or narrate it to anyone or even listen to it
being narrated by someone else. The best of our umma's scholars have agreed to
what we had previously mentioned. Among the scholars are : Hammad Bin Zaid,
Younus Bin Obeid, Sufian Al Thawri, Sufian Bin Ayinah, Abdullah Bin Idris,
Malik Bin Anas, Ibn Abi Thi'b, Ibn Al Munkader, Ibn Al Mubarak, Shu'ayb Bin
Harb, Abu Isaac Al Fazari, Yousuf Bin Asbat, Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Bashr Bin Al
Harith and Abdul Wahhab Al Warraq. All of the mentioned scholars called against
speaking about this issue, listening to it and forbade searching and paying
attention to it. There have been plenty of narrations about these scholars
disapproving such a behaviour. " (177)
Imam Al Nawawi said :" No good deed is equal to the graciousness of
companionship , even if the companionship is for a moment and there's nothing
anyone can do to reach its high rank. Merits are not achieved this way but are
an advantage given by the Almighty to whomever He wishes. "
Al Qahtani said in his book (a poem):
Say only the best of words about the companions of Ahmad and praise all of his
family and women,
Let go of what happened between the companions in the battlefield when all met
each other with their swords,
The killed and the killer are both (companions) and both will be forgiven on
Resurrection Day On Resurrection Day, God removes all grudges from their hearts
(178)
Charging those who Curse the Companions with Kufr (Disbelief in God)
Thus Sunnis took a fierce stand
against anyone who curses the companions regardless whether he/she is Shiite or
else and considered him/her as a Rafidi. They have probably also considered
criticizing the companions as cursing them. Ibn Asaker narrated....Al Fadl Bin
Ziad said :" I heard Abu Abullah (Ahmad Bin Hanbal) was asked about a man
who criticized Muawiyah and Amr Bin Al As whether he be considered a
"Rafidi"? He answered : He has dared to criticize them because he is
maliciously ill mannered. Anyone who hates the prophet's (pbuh) companions is
ill mannered."
Abdullah Al Mubarak said : "Muawiyah causes us distress. Whoever looks at
Muawiyah with anger and is ready to criticize him, we assume that he's also
ready to criticize the rest of Mohamad's (pbuh) companions". A man said to
Ahmad (God have mercy on his soul) :" It's been said that a maternal uncle
of mine criticizes Muawiyah and I have probably eaten with him. Abu
Abdullah answered : Don't eat with him." (179) Ahmad wrote to Abdus Bin
Malik about the fundamentals of Sunna :" The basics of Sunna : Whoever
criticizes or dislikes one of the companions or mentions any of his flaws is an
innovator. He stays an innovator until he asks God for mercy for all of the
companions and his heart becomes pure towards them" . (180)
Al Khilal mentioned in "The Sunna" : " Abu Bakr Al Matouthi told
us : I asked Abu Abdullah about people who curse Abu Bakr, Omar and Aisha. He
answered : He/She is not a Muslim. He also said : And I heard Abu Abdullah say:
Malik said : People who curse the companions of the prophet are not a part of
Islam.
He also said : Abdul Malik Bin Abdul Hamid said to me : I heard Abu Abdullah
say : I worry that a person who uses curse words might be considered a
disbeliever just like the Rafidis. Then he said : Whoever curses the companions
of the prophet (pbuh), then we believe that he might not be safe from having
rejected the religion.
He also said : Abdullah Bin Ahmad Bin Hanbal informed us : I asked my father
about a man who reviled a companion of the prophet (pbuh) and he answered : I
do not hold him to be a follower of Islam. Ahmad Bin Hanbal also said : If you
hear someone mentioning the flaws of the companions of the prophet then
question his faith in Islam. Abu Zar'a Al Razi said : If you see a man
criticizing one of the prophet's (pbuh) companions then rest assured he's a
zindeeq (a heretic). Isaac Bin Rahawiyah said : Whoever curses the companions
of the prophet (phuh) is to be punished and prisoned. Al Qadi Abu Ya'la said :
The scholars have agreed that if someone who curses the companions believed it
was lawful to do so then he's a disbeliever. However, if he believed it's
unlawful to curse the companions then he's a dissolute person. Ibn Taymiyah
said : Anyone who claims that the companions, except for a few, have turned
apostate after the death of the prophet (pbuh) or believed they were lewd then
there's no doubt he is a disbeliever. Ibn Abdeen said : Anyone who curses the
two sheikhs -Abu Bakr and Omar- or defames them then he is a disbeliever and
his repentance will not be accepted."
After all mentioned above, it's not surprising to see sheikh Alhumeidi ask
:" After all of the mentioned Koranic verses, where God showed how He's
pleased with and had forgiven the companions, can someone dare to curse them
other than a disbeliever such as a Rafidi? Or a heretic? Or a lost
innovator?" (181) "Look how the messenger of God (pbuh) asks for
forgiveness for them, for reform and for blessings from God. After all that
being said, a group of people reviles and curses them? Also accuses them of
disbelief and hypocrisy among other things? Such accusations indeed fit the
accusers! The Almighty said :"Then, let those beware who withstand the
messenger's order, lest some trial befall them. Or a grievous chastisement be
inflicted on them." (Nour : 63) Therefore, God has warned us from
violating the prophet's (pbuh) orders and from not following his way and his
tradition. This means the sayings and the actions of people are compared to the
sayings and the actions of the prophet (pbuh). Anything that goes against the
prophet's sayings or actions is returned back to the person who said it or
acted it. Anyone who says and acts against what the prophet (pbuh) preaches
then he is opposing God and His messenger, he is also servile with no dignity.
God has said in His Holy Book :"Those who oppose (the commands of) Allah
and His messenger will be humbled to dust as were those before them for We have
already sent down clear signs. And the unbelievers (will have) a humiliating
chastisement." Al Mujadila : 5. One of the greatest oppositions to God and
His messenger is the cursing of the greatest of people after the prophets and
messengers of God, those who were chosen by God to be companions of His prophet
(pbuh). " (182)
It wasn't enough for Alhumeidi to attack those who criticize Muawiyah. He also
launches a fierce attack on anyone who questions Muawiyah's father's faith in
Islam. He says :" Whoever doubts or slanders Abi Sufian's faith in Islam
has gone astray away from the straight path and has gone against the consensus
of the umma and the available texts in hand regarding this issue...He was a
witness with the messenger of God the day of Hanin and God has named all who
were with the prophet that day believers. The Almighty said :"Assuredly
Allah did help you in many battle fields and on the day of Hunain. Behold! Your
great numbers elated you but they availed you naught. The land, for all that it
is wide, did constrain you and ye turned back in retreat. But Allah did pour
His calm on His messenger and on the believers and sent down forces which ye
saw not. He punished the unbelievers thus doth He reward those without
faith." Al Tawba ; 25-26. Ibn Hajar said in "Al Isaba" :"
No voices were heard the day of Yarmuk except for one voice that was heard
saying : Victory from God has approached! Then he said : Then I looked to
realize it was Abu Sufian standing under his son's, Yazid's, banner. (183)
Alhumeidi says :" The Rafidis, followers of Ibn Saba', are the worst
people to walk this earth. Muslims were always cautious dealing with the
Rafidis, generation after generation, until the present times as the world
opened up and hence Muslims intermixed with pagans and Sunnis intermixed with
innovators. Such groups started to spray their toxin on the ignorant whose
hearts were not pure.....After spreading their infectious toxin, they
introduced the act of defaming the companions to the ranks of Sunnis."
(184)
Then he adds :" Some of the lost ones who diverged from the right path may
write or present a paper on the equity of the companions during some council.
They are dissolute and probably do not pray in mosques, how can such people
speak of the greatest caliphs after the prophets and the messengers? Some of
them might not even consider Muawiyah and others, who turned into Islam during
Fath and after it, as companions? They probably only recognize the muhajireen
and ansar as companions and others are not all refrained". (185)
He quotes Ibn Katheer:" God the Great has informed us that He is pleased
with the first generation of muhajireen and ansar and all who followed in their
footsteps until Resurrection Day. Woe to those who hate and insult them or hate
and insult some of them particularly the greatest companion, caliph and saddiq,
the righteous Abu Bakr Bin Abi Qahafa (Gpbwh). The disillusioned sect of
Rafidah takes the best of companions as enemies and they hate and insult them,
God forbid such an act. This indicates that their minds are reversed and their
hearts are diseased. How can they believe in the Koran when they curse the ones
who have been honoured by God?" (186)
The negative historical attitude towards the Shiites and anyone else who
criticizes the companions continues until this day. Today, there are media
campaigns against the Shiites "Rafidis" which consider them
disbelievers, innovators, misled and hence are out of the folds of Islam. Such
campaigns are even against meeting with the Shiites. This is despite the fact
that a lot of today's Shiites know nothing about Shiism but its name. They
might not take a negative position against any companion or know a lot about
old historical conflicts. The fact that Shiites believe in one God, in His
messenger and in the Last Day doesn't seem to be enough. (187)
Selective Takfir (Proclaiming Someone as a Disbeliever)
Clearly, the Sunni theory about the companions gave them a religious entity
despite the fact that they were only human who did not form a part of the
Islamic doctrine at their time. However, the crystallization of this theory in
a later time made the subject of companionship the main separator among
Muslims.
Despite the fact that this theory glorified the companions and raised them up
to "infallibility" and to the inevitability for God's forgiveness,
entering
Since history has always been a troublesome witness to the Sunni theory about
the companions, the Sunnis as a result have always tried to get rid of it by
all means and by driving it away from courtrooms. They have constantly stressed
the necessity of desisting from looking into and reflecting on the events of
the great schism and closing the companions' file or finding excuses for the
ones who made mistakes. Some Sunni imams read history with selectivity and try
to re write it such as imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal who used to place his fingers in
his ears during history lessons when he didn't like what he was hearing then he
would write what pleased him after that.
Abu Bakr Al Khilal says in "Al Sunna" :" Ahmad bin Hanbal used
to say : I don't like to hear a man narrating something bad about the
companions of the prophet. He also said : And I throw away such a hadith. He
also said : Abbas Bin Mohamad Al Douri narrated to me that Ibrahim, Aban Bin
Salih's brother, said : I was with Ahmad Bin Hanbal at Abdul Razak's when we
started listening to hadiths. When some hadiths that mentioned the flaws of the
companions were recited, Ahmad Bin Hanbal got up and retired to a corner. He
then said : What shall I do with these? (meaning the hadiths). When such
hadiths were no longer being recited, he went back to listen again. It was
narrated also that Abdul Razak Ahmad, Khalaf and another man mentioned that
when hadiths that mentioned the flaws of the companions were being narrated,
Ahmad Bin Hanbal would place his fingers in his ears for a long time. When some
of the hadiths were already bygone, he would then take his fingers out of his
ears then back to his ears until all of the hadiths were bygone. (188)
Despite the fact that some Ahl Al Hadith sheikhs proclaimed those who curse or
criticize the companions as disbelievers and innovators who should be boycotted,
they did not abide by it all the time. Non of the Sunni imams proclaimed the
Umayyads, who used to curse imam Ali on their podiums for sixty years, as
disbelievers. Also they didn't proclaim the early Abbasid caliphs, the
"Rafidis", who used to criticize Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman as
disbelievers. This had led to a situation where values got mixed such as in the
incident of asking for God's blessings for both Hajar Bin Udai and his killer
Muawiyah. This is seen in the sentence written on Udai's grave stone that says
:" This is the grave of Hajar Bin Udai (God be pleased with him) who was
killed by Muawiyah (God be pleased with him)".
Inconsistency can clearly be seen in Al Mutawakil's hardline policy towards
those who curse the companions. It is said that he gave a person (who cursed
the companions) one thousand whips until he died then he gave orders to have
his body thrown in
Another example of inconsistency is the unclear position taken regarding Yazid
Bin Muawiyah. He killed Al Hussein and his family in
Al Thahabi can not find a justification for condoning Yazid Bin Muawiyah's
heinous crimes. For example, he says :" And we do not curse or love Yazid".
He tries to belittle his crimes by comparing him to some Umayyad and Abbasid
kings who were worse than him. He says :" The magnitude of his crimes
seemed greater because he was given power only fourty nine years after the
prophet's (pbuh) death. The companions were still around and Ibn Omar had more
right to power than him, his father and his grandfather."
Al Thahabi's position was an extension to the position of the Hanbali jurist,
Abdul Mugheeth Al Harbi, who wrote a book on preventing the cursing of Yazid.
Certainly, he did not represent the position of all Sunnis or Hanbalis. Some
Sunnis such as Abu Al Faraj Bin Al Jouzi wrote a book as a reply to Al Harbi's
book and it was titled :"A Reply to the Stubborn Fanatic who forbids
Condoning Yazid".
3) Shiite Stand Regarding the
Companions
A) The Early Positive Stand
Thus, the great schism that took place during the first generation of Muslims
had opened the door to a wide criticism of a number of companions who led wars
and battles since the siege and killing of Uthman, passing through the Camel
battle and ending at the battle of Siffin. Criticizing the companions (or
swearing at them, or cursing them or considering them disbelievers) was
not confined to Shiites only who were not yet a separate sect but were still a
political party loyal to imam Ali. During his ruling years they represented the
general trend of Muslims then the Kharijites broke away from imam Ali and
proclaimed him as a disbeliever. Another group of them merged in the ranks of Muawiyah
after imam Al Hassan withdrew from the caliphate. Since the Shiites at that
time did not possess their own political theory such as the Divine Imamate
theory which originated at later times, their attitude towards the two wise
caliphs, Abu Bakr and Omar (mGbpwt) was a positive one in consistency with the
rest of Muslims. They loved and appreciated them. Some Shiite leaders were even
governors for the prince of believers Omar Bin Al Khattab. Salman Al Farsi, as
an example, became a governor of a number of cities. Also Ammar Bin Yaser , Al
Barra' Bin Azib, Huthayfa Bin Al Yaman, Sahl Bin Hanif, Uthman Bin Hanif, Hajar
Bin Oday, Hashim Al Merkal and Malik Al Ashtar. When Omar Bin Al Khattab
(mGbpwh) asked Ali for his opinion whether he should engage himself in person
in fighting the Persians, imam Ali answered :" This matter's victory or
defeat is not dependent on the number of people involved in it. It is the
religion of God, from God and He fulfills His promise and supports His
soldiers. Today, Arabs are small in number but Islam makes them large and their
unity makes them strong. Let the Arabs revolve around you like millstones
revolve around the pole and let the Arabs fight them (the Persians) without
you. If you go yourself to fight them, Arabs from different parts of the Arab
peninsula will turn against you and thus it will lead to more disadvantages
than advantages. Tomorrow, the non Arabs will look at you and say : This is the
head of the Arabs. If you relinquish him, you'll have a peace of mind. Your
presence there will be a strong motive for them to kill you." Nahj Al
Balagha
There's also a narration mentioned by Qutayba Al Dinouri , and other Shiite
sources, that confirms the meaning of the previous narration. It says : Hajar
Bin Oday, Amr Bin Al Hamq and Abdullah Bin Wahab Al Rasibi asked Ali about Abu
Bakr and Omar : What do you say about them? Tell us what you think of them and
also Uthman. Ali answered : You have found time for this? When Egypt has
been liberated and my Shiites have been killed in it? I will produce you a book
in which I will give you the answer to your question, read it to my Shiites.
Then he provided them with a book which said :"...after the prophet (pbuh)
passed away, Muslims had a conflict about this matter among each other. By God,
I had never imagined or suspected that the Arabs would not choose me! What
surprised me was people's readiness to accept Abu Bakr (as a caliph). I did not
object but I felt that I had more right to the (caliphate) than him. I held on
to my opinion until I found that some people went apostates refusing the
religion of Mohamad and Ibrahim (pbut). Then I feared that if I didn't support
Islam and Muslims that this will cause Islam harm larger than that done when I
lost the caliphate which in turn only brings joy and satisfaction for a few
days before vanishing. It is then that I walked up to Abu Bakr and gave
allegiance to him and supported him during that time until falsehood vanished
and God's word was supreme. Abu Bakr took over the caliphate and was moderate
and easy going and I accompanied him, gave him advice and obeyed him as he
obeyed God. As he was on his death bed, he called upon Omar and made him his
successor. We obeyed him and gave Omar allegiance and our advice on different
issues. He took over the caliphate and had a good reputation with blessed
qualities during his lifetime. As he was dying I said to myself : He will not
overlook me. He made a consultative body consisting of six men and I was the
sixth one. Then they said to me : Give allegiance to Uthman or else! So
unhappily I gave him allegiance and stayed patient. One of them said to me : O
Ibn Abi Talib! You are indeed keen on getting the caliphate! I said : But you
are more keen on the matter....as you got angry with Uthman and killed him, you
came to me to give me allegiance. I refused so you had a dispute with me and I
did not fight back because I did not want to fight with you. Then you all
teamed up against me that I thought you would kill each other and kill me. You
said : We cannot find anyone but you and will not accept anyone else. Accept
the caliphate and we will be on your side. Then I accepted it and you asked
people to give me allegiance and whoever gave allegiance out of their own
conviction, I accepted from him. I did not force those who refused to give me
allegiance to do so. The first ones who gave me allegiance were Talha and Al
Zubair, had they not agreed to me I would not have forced them. A very short
time after that, someone said to me : They both took an army and went to
When the Shiites re-newed giving allegiance to imam
Ali, after the Khawarijites went to Houra' and Nahrawan, they said to him :
"We are friends with your friends and enemies to your enemies". Then
imam Ali asked them to befriend those who are loyal to the tradition of the
prophet (pbuhp) and his family and to hold a stand against those who oppose his
tradition. Then came Rubaiah Bin Abi Shaddad Al Khath'ami (who was the holder
of the Khath'am banner in the imam's army during the Camel and Siffin battles)
and the imam said to him :"Give allegiance to the Book of God and His
messenger's tradition". Then Rubaia said "Also to the traditions of
Abu Bakr and Omar". The imam answered :"Had Abu Bakr and Omar not
followed the Book of God and His messenger's tradition, they would not have
been in the right".
The imam (pbuh) also sent a letter to the Egyptian. He sent it with Qays Bin
Sa'ad Bin Ibada who was the governor of
Imam Ali (pbuh) specifically said about his brother Omar Bin Al Khattab
:"...He rectified fallacies, healed past wounds, followed the tradition of
the prophet (pbuh) and overpassed sedition. The pure man with little
imperfection is gone. He was righteous and he obeyed and feared God".
(194)
This positive attitude towards the two sheikhs is also reflected in the Ahl Al
Bayt (pbut) culture and it's especially found in imam Al Sajjad Ali Bin Al Hussein's
supplication. He says :"....O God and Mohamad's (pbuhp) companions
especially the ones who were so good to him. Those who withstood hardship to
support him and stood by his side, accepted him as a delegate and competed
among each other to embrace his message. Those who heard him as he delivered
his messages and left their spouses and children behind to demonstrate his
word. Those who fought their fathers and children to reinforce his prophet hood
and support him while not expecting a worldly reward for loving him. Those
whose clans had left them for holding on to him and those who lost their
relatives as they lived in his shadow. So please God reward them as they had
left everything for Your cause and grant them contentment as they live in Your
paradise". (195)
Al Kulini narrated in "The Meadow from Al Kafi" that Abi Basira said
: " I was sitting at Abu Abdullah's (pbuh) when Um Khalid came to us and
asked to speak to him. Abu Abdullah then asked me : Would you be pleased to
hear what she has to say? I said : Yes. Then he gave her permission to speak
and he let me sit with him on a pallet. She then entered and spoke. She was an
eloquent woman and she asked him about the two of them (ie Abu Bakr and Omar
(mGbpwt)). He answered : Be on their side. She said : As I stand before the
Almighty, should I say you instructed me to be on their side? He said :
Yes."A number of Sunni sources also narrate that imam Ali used to say
:"Anyone who prefers me to Abu Bakr and Omar, I would enforce the punishment
of a liar on him". (196) Even the Mutazalite judge, Abdul Jabar Al
Hidmani narrated in his book "Reinforcing Prophet Hood" that Abu Al
Qasim Nasr Bin Al Sabah Al Balkhi said in his book "The Book of
Disapprovals of Ibn Al Rawindi" :" A man asked the partner of Bin
Abdullah : Who is better, Abu Bakr or Ali? He answered : Abu Bakr. Then the man
asked : You say this while you're a Shiite? He answered : Yes, anyone who says
otherwise is not a Shiite. By God he went up the tribune and said: The best of
this umma after the prophet (pbuh) are Abu Bakr and Omar". Regardless of
the authenticity of this narration, since the Shiite were known throughout
history for preferring imam Ali, it is well established that Shiites in the
first century respected and adored the two sheikhs. At that time Shiites only
opposed some of the companions who differed with imam Ali and fought against
him. This is confirmed by the Sunni imam, Al Lalka'i, in the fifth century as
he narrates....Huraith Bin Abi Matar narrated that he heard Salma say:" I
accompanied Al Maseeb Bin Nakhba (Najeeh) Al Farazi in this mosque for twenty
years and I also accompanied a lot of Shiites, never once have I heard any of
them speak ill of the prophet's companions. They only had good things to say
about them and they only spoke about Ali and Uthman." (197)
This is also confirmed by Muhib El Deen Al Khateeb when he says :" It is
seen that during this time of history, extremists on both sides (Shiites and
Khawarijites) both had respect for the two sheikhs, Abu Bakr and Omar (mGbpwt).
This is in consistency with the prince of believers', Ali, feelings about them.
He used to announce through the Kofa pulpit the greatness of the two sheikhs
and he would also praise them". (198)
Indeed history records that the first generations of Shiites, especially the
ones in the first Hijra century had said :" Ali had the most right after
the prophet (pbuh) for the caliphate for his merit, knowledge and his quick
acceptance of Islam. He is the best, the bravest and the most religious and
devoted man after the prophet". Despite this they approved Abu Bakr and
Omar as caliphs and considered them worthy of it. They also said :" Ali
has passed off the caliphate to them and had accepted them and gave them
allegiance out of his own will and gave up his right to them. Thus we accept
his decision just as the rest of Muslims accepted it and accepted the two
caliphs. It's unlawful for us to say or accept otherwise. Abu Bakr's caliphate
became rightly guided and on the right path because of Ali's acceptance of
it." (199)
Another Shiite group said :" Ali is the best of men because of his
relation to the prophet and because of his immediate acceptance of Islam before
everyone else and also because of his knowledge of it. However, it was lawful
for people to choose a caliph other than him given the caliph they choose is
just whether he like this or not. The caliphate of the person that they chose
with their own free will is rightly guided and it is an act of obedience to God
the Almighty and hence people are obliged to obey him." (200)
Another group of Shiites said :" The imamate of Ali Bin Abi Talib is
established at the time he called on people and declared revolution". (201)
B) The Second Stand : After Adopting the Imamate
Doctrine
Upon the ending of the first Hijra century, Shiites faced severe political
pressures, massacres, torture and prosecutions at the hands of the Umayyads.
This gave rise to extremism and fanaticism adopted by a small group as would be
the case with any political stream that expands and that is subjected to similar
pressures. This, in turn, led to the development of the Divine Imamate Theory
which confines the caliphate to the prophet's household and claims that the
great prophet (pbuh) had chosen Ali to be the imam after him and that the
imamate is confined to his progeny until Resurrection Day. This theory negated
the principle of consultation and the Righteous Caliphs who were considered by
it to be "aggressors" of the caliphate.
This theory has first emerged in Al Kufa during imam Zaid Bin Ali's revolution
against Hisham Bin Al Hakam in 122. This led to the split of "Rafidis" out of
the general Shiite movement.
Let us listen to Al Tabari as he tells us what happens from the very beginning:
"A group of their heads met with him (Zaid) and
said : May God have mercy on you! What do you say about Abu Bakr and Omar? Zaid
answered : May God have mercy on them and may He forgive them. I have not heard
one person of my household disown them. They had nothing to say but good things
about them. Then they asked : Why then do you seek revenge from the murderers of
the prophet's family? Have they not deprived you from your rightful authority?!
Then Zaid answered : The most the folks have done was to push the caliphate away
from us when we had more right to the prophet's (pbuh) sovereignty than all of
mankind. This, to us, does not make them disbelievers. They ruled by the Koran
and the prophetic tradition and were just. They said : Then why did they (the
Umayyads) treat you unfairly? And if you say they didn't treat it unfairly then
why are you calling upon people to fight those who treated you fairly?! He said
: They (the Umayyads) were not like (Abu Bakr and Uthman). They (the Umayyads)
were unfair to me, to you and to themselves. We but ask you to follow the Book
of God and His prophet's (pbuh) tradition, to revive his traditions and to
abolish innovations. If you obey us you'll find happiness but if you don't obey
us then I have no responsibility over you. They then left him and said : The
imam has preceded. They used to claim that Abu Jafar Mohamad Bin Ali, the
brother of Zaid Bin Ali, was the imam but he had passed away. His son Jafar was
still around and thus they said : Jafar is our imam today after his father. He
has more right to the imamte after his father. We do not follow Zaid Bin Ali, he
is not an imam. Then Zaid named them "Rafidis" (those who reject). Before Zaid
went out, a group of them went to Jafar Bin Mohamad Bin Ali and said : Zaid Bin
Ali asks us to give him our allegiance. Should we? He answered them : Yes do so.
By God! He is the best out of us and our master. They then came out and
concealed what they were instructed to do". (202)
This theory has also been rejected by the prophet's household (pbut) and the
early Shiites. Imam Mohamad Al Baker (pbuh) said to Jaber Al ja'fi : "O Jaber! I
have been informed that some folks in Iraq claim to love us while they badmouth
Abu Bakr and Omar (Gbpwt). They also claim that I instructed them to do so. Tell
them that I pronounce my innocence of such claims before God. By Him who holds
Mohamad's soul! If I come to power, I would sacrifice them as a means to get
closer to God. Mohamad's intercession would never reach me if I don't ask for
forgiveness and mercy for them. He also said to his student, Salem : O Salem! Be
loyal to them and disown their enemy! They have both been guided imams, may God
be pleased with them. He also said to the person who asked him about whether he
could decorate his sword : Decorating your sword is acceptable since Abu Bark Al
Siddik (mGbpwh) has done so. The man (who asked the question) asked surprised :
And you call him Al Siddik (the trustworthy one)? The imam then leaped forward,
faced the qibla (direction of Kaaba) and said : The ones who don't call him Al
Siddik will not have their words ratified by God in this life or in the
Hereafter". (203)
The ghulu (exaggeration about the prophet's household) movement had originated
at that time amongst the Shiite circles. It was led by Sam'an Al Tamimi, Al
Maghera Bin Sa'ed, Bashar Al Sha'eri and Abu Al Khattab. They used to claim that
the imams of Ahl Al Bayt were divine or prophets and they would also claim that
about themselves. They declared Abu Bakr , Omar and anyone who didn't take Ali's
side as disbelievers. However, the imams of Ahl Al Bayt used to fend them off
vigorously and with anger. They used also to expel them from the ranks of
Shiites, curse them and disown them. Imam Al Sadik spoke to them and said :"
Draw near to God! You are infidels, disbelievers and polytheists". He also said
to one of his friends :" If you go to Al Kufa, then go to Bashar Al Sha'eri and
say to him : O you disbeliever! O you infidel, I disown you!". When Bashar came
to him one day, he yelled at him :" Get away from me! May God curse you! By God,
you and I shall never stay under one roof!". After he left he said :" Woe to
him!....God has not belittled anyone the way He belittled this impudent! By God!
I'm God's servant and the son of his umma!". Imam Al Sadik also said about Al
Maghira Bin Sa'ed :" May God curse Al Maghira Bin Sa'ed. May God curse a Jewish
lady he used to go to her and learn from her sorcery, witchcraft and
enchantment. By God! We are not but servants created and chosen by God. We
cannot do harm or good without His power! May God curse those who say about us
what we do not say about ourselves". He declared :" May God curse anyone who
says we are prophets. May God curse anyone who even questions that." (204)
It wasn't difficult for the Shiite movement to get rid of those "disbelievers" (gulats)
who had not only left Shiism but had also left the folds of Islam because of
their claims of the divinity or the prophet hood of the imams of Ahl Al Bayt.
The problem, however, was more difficult with the political ghulats who believed
in the "text" theory and the appointment of imam Ali and Ahl Al Bayt by the
prophet to be the caliphs after him. This theory had a negative view of the
Righteous Caliphs who were chosen by election and consultation before imam Ali.
The ghulat or "Rafidis" believed that Abu Bark and Omar took the caliphate from
Ali by force and hence they disowned them. Some extremists among them used to
claim that most of the companions went apostate or became hypocrites. They
claimed that the companions "knew about the divine text but went against it".
Certainly, this belief was awful and was too extreme. However, it was not
adopted by the Shiite public or the Imamate public. Most of the Imamates
believed in the hidden text and not the frank one about imam Ali and hence they
said that the companions "made a mistake" when they didn't elect imam Ali during
the sakifa. They did not accuse them of hypocrisy, disbelief or going apostate.
In any case, they didn't say what they said out of resentment towards Islam or
out of hate for the companions, who championed Islam. They based their belief on
a suspicion that was built on weak misinterpreted and fabricated hadiths exactly
as the Kharijites did when they accused imam Ali of disbelief.
Indeed, the Divine Imamate Theory that became a religious ideology and one of
the fundamentals of religion for the Imamate Shiites, placed them in a
historical crisis and a theoretical antagonism with the two sheikhs. It also
separated them from the culture of Ahl Al Bayt and the early Shiites who loved
and greatly respected the two sheikhs.
This led them to collide with Ahl Al Bayt's open and positive attitude towards
the companions especially the two sheikhs. Hence, they were forced to let the
imam's sayings pass under the guise of "al taqiyah" (dissimulation). However,
Ahl Al Bayt used to respond to their extremist claims vigorously. A man came to
imam Al Sadik and said to him : " I have a neighbour who claims that you disown
Abu Bakr and Omar. The imam got angry with him and said : May God disown your
neighbour. I hope to God my blood relationship with Abu Bakr works to my
advantage". When Salem Bin Abi Hafsa asked him about the two sheikhs, he
answered : " O Salem! Be on their side and disown their enemy. They have both
been guided imams, may God be pleased with them.....Would a man badmouth his
grandfather? Abu Bakr is my grandfather. On Resurrection Day, Mohamad's
intercession would not reach me if I don't stand on their side and disown their
enemy". (205) Imam Al Sadik also narrated a hadith about his grandfather, the
prince of believers, who spoke about his good brothers, the companions of the
prophet (pbuhp) : "I saw Mohamad's (pbuhp) companions and none of you look like
them. They would become disheveled and dusty from prostrating and standing,
hovering between their foreheads and cheeks. They acted as if they stood on
ember when they remembered their own death. It seemed as if marks of goats'
knees were stamped between their eyes from the length of their prostration. When
the name of God is mentioned, they would cry until their pockets got wet and
they would slant down as the trees would on a windy day for fear of punishment
and in hopes of reward". (206)
To be continued