Table of Contents
Introduction
The Origins of the
Shi'ahs
The Fundamentals of
the Religion
The Shi'ah-The Divine
Code of Living
Fiqh (Jurisprudence)
1. Salat (prayer)
2. Sawm (Fasting)
3. Zakat (Taxation)
4. Khums
5. Hajj
6. Jihad
7. Amr Bi 'l-ma 'Ruf and
Nahy 'ani 'l-munkar (The enjoining of good and the prevention of evil)
8. Mu'amalat
(Mutual Dealings)
8. (a) The
Marriage
Agreement
8 (b) Talaq
(Divorce)
9. Inheritance
10. Endowments (waqf);
Gifts (nibah) and Charities (sadaqah):
11. Passing
Judgment (qadawah)
12. Slaughtering
and Hunting
13. The Nature of Foodstuffs
14. Penology (hudud)
Allegations Against the Shi'a
The Problem of Bada'
Taqiyah
Endnotes
Introduction
BISM - ILLAH - IR - RAHMAN - IR - RAHEEM
(In the name of God, the most Compassionate, the Merciful)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL- HAMDU L'ILLAH
(All praise be to God)
Call unto the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation,
and reason with them in the best way. Lo! your Lord best knows those
who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who are rightly
guided.
(Qur'an, 16:125)
It was about two years ago that I received a long letter from an
Iraqi student in Egypt. Briefly speaking, the writer of the letter had
had an exchange of views with some eminent scholars of al-Azhar. Perhaps
they talked about Najaf al-Ashraf, the scholars of that seat of learning
and their ways of studies and also about those devoted to the spiritual
atmosphere at the mausoleum of Hazrat Ali (a.s.).
There is no doubt, of course, that the educated class of Cairo are all
praise for the great seat of learning at Najaf and are also well
impressed with the intellectual advancement of its scholars. In spite of
all this they do not refrain from saying: "Oh! What a pity! They are
Shi'as."
The writer of the letter says that he was very astonished and often used
to plead with them, "Gentlemen! The Shi'as are a Muslim sect and a part
of the Muslim community." But their reply was, "No, Sir! The Shi'as are
not Muslims. What has Shi'ism to do with Islam? It is wrong to count it
as a sect among the sects and a religion among the religions of the
world; it was a plan devised by the Iranians and a political stunt to
overthrow the Umayyad rule and bring about the 'Abbasid Caliphate. What
has it to do with the ways prescribed by God?"
After this, this young man writes. "Respected Sir, at present I am young
and have no knowledge of religions.
I know neither the philosophy of religious growth, nor do I know the
history of its flourishing. Consequently I have entertained some
doubts."
After writing these words this student of the great college at Cairo
desired that I should unveil the truth and rid him of that mental worry.
In this connection he also wrote that if his request proved futile and
he was misled from the right path, I would stand responsible for that.
Accordingly I considered the reply necessary and wrote to him in a
letter answering him according to his intelligence. I must admit,
however, that my own worries were more than the doubts of this youth.
I thought to myself: how is it credible that a cultured country like
Egypt - the cradle of Islamic learning, the centre of the Arabs, nay, of
all the Muslims in such a state of ignorance and hostility among its
intelligentsia!
It was by chance that a book entitled "Farjru 'l-Islam" by the famous
writer Ahmad Amin reached my hands. I started wading it but. when I
reached the place where he wrote about the Shi'as, I felt that the
learned author was not writing a book but building castles in the air.
During the present age, even if a man from the distant regions of China
had written such irresponsible things, he could not be easily forgiven.
Anyhow, I now felt satisfied that all that the Iraqi student had written
was quite correct and instantly it struck me that if the people used to
writing like Ahmad Amin have such a mentality, what can be the condition
of the illiterate or half-literate masses; according to the spirit of
the times, however, every Muslim of today supports unity and brotherhood
among the Muslims and also believes that without such unity our life as
well as death will be without meaning.
In truth, if our Muslim brothers were of the reality of the Shi'a
religion and also proved to be just, such literature which lays the
foundation of mutual enmity and satisfies the cravings of the
Imperialist and irreligious forces would be done away with.
Let us study this passage of "Fajru 'l-Islam" and consider its
repercussions:
"The truth is that Shi'aism was the refuge of the destroyers of Islam."
p. 330.
The writer is not innocent. He knew that the pen of the critics would
pursue him and also knew that his aggressive tendency would injure the
feelings of a nation which comprises tens of millions of people and is a
very great power in the Islamic world.
It was thus quite a surprising event when last year (1349 A.H.), a
cultural delegation from Egypt, comprising thirty members, came here and
included Ahmad Amin himself. All the members of the delegation came to
my residence. It was the month of Ramadan, night time, and the gathering
was large. No sooner had I seen Ahmad Amin than "Fajru 'l-Islam" came to
my mind, since this book had already been seen by a number of our
scholars.
We raised objections, but with respect, in a very mild and soft tone, so
that it might not hurt his feelings. On this occasion the strongest
explanation that Ahmad Amin offered was a lack of information and a
dearth of books. To this we said, "Sir, when someone starts writing on
some topic, he first gathers relevant material and then he fully
examines the matter, otherwise the writer has no right to touch upon the
topic at all."
Consider the libraries of the Shi'as. Row well stocked they are! Examine
our own library. It contains about five thousand volumes and most of the
books are written by Sunnis: this is the collection of books in a small
city like Najaf; strange how Egypt with its many large libraries is
devoid of Shi'a literature!
Of course, these people know nothing about the Shi'as, but never
hesitate in writing anything about them that they wish.
It is even stranger that the fellow Sunni brothers of Iraq living in our
neighborhood are unaware of the Shi'as!
Only a few months ago a promising Shi'a boy of Baghdad wrote in a letter
that recently he happened to go to Dalyam (just adjacent to the Baghdad
district). Most of the people there are Sunnis. The correspondent became
intimate with them and attended their assemblies. Since the people of
Dalyam were unusually impressed by the excellent behaviour and high
morals of the stranger, they warmly welcomed him. But when they came to
know that the person in whom they were taking so much interest was a
Shi'a, their wonder had no bounds. "We were under the impression that
the people of this sect were deprived of even the smallest light of
civilisation and culture - quite wild, totally savage!" Such were their
whims and speculations.
At the end of the letter this young boy appealed to my conscience that,
through the endeavours of my pen, I should remove the misunderstanding
in the minds of such people and introduce a true picture of Shi'aism.
After some time the same youth went to Syria to spend the summer there.
From there he went to Egypt.
From Cairo he wrote another letter, telling me that the condition of
Egypt was not different from that of Dalyam.
He wrote: "Here also the same views about the Shi'as are common. So, it
is requested that you may perform your duty of informing them of the
truth. Believe me, the views that the common people of Islam have formed
about the Shi'as are intolerably obnoxious."
And this is not all. The false imputations, which are being continuously
published in the journals of Egypt, Syria, etc. are no less grievous;
those under attack are as innocent as Joseph, but unfortunately
ignorance and fanaticism have no remedy.
However, silence in the face of transgression is synonymous with the
acceptance of injustice, so I had an obligation to speak out. But it
should be made clear that I do not wish to reply to the slanderers of
the Shi'as but rather to remove that veil of ignorance from the eyes of
the rest of the Muslims so that the truth may be clearly visible to
them; moreover it may serve as the last word to the elements hostile to
Shi'as and as a true picture of Shi'aism. We hope it may also remove the
mutual discord among the Muslims, so that writers like Ahmad Amin may
never get another opportunity to indulge in destructive activities. The
author of "Fajru 'l-Islam" writes "The truth is that Shi'ism was the
refuge of those who wished to destroy Islam through enmity and baseless
talk, and it was the place of shelter for those who wanted to introduce
their ancestral teachings of Israelite, Christian and Zoroastrian
religions into Islam".
Again he writes: "Thus the faith in "raj'at" (the returning) is what the
Isra'elites believe in. The Shi'as believe, moreover, that the fire (of
hell) is "haram" (unlawful) for them.
The Israelites also say that the fire will not touch them except for a
few counted days.
"Christianity's influence appeared likewise in the way in which some of
the Shi'as have given the same relationship for the Imam to God as is
given for Christ to Him.
They also say that the Imam is the confluence of 'Lahut' and 'Nasut'
(where divinity and earthly beings meet). Also, according to their faith
the continuance of prophethood and risalat (messengership) is
unbreakable. They hold the view that he who is absorbed in 'Lahut' is a
prophet. Besides this, transmigration of souls, the physical body of God
and 'hulul' (God's entering another body), which are the old beliefs of
the Brahmins, philosophers and fireworshippers, appeared one by one in
the Shi'a religion . . . ."
For fear of destroying the unity of the Muslim community and inciting
hatred I will refrain from replying.
Otherwise it would be quite easy to show who those people were who
introduced un-Islamic ways into Islam to undermind and divide the Muslim
community'.
Of course I should like to ask the author of 'Fajru 'l Islam": Respected
Sir, which was that group of Shi'as which had decided to destroy Islam?
Was it the first group, which includes the selected companions of the
Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), for instance. Salman Muhammadi, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari,
al-Miqdad, 'Ammar, Khuzayma, Dhu sh Shahadatain, Abu Tihan, Hudhayfah
Yamani, az-Zubayr, al-Fadl ibn al-'Abbas and his respectable brother
'Abdullah, Hashim ibn 'Utbah, al-Marqal, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Aban and
also his brother Khalid, the sons of Sa'id ibn al-'As, Ibn Ka'b and Anas
ibn al-Harith who had heard the Holy Prophet saying: "My son Husayn (a.s.)
will be martyred at the place known as Karbala'. So any one of you,
present at the time of that tragedy must go to help him." Accordingly
Anas drank the cup of martyrdom on the 10th of Muharram, (see "al-Isabah
fi ma'rifati' s-sahabah" and "al-Isti'ab fi ma'rifati' s-sahabah". These
two books on the lives of the Companions are the most authentic
compilations of the Sunni community.)
If we were to attempt to compile a list of the Shi'a companions and
begin to prove their Shi'ism, it would require a complete and
volumionous book. And the fact is that the noble efforts of the Shi'a 'ulema
have made it unnecessary to do so: the brilliant masterpiece, "ad-Darajat
'r rafi'h fi tabaqatu 'sh-Shi'a" written by Sayyid 'Ali Khan (the author
of "as-Salafah" and the standard dictionary "Tarazu 'l-Lughan" describes
the eminent personalities of the Banu Hashim family like Hamza and 'Aqil
Sa'id Khudri, Qays ibn Sa'id ibn 'Ubadah, Burayda, Bura' ibn Malik,
Khabab ibn al-Irth, Refa'a ibn Malik, Amir ibn Wa'ila, Hind ibn Abi Hala,
Ju'da ibn Hubayra, Makhzumi and his mother Umm Hani Bint Abi Talib and
Bilal ibn Riyah the mu'adhdhin (caller to prayer) etc.
But I believe that, from the books on the lives of the Sahaba like "Isaba",
"Asadu 'l-ghaba" and "Isti'ab" we have collected the names of about
three hundred distinguished companions and it is possible some scholarly
person may compile a longer list than this.
Were these persons desirous of ruining Islam? If the Imam of the Shi'as,
'Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), of whom the "Thaqalayn" (the book of God and
the Ahle Bayt) are the witnesses, had not used his sharp-edged sword in
the battles of "Badr" "Uhud", "Hunayn" and " Ahzab" Islam would not have
flourished or attained an imposing height. Abdu 'l-Hamid Mu'tazali
begins his poem of praise : "lla innama al-Islam law la hisamahu…" (if
his sword had not been there, Islam ...)
Yes, if "Zulfiqar" (Hazrat 'Ali's sword) had not been there, if the lion
of God had not taken the lead, as he did before and after the hijrat, if
there had been no sincere help from Hadrat Abu Talib the illustrious
father of 'Ali (a.s.) and if Hazrat 'Ali Murtada (a.s.) had not offered
extraordinary support in the holy lands of Mecca and Medina, the
rebellious group of the Quraysh and the blood-thirsty wolves of Arabia
would have nipped Islam in the bud.
Muslims pay little respect for Abu Talib's (a.s.) services in that they
do not seem prepared to call him a Muslim. On the contrary when they
talk of Abu Sufyan, the root cause of all the troubles of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.) they are prompt in endowing him with Islam, although
everyone knows that he had very reluctantly and unwillingly aligned
himself with the Muslims. When Hazrat 'Uthman got the Caliphate, it was
Abu Sufyan, who cried out, "Sons of Umayyah! Just catch hold of the
caliphate as you would a ball. I swear by him by whom Abu Sufyan can
swear that there is neither heaven nor hell!"
In short, according to he verdict of the Sunni majority, Abu Sufyan is a
Muslim and as to Abu Talib the great supporter of Islam (whose beliefs
are apparent from these lines: "In my knowledge the religion of Muhammad
(s.a.w.) is the best of all religions in the world") he is labelled as a
non-Muslim! Was Abu Talib (a.s.) either so helpless or of such a weak
intellect that he knew that Muhammad's (s.a.w.) religion was the best of
all religions and did not follow it for fear of the people? It should be
clearly understood that he was at the center of all Mecca's forces and
strengths.
Now let us again examine the story of the subversion of Islam. Now were
these people (about whom we have just been talking) the persons who
subverted Islam, or it was the later group, which is known as the "tabi'in"
(the followers), in which are included Ahnaf ibn Qays, Suwayd ibn
Ghuflah, Atiyah, Ufi, Hakam ibn Atibah, salim ibn Abi Ju'd, 'Ali Abi
Ju'd, Hasan ibn Salah, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Sa'id ibn Musayab, Asbagh ibn
Nabatah, Sulayman ibn Mohran, and Yahya ibn Ya'mar 'Adwani'? After them
come the personalities of the "tab'inu 't-tabi'in" (the followers of the
followers) who laid the foundation of Islamic teachings such as Abu 'l-Aswad
Du'ali, the originator of syntax, Khalil ibn Ahmad, the founder of
lexicography and the science of rhyme in poetry, Abu Muslim Ma'adh ibn
Muslim Al-Hira', the founder of grammar, whose Shi'ism has been admitted
even by Siyuti (Al-Muzhir, volume II) and as-Sakit Ya'qub ibn Is'haq,
the master of Arabic literature. Also, in the group of commentators is
the distinguished name of 'Abdullah ibne 'Abbas, who tops the list and
whose Shi'ism is beyond doubt. Next come the names of Jabir ibn
'Abdullah al-Ansari, Abi' ibn Ka'b, Sa'id ibn Musayyab and Muhammad ibn
'Umar Waqidi, who was the first to collect and arrange the Qur'anic
sciences. (Ibn Nadim and others have acknowIedged that they were Shi'as.
"ar-Raghib" is the name of the commentary of Waqidi).
Among those who laid the foundations of the teaching of "Hadith" is Abu
Rafi', who was the freed salve of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) and the
author of the book, "al-Ahkam wa 's-sunan wa 'l-qadaya". He had a
special relationship with Amir al-mu'minin (a.s.); during the caliphate
of the Holy Imam (a.s.) he was in charge of the Treasury at Kufa, his
sons also were both remarkable personalities. 'Ali ibn Rafi' was the
secretary of Amir al-Mu'minin (a..s.) He was the first person after his
father who began writing on "fiqh" (jurisprudence) and his brother,
'Abdullah ibn Rafi' took the lead in the writing of history and the
recording of events in the Muslim community.
Abu Hashim ibn Muhammad ibn Hanafiya was the first to write about the
nature of Islamic beliefs. Many fine books on this topic have been
written by him. We may examine also the works of 'Isa ibn Rawzah who
lived up to the time of Abu Ja'far (Imam Baqir). It should be noted that
the above persons lived before Wasil ibn 'Ata and Abu Hanifah, and that
Siyuti's opinion is correct that the latter were the earliest writers on
the philosophy of Islamic beliefs.
Next we may reflect upon two eminent Shi'as, Qays an-Nasir and Muhammad
ibn 'Ali Ahwal, (known as Mu'min at-Taq"), Hisham ibn al-Hakam and an-Nawbakht.
The latter was an exalted family who continued serving the cause of
Islam for more than a hundred years. Among their works, "Faslu 'l-yaqut",
is of extraordinary importance. Also among the pupils of Hisham Ahwal,
and an-Nasir, the names of Abu Ja'far Sakak Baghdadi, Abu Malik Zuhak
Khazrami, Hisham ibn Salim and Yunus ibn Ya'qub deserve special mention.
These were the persons who undertook masterly debates with sages of
other religions and provided irreputable arguments on topics like the
unity of God and the Imamate.
If all their scholastic subjects of discussion, particularly the debates
of Hisham ibn Hakam, were collected together, it would make an excellent
book. Similarly, if we included all the Shi'a philosophers and scholars,
a great number of voluminous compilations will be required.
I request therefore that the author of "fajru 'l-Islam" tell me whether
these men wanted to ruin the religion of God, or whether they were so
conscientious that they worked day and night to record historical facts
and events and collect together reports of matters relating to the life,
miracles, battles, and the purity of character of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)
One of the finest scholars in this connection is Aban ibn 'Uthman al-Ahmar
Tabi'i (died 140 A.H.). He was a pupil of Imam Ja'far Sadiq (a.s.).
After him Hisham ibn Muhammad, ibn sa'ib Kalbi, Muhammad ibn Is'haq
Matalabi and Abu Makhnaf Azdi continued in this particular field of
knowledge. All the writers of the later age depended upon them as source
material in historical matters.
If we examine a list of historians, we will find that all the
distinguished writers were Shi'as; for instance, the compiler of Kitab
al-Mahasin, Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid Barqi, Nasr ibn Muzahim
Manqari, Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Sa'd Thaqafi, 'Abdu 'l-'Aziz Juludi
Basri Imami, Ahmad ibn Ya'qub(whose book Tarikhu 'l-Ya'qubi has been
published in Europe), Muhammad ibn Zakariya, Abu 'Abdillah Hakim, al-Ma'sudi,
author of "Muruj adhdhahab" Muhammad ibn 'Ali ibn Taba'taba' the author
of "Adabu 's-sultaniyah" and hundreds of other scholars like them, who
cannot be included here.
Among the men of letters, the Shi'as are also in a majority. The
literary men are of different groups. The first group is that of the
companions. All the famous men of letters belonging to this class are
attached to Shi'ism. Nabigha Ju'di, for instance, took part in the
battle of Siffin on the side of 'Ali (a.s.) and the "Rajaz" (rousing
verses) that he composed for the occasion are very well known; 'Urwah
ibn Zayd al-Khayl was also with the Holy Imam (a.s.) in the battle of
Siffin (see al-Aghani). some people acknowledge that Lubayd ibn Rabi'ah
'Amiri was of the Shi'a faith; Abu Tufayl 'Amir ibn Wa'ilah, Abu 'l-Aswad
Du'uli, and Ka'b ibn Zuhayr, the author of "Banat Sa'id" are likewise
but a few of the Shia' men of letters we have room to mention here.
The second group is contemporary with the Tabi'in. In this class al-Farazdaq,
Kumayt, Kathir, Sayyid Humayri and Qays ibn Dharih . have a very
prominent place.
The third group belongs to the second century of the hijrah: Abu Nawas,
Abu Tamam, Bahtari, Da'bil Khuza'i, Dik al-Jin, 'Abd as-Salam, Abu
sh-Shaysh, Husayn ibn Duhak ibn Rumi, Mansur an-Namri, Ashja' asalmi,
Muhammad ibn Wahib and Sari' al-Ghawani. Morevoer, during the reign of
the 'Abbasid rulers all the prominent literary figures, excluding Marwan
ibn Abi Hafsah and his progeny were Shi'as:
Similarly among the celebrated poets and men of letters of the fourth
hijra century were many Shi'as : Mutanabbi Maghrib ibn Hani Andalusi,
ibn at-Ta'awidhi, Husayn Hajjaj (the author of "al-Majnun"), Mahyar
Daylami, Abu Fads Hamdani, (about whom it has been said that poetry
began and ended with him); we may cite also Kashajum, Nashi' saghir,
Nashi' Kabir, Abu Bakr Khwarizmi, Badi' Hamadani, Tughrai, Ja'far Shams
al-Khilafah, , Ammarah al-Yamani, Wida'i Zahi, ibn Basam Baghdadi, Sibt
ibn Ta'awidhi, Salami, Nami who were all Shi'as.
The fact is that the Shi'as attained such an exalted rank in the field
of literature that experts had to say: 'Is there any literary man who is
not a Shi'a?' It is worth noting that in praising some piece of
composition, there was a common saying that such and such a man writes
like the Shi'as. Some people have written that Mutanabbi and Abu 'l-'ula'
were also Shi'as (please refer to where some of their verses are
quoted).
Shi'a poets of the Quraysh family such as Fadl ibn 'Abbas (whose life
history is given in "al-Aghani"), Abu Dihbai Jamhi, Wahib ibn Rabi'ah
and the literary scholars such as Sharif Radi, Murtada, Sharif Abu'l
Hasan , Ali 'Alawin Jumani son of Sharif Muhammad ibnja'far ibn Muhammad
ibn Zayd ibn 'Ali ibn al-Husayn (a.s.) are also worthy of attention.
Sharif Jumani used to say "I am a poet; my father was a poet; my
grandfather was a poet". Muhammad ibn al-'Alawi was an eminent man of
letters. Writing about him Abu 'l-Faraj Isfahani has made available to
us the valuable pearls of wisdom that he left behind. For further
details it is worth while studying "Nasmatu 's-sahr min tashayyu' wa
shi'r". In this esteemed masterpiece of Sharif Yamani, there is not only
a fair account of the 'Alawimen ofletters, but there is also an account
of the Shi'a poets of the Amawi dynasty. For instance Zamakhshari writes
in his book "Rabi 'al-abrar" about 'Abdu 'r-Rahman ibn Hakam, Khalid ibn
Sa'id ibn 'As and Marwan ibn Muhammad Saruji Amwi; these verses -are
quoted from the latter:
"Oh descendents of Hashim ibn 'Abd Munaf!
wherever I amy be I am yours.
"You are ,God's chosen ones, and Ja'far Tayyar belongs
to your own family.
"Ali, the Lion of God, Hamzah the uncle of the Prophet and
al-Hasan and al-Husayn are the members of your own family.
"Yes, though I am of Amawi lineage, yet I have no
concern with Banu Umayyah."
Similarly, the name of Abu Warda, the well-known author on Najdi and
'Iraqi schools of thought, is also worthy of mention. A part from these
there are also many other notables of this lineage, but since this book
is being written without preparation it is difficult to give details of
all of them.
When we study the history of great kings, distinguished politicians,
statesmen and viziers, we find the Shi'as likewise in prominence also.
Besides the Fatimid and Bawayhid rulers, other kings like the Al Hamdan,
Banu Mazid, Banu Wasis, 'Imran ibn Shahid, Muqallid ibn Musayyab, 'Aqili
and Qarwash ibn Musayyab were all Shi'as. Also the faith in Shi'ism of
Wajihu' d-dawlah Dhu 'l-qarnayn Taghlabi and Tamim ibn Mu'izin the ruler
of Marakish is not a secret thing.
If we now consider the early Muslim viziers (ministers) we find that
nearly all of them are Shi'as.
Ishaq Katib, for example, was perhaps the first person for whom the
appellation of Vizier was formally used. Abu Salmah Khilal al-Kufi was
the vizier of the first 'Abbasid Caliph. In view of his administrative
capability Saffah entrusted him with all the affairs of the State.
Abu Salmah was known as the 'Wazir Al Muhammad and it was because of his
love for Al Muhammad that he was martyred on the order of the same
Saffah.
Abu 'Abdillah Ya'qub ibn Dawud was the Vizier of al-Mahdi al-'Abbasi;
the Caliph confided the entire administration of the state to him. This
verse, "Oh Banu Umayyah! Get up! And arise from your deep slumber!
Ya'qub ibn Dawud is the Caliph", refers to him. He too was to later
suffer captivity for his Shi'a belief.
Al Nawbakht and Banu Sahl are well known as the families of the viziers.
Fadl ibn Sahl and Hasan ibn Sahl were the viziers of Ma'mun ar-Rashid.
Similarly from Banu al-Furat, Hasan ibn 'Ali was thrice made the vizier
of the Caliph Muqtadar. Abu 'l-Fadl Ja'far, Abu 'l-Fath Fadl ibn Ja'far
and , Amid Muhammad ibn Husayn and his eldest son Dhu'l-kifayatayn
Abu'l-Fath 'Ali ibn Muhammad were the viziers of Rukn ad-dawlah.
Banu Tahir Khyza'i was likewise entrusted with minis tership by. Ma'mun.
Other viziers were Mahlabi, Abu Dalf 'Ajalli, Sahib ibn 'Ibad, the great
politician Maghribi and Abu 'Abdillah Husayn ibn Zakariya, who is known
by the epithet "Shi'i".
There are others besides them, such as Ibrahim Suli, Talaya' ibn Zarik,
Afdal, the commander-in-chief of Egypt and his son Ja'far ibn Muhammad
ibn Fatit, Abu'l Mu'ali Habat-ullah, Vizier of Mustazhir and Mu'yad
Muhammad ibn Abd al -Karim Qummi, who first became the vizier of Nasir
and was later offered ministership by Mustazhir.
During the time of "Baramakah" Hasan ibn Sulayman was the Chief
Secretary. He was also widely known as "Shi'i".
Among other Shi'as entrusted with administrative posts we may mention
the author of "al-Awraq", (Suli) Yahya ibn Salamah Hasfaki and ibn Nadim
(the author of "alFihrist"), Abu Ja'far ibn Yusuf and his brother Abu
Muhammad Qasim (whose panegyrics and elegies upon the Ahlu 'l-bayt have
no parallel: see "al-Awraq") were "mu'tamad 'umumi (general secretaries)
during the time of Ma'mun, and even for a considerable time after the
latter's death. Similarly the names of Ibrahim Uysuf and his son, the
master of the Arabic language and author of "al-Mu'jam", Abu 'Abdillah
Muhammad ibn 'Imran Marzbani, are also worth remembering, Sam'ani has
made mention of their Shi'ism. Viewed in the same perspective there are
hundreds of persons whose administrative abilities, political sagacity
and national services would need volumes and volumes to be recorded.
My late father had tried to collect the life histories of different
groups of Shi'as. He classified thirty groups into alphabetical order in
ten volumes, under the titles "'Ulama (scholars), philosophers, kings,
viziers, astronomers and physicians, etc." The name of this collection
is "al-Husun al-Mani'ah fi Tabaqat ash-Shi'a". This voluminous book
despite its nature is not complete.
At this stage we would also like to ask the author of "Fajru 'l-Islam"
whether, in his opinion, these persons who had established the teachings
of Islam and provided the basis for true knowledge and learning, wanted
to ruin our sacred religion.
And again the question arises whether he and his teacher Dr. Taha Husayn
are true supporters of the Islamic religion.
If that is the case, we can bid farewell to Islam, or rather we may
quote the words of a poet, if one calls Hatim Ta'i a stingy person "it
is better to die than to live oneself with such a narrow outlook on
life."
In fact it was not my aim to write at such length but the pen moved on
regardless. We hope that the present-day or future writers might learn
something from it and they may at least be careful in the manner of
their writing and may express their thoughts only after researching into
their subject.
Islam's greatest sage Hadrat 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) says: "A wise
man's tongue is subordinate to his heart, and the heart of an ignorant
person is obedient to his tongue."
Ahmad Amin's opinion that "the belief in Raj'ah" (the return) came from
Judaism among the Shi'as" is extremely deplorable. I wish they would
make it clear whether "raj'ah" is the main element of Shi'ism, whether
it is one of the fundamental beliefs of their religion, so that they may
justify their criticism. If one's knowledge is of this nature, is it not
proper for him to hold his tongue and preserve his dignity?
The fact is that faith in "raj'ah" is not one of the fundamentals of
Shi'ism. Of course recognising its validity is considered necessary,
just as in other Islamic groups one should affirm the events of the
unseen and the signs of doomsday: we may mention for instance, the
coming of Christ and the appearance of the Dajjal, which all the sects
believe in. These are not counted among the principles of Islam nor is
their denial the cause of expulsion from Islam, nor belief in them proof
of one's being a Muslim. The same argument view holds good for faith in
"raj'ah".
Indeed even if it is demonstrated that it relates to the roots of the
faith of the Shi'as, we should ask whether concurrence with any Jewish
belief is the result of Jewish influence. The Muslims believe in the
oneness of God.
The Jews also worship one God. As a result of these shared views, can
anyone have the courage to talk of the influence of Judaism? It would be
interesting to see what these people who indulge in taunts and emotional
slander have to say in this matter.
"God Almighty will give life to a group of people for the second time."
Is it an impossibility? Has this story never been mentioned in the Book
of God ? "Consider, oh Muhammad, Those of a past age who left their
homes in their thousands, fearing death, and God Said to them: Die, and
then be brought back to life." (2:243) Has the following holy verse
never been read by anybody? "And the day on which We shall raise a group
from every "ummah" (27:83). If it means the day of judgement, then on
that day not a group from every ummah but all the ummahs (peoples) will
be restored to life.
This is not a new affair. The 'ulema of the majority community have been
making this matter a target of attack since the very beginning. It has
been noted, in this connection that when they do not find any grounds
for criticising the veracity of an eminent Shi'a reporter of hadith,
they begin taunting the Shi'as about "raj'ah" as if they were accusing
someone of idol-worshipping or polytheism. Relative to this problem in
question is the well known story of Mu'min at-Taq and Abu Hanifah. We
believe, however , that this matter does not merit further argument.
We consider it sufficient to have established the moral perversion of
certain misguided persons.
The author of "Fajru 'l-Islam" says: "The fire of gehennam will not be
allowed to burn the Shi'as, except for a few among them and then only
for a time." Only God knows from which Shi'a book this view has been
taken. I wish the learned writer had some better evidence and could
provide the necessary proof for this view.
The Shi'a books clearly says: "Paradise is the reward for the obedient
servant of God even if he is an Abyssinian slave, and hell is for the
wicked even if he is one of the Sayyids of Quraysh. Traditions on the
above subject have been related by the Holy Imams (a.s.) and they are so
many in number that they can hardly be counted. If the above mentioned
author is referring to the intercession of the Prophet (s.a.w.) or the
Imams (a.s.) then of course the question of intercession is another
matter which all the Muslims believe in. This matter will be dealt with
in more detail in another book.
Suffice it to say that belief in such a matter is hardly a reason to say
that Shi'ism has been taken from Judaism just because the latter shows
this belief.
Abu Hanifah agrees in some questions of marriage (nikah) with the
Zoroastrians, but would it be appropriate to say that the Imam of the
Hanafis had based his 'fiqh' (jurisprudence) on Zoroastrianism? And for
further proof, advantage could be taken of his being a man of Iranian
descent. In short, these are all baseless ways and means through which
the desires of certain Shi'ahs men for mutual confusion and discord
among the various Muslim sects are fulfilled.
The alleged influences of Christianity in the Shi'a religion is another
taunt, which is hardly less painful. Honesty should demand that Ahmad
Amin research his material more carefully. he erroneously considered
sects like the Khitabiyyah, the Gharabiyyah, the Alawiyyah, the
Mukhmasah, the Bazi'iyyah and the Ghullat as Shi'as, although, like the
Qaramitah, they are apostate groups having no real link with the Shi'as.
The Imania Shi'as and their religious leaders are absolutely aloof from
these schools of thought; the aforesaid sects are hardly like
Christians, but they go so far as to believe that the Imam is himself
god in the the form of an incarnation. Their faculty concepts have a
striking resemblance to the faith and beliefs of mystics. It appears
from the statements of well-known mystics like Hallaj, Gilani, Rafa'i
and Badawi, etc. which they thought that they had reached a stage which
was higher than divinity and godhead itself Those who believe in 'wahdat
al-wujud' (pantheism) also have the same conceptions.
But the Imamia Shi'as who number millions in Iraq, Iran and the
subcontinent of India and Afghanistan are, as Shi'a, free from such
beliefs, and regard these conceptions as infidelity and digression from
the right path. Their religion is pure 'tawhid' (Oneness of God).
Neither do they believe that God resembles any created being, nor do
they tolerate that His perfect attributes be considered defective or
comparable to creation's attributes; rather they consider any concept
which is the negation of His eternal existence and attributes utterly
wrong.
The metaphysical beliefs of the shi'as are carefully explained in
numerous books. The smaller "at-Tajrid" of Khwajah Nasiru 'd-dinn at-Tusi,
or the monumental "Kitab al-Asfar" of Sadru 'd-din ash-Shirazi, both
merit study in this subject. There are thousands of other books in which
the theories of metempsychosis, divine union and re-incarnation are
proved erroneous.
However the author of "Fajru 'l-Islam", by levelling utterly false
charges against the Shi'as, has not done any useful service to the
religion of Islam and its ummat (nation). Since we have shown in some
detail that the book "Fajru 'l-Islam" is full of false claims and
accusations unsupported by evidence we will pass on to consider other
areas- of misunderstanding. (We have mentioned this book and its author
as an example, so that the world may know how ignorant the masses must
be if the 'ulema' and authors of the majority community are as we have
described.)
The difficulty is that those who write about the Shi'as, take such
unlikely authors as ibn Khaldun and Ahmad ibn 'Abdi Rabbih Andalusi as
their source. Moreover the present day writers in their show of
liberality regard Professor Wellhausen and Professor Dozy as
authorities. But no one takes the trouble of referring to the scholarly
works of the Shi'as. The result is that when a Shi'a goes through the
books of these scholars he finds in them the same sort of absurdities
about himself to which Raghib Isfahani has referred to in his book "al-Muhadirat".
The author writes: "In the court of Ja'far ibn Sulayman a Muslim was
giving evidence about someone's infidelity. When he was asked what he
knew about the defendant, he said, "This man is Mu'tazili. he is Nasibi;
he is Harwari; he is Jabri; he is Rafzi; he rails at 'Ali ibn Khattab, 'Umar
ibn Abi Qahafah, 'Uthman ibn Abi Talib, and Abu Bakr ibn 'Affan. Also he
abuses Hajjaj, who pulled down Kufah on Abu Sufyan, and on the day of
Qata'if (the day of Tafur 'Ashura') fought against Husayn ibn Mu'awiyah".
Hearing this Ja'far said, "Damn you! I do not know for which branch of
learning I should envy you - historical, religious or geographical
knowledge!"
As regards 'Abdullah ibn Saba, whose name has been associated with the
Shi'as, if one studies any Shi'a book one will find that he is held in
contempt; rather the mildest works about him that are to be found in the
books written by Shi'a authors are: "'Abdullah ibn Saba - curses be upon
him". We should mention that some people hold the view that 'Abdullah
ibn saba, like Majnun, 'Amiri, and Abu Hilal, were in fact only
ficticious heroes of story and legend.
During the middle period of the Umayyah and 'Abbasid rule,
self-indulgence, sport and play, had reached the middle period of the
Umayyah and 'Abbasid rule, self-indulgence, sport and play, had reached
such a height that story-telling had become a part of the life of the
residents of the palace. It was in such an atmosphere that the stories
were contrived.
Our original aim was to dwell on this subject. But considering the
repeated attacks on the authors of the present age, we thought it
necessary to introduce briefly the beliefs and faiths, important
principles and the articles of practice of the Shi'as. It should be
noted that in the Shi'a religion the door of "Ijtihad" (endeavor to
arrive at a conclusion regarding any religious problem) is always open,
and so long as there is no violation of "ijma"' (consensus), the Book
(the Holy Quran), sunnah, and intellectual reasoning, every "mujtahid"
(religious scholar of exceptional merit) is free in his opinion; anyone
who violates these limits and draws his own conclusion will be
considered misguided; the opinion of such a man will be regarded as
purely personal, individual and unfit to be followed.
In these pages it is not possible to deal with all matters in detail, so
only those fundamentals of Shi'ism will be explained in which there is
no room for disagreement.
Not much attention will be paid to arguments and proofs as this is
appropriate only for larger volumes. Our only aim is that all the
Muslims, individually and collectively, may know the real beliefs of the
Shi'as and, by refraining from attributing false beliefs to their
brothers, may not do injustice to themselves. Rather than considering
Shi'ahs as evil spirits, demons, jinn, beasts and monsters, they should
regard them as a special branch of their society, since by the grace of
God the Shi'as of Hadrat 'Ali (a.s.) are adorned with a true Islamic
character, knowledge of and belief in the Holy Quran and Sunnah,
blessings of faith, and kind manners, and live according to principles
which are based on reasoning and certain proofs.
Muhammad Husayn Al-Kashifi 'l-Ghita'
Najaf al-Ashraf
Jamadi 'l-awwal 1350 A.H. (1931 A. D.)
PART I: The Origins of the
Shi'ahs
Shi'ism is not a new religion. It begins with the beginning of Islam.
The embodiment of the code of religion, that is, the seal of the
Prophets (s.a.w.) planted the tree of Shi'ism together with Islam; with
his own hands, he watered it and looked after it. The plant grew up to
be a green tree which began blooming in the life-time of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.). But it had not yet born fruit, when the light of
prophethood was put out.
We are not alone in advancing this claim. Even the eminent scholars from
among Sunnis agree with us. For instance, 'Allamah Siyuti in his famous
commentary "ad-Durru l-Manthur" Says in connection with God's words "Hum
khayru l-bariyah" (they are the best of created beings) (Surah: The
Clear Proof: Ayat 7):
"Ibn 'Asakir quotes Jabir ibn Adbillah as saying: "We were present in
the company of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) when 'Ali (a.s.) came towards
us. Seeing 'Ali (a.s.) the Prophet (s.a.w.) said: "I swear by God the
Almighty, who is the Master of my life, that he ('Ali (a.s.)) and his
Shi'ahs shall be successful on the day of judgement."
Ibn 'Adi reports from ibn 'Abbas that when the verse "Inna l-ladhina
amanu wa 'amilu 's-salihat" (Verily these are those who believed and did
good deeds) was revealed, the Holy Prophet (s-a.) said to 'Ali ibn Abi
Talib (a.s.):
"It refers to you and your Shi'as; God will be pleased with them and
they with Him on the Day of Judgement."
Ibn Mardawa'ih quotes Hadrat 'Ali (a.s.) himself as saying: "The Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.) said to me: 'Oh 'Ali, Did you not hear what God said:
'Inna 'l-ladhina amanu wa 'amilu 's-salihat ula'ika hum khayru 'l-bariyyah.'
Verily it means you and your Shi'as. The promise between your people and
me shall be fulfilled at the fountain of Kawthar; there, when all the
nations shall be present to account for their actions, your people will
be called forward, your faces, hands and feet shining with light'."
These three hadith are to be found in as-Suyuti's "ad-Durr al-manthur".
Ibn Hajar has also reported some of these traditions in his as-Sawa'iq)
from Darqutni- He quotes Umm Salamah as saying: "Oh Ali, You and your
shi'as shall attain Paradise." Ibn Athir writes in connection with the
word "qumh." that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said to Hadrat 'Ali (a-s.):
"When people come into the presence of God, your Shi'as will be there
content with God and He with them, and your enemies shall be subjected
to God's wrath and their hands shall be tied to their necks." The Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.) demonstrated this by putting his hands behind his neck,
and said: "See, they shall be tied up in this way."
Probably this tradition has been reported by Ibn Hajar also in his as-Sawa'iq"
and other 'ulama' have also reported it in different ways, showing that
it is among the well known hadith.
In az-Zamakhshari's "Rabi' al-Abrar" the following statement of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.) has been recorded:
"Oh 'Ali, On the Day of Judgement the skirt of God's mercy will be in my
hand and my skirt will be in your hand and your skirt will beheld by
your descendants and the Shi'as of your descendants will be hanging on
to their skirt. Then you will see where we will be taken (i.e.
Paradise)." For further satisfaction, it will be useful to study Ahmad
ibn Hanbal's "al-Musnad" and an-NaSa'i's "Khasa'is" etc., which contain
a number of such traditions.
These traditions show that the Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.) spoke a number
of times about the Shi'as of 'Ali (a.s.) and pointed out that on the Day
of Judgement they, in particular, shall be safe and successful, God
being pleased with them and they with Him.
Everyone who believes that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) was the embodiment
of truthfulness and that the verse which begins "ma yantiqu 'an il-hawa
. . . " (He does not speak of himself unless 'why' is revealed to him)
refers to the Prophet himself, realise that these hadith must be true.
Those people however who understand the above hadith as referring to all
the companions of the prophet, have failed to recognise their real inner
meaning.
We find that during the days of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) a group of
outstanding companions was attached to Hadrat 'Ali (a.s.). Not only did
every man in this group acknowledge the Holy Imam (a.s.) to be his
spiritual leader, the real transmitter of the Holy Prophet's teachings,
but they also acknowledged him as the true interpreter and commentator
of the orders and secrets of the Prophet (s.a.w.). It is this group
which is popularly known as the Shi'a. Even the lexicographers support
this truth. If you refer to the famous dictionaries "an-Nihayah" and "Lisan
ul-'Arab", you will find the meaning of "shi'a" as "one who loves and
follows 'Ali (a.s.) and his descendants."
If however we are to understand that "shi'a" means any person who loves
'Ali (a.s.) or is not his enemy, then the use of this word would be
inappropriate, because only loving, or at least, not being an enemy of
him, does not mean that a person is a Shi'a; if however, he has the
characteristic of persistent following and obedience then the word Shi'a
would apply; this is crystal clear to those who have an understanding of
Arabic and a notion of the relationship between word, meaning and
context.
In view of these realities, it is unlikely that any sensible man, after
studying the appropriate traditions, could draw the conclusion that the
word shi'a means the Muslims in general, but will understand that it
refers to a particular class which has a special attachment to 'Ali (a.s.).
Hopefully, after this explanation, no fair-minded man will try to
conclude that the above quoted traditions do not prove the existence of
a group who, because of their special relation with the master of the
pious, 'Ali (a.s.) were superior to all the Muslims of that time, and
who all expressed their love for him.
Personally, I do not agree with the assumption that the Caliphs, who
could not accept this fact, consciously violated the words of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.). It is possible many of them did not hear his edicts,
or that those who heard them were unable to follow his directions.
Moreover, if the Statements of the Prophet (s.a.w.) in which he
announced the rank and high position of Amiru 'l-Mu'minin (a.s.) and the
Ahlu 'l-bayt (a.s.) are studied with an open mind, it will be seen that
these reports do not only show merits of a general nature, but also
contain clear indications of how to recognise the status and capability
of the Leader of Shi'ism, and of how to contribute to the establishment
and justness of that school of thought. The following traditions may be
cited as examples.
"'Ali (a.s.) bears the same relationship to me as Harun (Aaron) had to
Musa (Moses)".
"Oh 'Ali, only those with faith (iman) are your friends, and only the
hypocrites (munafiqin) are your enemies."
"Oh people of my ummah. I leave behind two things worthy of great esteem
- the Book of God and my progeny, my Ahlu 'l-bayt."
"According to the tradition of at-Tayr, the prophet made the following
prayer: "Oh God. Send to me your most beloved slave", and immediately
Ali entered his presence.
"Tomorrow I will give this standard to the man who loves God and His
Prophet (s.a.w.) and whom God and His Prophet (s.a.w.) also love."
"'Ali is with the Truth and the Truth is with 'Ali."
These traditions are mostly taken from "Sahih al-Bukhari" and "Sahi'h
al-Muslim", and there are thousands of such authentic reports. This
small booklet cannot accommodate details of them. Those who are fond of
research work can study the famous book "Abiqat al-Anwar" by Allama'
Sayyid Hamid Husayn, which is ten times as voluminous as "Sahih al-Bukhari"
and is a master-piece of research in the field of hadiths.
When the light of prophethood was extinguished, a group of the "sahaba"
started to act to prevent the Caliphate from passing to 'Ali.
The cause of this opposition might have been the young age of the holy
Imam, or the feeling among the Quraysh that the prophethood and the
imamate should not be combined in the house of Banu Hashim; there might
have been other causes, we do not have the space to discuss them here.
Both the Sunni and the Shi'a sects Wee however that, when allegiance was
being taken from the Muslims, 'Ali (a.s.) did not accept the authority
of Abu Bakr, and, according to the learned al-Bukhari ("Sahih"', see the
chapter on the victory at Khaybar), he did not pay allegiance until six
months had passed. Some of the eminent companions, like az-Zubayr, 'Ammar
and Miqdad and others, also refused to pay homage to Abu Bakr.
The fact is that 'Ali (a.s.) had no craving for political power, nor
desire to rule, other than in his capacity as Imam.
The talk that he had with ibn , Abbas at Dhiqar clearly proves which way
the son of Abu Talib (a.s.) was going. Amiru 'l-Mu'minin (a.s.) had only
one purpose in view, and it was that "religion" might remain safe,
"right" might prevail and "wrong" might be exterminated. Imbued with
these high feelings, 'Ali (a.s.) resorted to protest only. He did not
adopt any plans to overthrow the caliphs. Rather, in order to lead and
guide the people to the right path he always cooperated with the
government; his wise suggestions enabled Islam to flourish and meant
that religious commands were made known to all. If Ali (a.s.) had not
adopted this course of action, not only would Islamic unity have been
shattered, but the people also would have been lost in the labyrinth of
ignorance.
The Shi'as too continued to follow their leader; the spirit of the time
demanded that differences should be ignored. For this very reason, they
did not try to establish themselves as a sect during the regime of the
first caliphs. Of course Ali's friends silently observed the modus
operandi of every ruler and the changing conditions till at last the
nation itself selected Ali (a.s.) as its leader. When Amiru 'l-Mu'minin
(a.s.) took the seat of the caliphate, Mu'awiyah revolted and sent out a
large number of forces to Siffin.
A group of the "sahaba" (companions) remained from the very beginning
with 'Ali (a.s.). The rest of the companions also sided with the Holy
Imam. Eighty prominent companions, like 'Ammar ibn Yasir, Khuzaymah Dhu
'sh Shahadatayn and Abu Ayub al-Ansari, nearly all of whom were either
Badri (from the battle of Badr) or 'Aqb (Bay'atu 'l-'Aqbi - the pledge
of 'Aqbi), joined 'Ali's party. Most of them sacrificed their lives for
the Holy Imam (a.s.).
The fighting continued however, and Mu'awiyah's intriguings also
increased. When Hadrat , Ali (a.s.) was martyred, the ruler of Damascus
gave a sight of relief Islam disappeared from Mu'awiyah's royal courts
and he began to revive all the tyrannical traditions of the past kings.
'Ali's (a.s.) pious way of life, devout manners and exalted character
contrasted sharply with Mu'awiy ah's corrupt morals and his dealings
with 'Amr b. al-'As, with the Governorship of Egypt, Yazid and his
despotic caliphate, and Ziyad ibn Abih and his activity against Islam.
Mu'awiyah's notorious over-indulgence and passion for revelry clearly
demonstrated the depraved condition of his mind and of the court
surrounding him. We have thus before us the simple way of living taught
by Islam, and on the other side the pomp and vanity of the son of Abu
Sufyan. Mu'awiyah's kingly aspirations were fulfilled with the
hard-earned money of the Muslims.
The dining cloth of the Amawi palace was always laid with the daintiest
of foods. The vizier, Abu Sa'id al-Mansur ibn al-Husayn al-Abi (died 422
A-H.) recorded an event in his work "Nathr ad-Dur". He writes: "Ahnaf
ibn Qays used to say that one day when he went to Mu'awiyah, the latter
put before him such a large variety of food that it was difficult to
count the different dishes. He was bewildered when Mu'awiyah extended
towards him one of the dishes which he did not recognise. He asked what
it was. The answer was . . . the stomach of duck filled with sheep's
brain, fried in pistachio oil and sprinkled with spices." Ahnaf said
that on hearing this he began to weep. Mu'awiyah said: "Why do you
weep?" He replied: "At this time 'Ali (a.s.) has come to my mind. One
day I was sitting with the Holy Imam (a.s.); the time for breaking the
fast approached. The Imam (a.s.) ordered me to stay. Meanwhile a sealed
bag was brought. I asked: "O Imam, what does it contain?" The Imam (a.s)
said: "Powdered barley". I said: "Was there any fear of theft, O Amiru
l-Mu'minin, or is it because of financial stringency that it has been
sealed?" "It is for none of these reasons," he said, "the reason for
this care is only the thought that my sons al-Hasan (a.s.) and al-Husayn
(a.s.) might mix this powdered barley with butter or olive oil." Again I
asked: "Is butter or olive oil unlawful?" The Holy Imam said: "It is not
unlawful, but for the true Imams it is necessary that they remain
attached to the ranks of the poor, so that indigence and want may not
make the poverty stricken rebellious." Mu'awiyah said: "Ahnaf, you have
reminded me of a person whose supreme merits are difficult to be
denied."In az-Zamakshari's "Rabi' al-Abrar", and in other compilations,
many such events are related.
Mu'awiyah's bad nature was inextricably linked with these unlawful
actions; he had an inner desire to reach the height of wickedness. So he
broke all the promises that he had made to Imam al-Hasan (a.s.) and in
the end had the Prophet's grandson poisoned. As a result of this state
of affairs and these events, the Muslims began to look at Syria's
politics with scorn and contempt; the true believers realised that
Mu'awiyah was only a man of this world, and he himself acknowledged this
truth. In az-Zamakhshari's "Rabi' al-Abrar", the following statement is
narrated from the ruler of Syria: "Abu Bakr wanted to keep aloof from
the world and the world kept aloof from him. 'Umar tested the world and
the world tested him. As to 'Uthman, he took hold of the world and the
world also madly pursued him; and I at every step tried with my heart
and soul to make it a bed of roses- The result was that I became of the
world and the world became mine."
Gradually, the people's opinion was changing; the close companions of
the Prophet (s.a.w.) were letting the ordinary Muslims know about the
superior merits, virtues and character of 'Ali (a.s.) and his
descendants, which they had seen with their own eyes. Who cannot be
moved when he recalls the sight of the Prophet of God (s.a.w.) lifting
his loving grandsons onto his back and saying: "What do you think of
your mount, it is not the best mount; and as for you, you are the best
rifers." And do not these words, full of the purity of revelation, "al-Hasan
and al-Husayn (a.s.) are the leaders of the youth of Paradise", demand
to be known by all. Truth has a right to spread, and those who have a
sense of truth in them are desirous of spreading it. The result of this
desire for truth was that the common Muslims began inclining towards
Shi'ism and opportunities were created for the advancement of this sect.
The greatest cause of the advancement of Shi'ism, however, was that
bloody event which revolutionzed the Islamic world. This painful event
of 61 A.H. which is known as the tragedy of Karbala' was the most
momentous of its kind. The effects of the martyrdom of al-Husayn (a.s.)
were felt by all, even those living in the most distant regions of the
Muslim territory. Companions like Zayd ibn Arqam, Jabir ibn 'Abdillah
al-Ansari, Sahl ibn Sa'd as-Sa'idi and Anas ibn Malik survived Karbala'.
The pain they felt had no bounds, and, remembering their duty towards,
and love for, the Prophet and his progeny, they intensified their
efforts to make known the superior merits of Ahlu 'l-bayt (a.s.). The
Umayyad tyrants pursued them and these remaining sahaba were finally
also victims of the sword and poison. But the cry of the oppressed is
not made in vain. These events were not such that the nation of the
Muslims were unaware of them. Indeed, they keenly observed them, with
the result that a great many groups of people began to declare their
love for 'Ali (a.s.). and his descendants; the numerical strength of the
Shi'as increased dramatically. With the same rapidity with which the
tyranny of Banu Umayyah was increasing, the love for Ahlu 'l-bayt was
also increasing in the hearts of the common people. The descendants of
the Umayyids tortured and tyrannized to the extreme, but every action
has its reaction. It is related that Shu'abi said to his son: "Oh my
son, the world cannot harm the values which religion has brought, but
those things which were made and adorned by the world can all be
destroyed by religion. Just reflect upon 'Ali (a.s.) and his affairs.
Did the descendants of the Umayyids ever relinquish their oppression?
They concealed the merits of Ahlu 'l-bayt. They tried to hide the
realities of the situation and never left off singing the praises of
their ancestors.
But all their plans were reversed: the Umayyids were humbled to dust and
the name of Al Muhammad grew brighter and brighter". Though Shu'abi was
known as an enemy of 'Ali (a.s.), these words of truth came from his
tongue and have been preserved in history.
az-Zamakhshari in his 'Rabi' al-Abrar" reports this statement of Shu'abi:
"Our condition was very perplexing if we loved 'Ali (a.s.) there was
fear of murder, and if we became enemies to him, our ruin was certain."
The troubles and worries for the Ahlu 'l-bayt did not cease when the
Sufyani throne came under the control of the Marwanid ruIer 'Abdu 'l-Malik.
'Abdu 'l-Malik Was a monster of a man by whose order Hajjaj razed the
Holy House of the Ka'ba to the ground and mercilessly put the residents
of that sacred place to the sword; having killed 'Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr
in the Mosque of al-Haram, he desecrated the holy place and finally
killed his cousin Sa'id ibn Ashdaq, who had been his former ally.
We must ask ourselves whether the perpetrator of such heinous crimes be
called a Muslim. What should we think of his being called "Khalifatu 'l-Muslimin"
(the Caliph of the Muslims)?
In truth, the entire government of the Marwanids Was run on the same
lines, and, with the exception of. Umar ibn 'Abdu 'l-'Aziz, every ruler
showed the same Outrageous tendencies. Thereafter followed the rule of
the 'Abbasids.
During their period the height of tyranny far exceeded that of the
Marwanids. A poet of that time said: We would have preferred to suffer
the Marwanids oppression forever. May the justice and equity of the
'Abbasids go to hell."
How mercilessly the blood of the descendants of the Prophet (s.a.w.) was
spilled, what strange ways were adopted to annihilate them! The
literature of that time presents us with a picture of life at that time.
The poets have, in different ways, described the tyrannical acts of
these people. How true indeed is the picture drawn by a poet of al-Mutawakkil's
age who says: "God be my witness that, if the descendants of the
Umayyids have so cruelly martyred the grandson of the Prophet (s.a.w.),
these 'Abbasids, who call themselves the descendants of the Prophet's
uncle, in no way lag behind the Umayyid family in oppression and
tyranny. Just see, these tyrants have even demolished the grave of
al-Imam al-Husayn. The Banu 'Abbas are repentant, however, for they feel
regret over one thing, that they did not take part in spilling the
spotless blood of al-Imam al-Husayn (a.s.) along with Banu Umayyah; they
have tried to make amends by pulling down the grave of the Imam (a.s.)."
These are just a few examples of the character of Banu Umayyah and the
Marwanid and 'Abbasid kings.
Now, on the other hand, if you reflect upon the life of Ali (a.s.) and
his descendants, you will come to know why Shi'ism spread and how it
spread; moreover the truth will be revealed as to whether Shi'ism was
the innovation of the Iranians, or the ingenuity of the Sabeans, or
whether it was the simple and straight way of Islam as shown by Muhammad
(s.a.w.).
After the martyrdom of Sayyid ash-Shuhadah (the Leader of the Martyrs)
Imam al-Husayn (a.s.), Imam Zayb al-'Abidin (a.s.) became the head of
the 'Alawi family After the tragedy of Karbala', the Holy Imam lived a
secluded life, mostly spent either in worship of God or in giving moral
teachings and spiritual guidance to the people.
Highly pious and devout persons like Hasan al-Basri, Tawus al-Yamani,
ibn Sirin and Amr ibn al-'Ubayd were products of this very school.
The Muslims received great instruction and knowledge from the Sayyid
as-Sajjad (a.s.) at a time when the common people had been driven far
off the paths of reality.
Imam Zayn ul-'Abidin (a.s.) was succeeded by Imam Muhammad al-Baqir
(a.s.) who was also a shining example of the same noble character. His
legacy was handed down to Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (a.s.).
The age of Imam as-Sadiq (a.s.) was comparatively more favourable to the
Shi'as because the Umayyid and 'Abbasid powers had been exhausted; open
tyranny and oppression became rare. Accordingly the previously
Suppressed truths and hidden realities rose like the sun and diffused
like the light. Those who had been living in 'taqiyyah', hiding their
beliefs on account of fear and danger to their lives, also disclosed
their identity. The atmosphere was well-disposed to the expansion of
Shi'ism. The Holy Imam (a.s.) spent day and night preaching; his sermons
explained the teachings of Muhammad and Al Muhammad (s.a.w.). The
teachings of the truth were now within the reach of every common man;
larger and larger groups of people began to accept the 'Ja'fari'
religion. This age was called the golden age for the propagation of
Shi'ism, because before this the Muslims could not openly profess
Shi'ism, nor even find out about its teachings.
This academy of learning was Iike a flowing river where people in quest
of knowledge came to quench their thirst and later quenched the thirst
of others. According to Abu 'l-Hasan al-Washsha'. "I personally saw a
crowd of four thousand 'Ulama' (scholars) in the Mosque of Kufah and
heard all of them saying: 'This tradition was related to us by Ja'far
as-Sadiq (a.s.).'"
Banu Umayyah and Banu 'Abbas's wanton love for power, their stormy
violence, extreme worldliness and unlimited indulgence in luxuries,
contrasted sharply with the love for knowledge of the descendants of
'Ali (a.s.), their devotion to God, their truthfulness and their
abstention from corrupt politics, and it was this obvious contrast which
showed people the truth of Shi'ism and led to the rapid expansion of
this sect.
It goes without saying that many people's spiritual lives are ruined by
their attachment to the world. Nevertheless they too have a natural
feeling for the different branches of learning and the validity of
religious matters.
The period about which we are talking was not only close to the period
of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), but also the mind of the common Muslims
were imbued with the conviction that the Islamic way of life was endowed
with countless blessings. The Quranic teachings gave them rights which
they had never imagined existed. It was Islam which conquered the
Caesars of Rome and the Emperors of Iran; it was in the name of Islam
alone that they were the rulers of the east and the west; they also knew
that there was sufficient liberality within the laws of this religion to
enable all to accept it without hardship. If the modus operandi is
lawful, it does not restrain anybody from gaining worldly wealth. This
religion is, in fact, pure mercy.
These inner feelings were the hidden motives which made the masses
incline towards a religious way of life.
There always exist men who know that they should mould their social life
according to the light of religious commandment. There are always men
who desire that their entire culture be completely Islamic. But where
could they pin the necessary learning from? Could they get it from the
despots, who claimed to be "khulafa'u 'l-muslimin" (Caliphs of the
Muslims) but did not live accordingly?
Of course, the desire for knowledge was fulfilled by the descendants of
Muhammad (s.a.w.) who were the treasure houses of the Quran and the
repositories of knowledge, and a vivid impression of their superiority
was stamped on the minds of the common people; gradually the Muslims
began to believe that it was these persons who were the true heirs to
the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), and that the right of the Imamate must be
theirs alone.
The Shi'as grew so firm that they were ready to undergo anything to
protect their faith. Most of the Shi'as proved to be immeasurably brave,
valiant and inspired with the spirit of sacrifice; Hajar ibn 'Adi
al-Kindi, 'Amr ibn Himq al-Khuza'i, Rushayd al-Hajari and 'Abdullah ibn
Afif al-Azdi to name but a few, were stalwart Shi'as who, on various
occasions, confronted the antagonists; they triumphed despite the fact
that the opposite group was always materially more powerful. The moral
strength of these people showed the weakness of the apparently strong
armies of the enemy; their sacrifices, on the one hand, shook the
governments of the oppressors to their foundations, and, on the other,
awakened the intellect of the elite and changed the way of thinking of
the masses.
We must ask why these chivalrous men played with death in this way. Did
they expect any worldly gain from the descendants of Muhammad (s.a.w.)?
Were they afraid of loss of life and property? History has answered both
these questions in the negative; the sons of 'Ali (a.s.), it is true,
were bereft of material means, but they had no interest in this world.
What had they to give? They gave Islam to those thirsty for the truth;
the luminous hearts of these fighters were filled with strong faith and
perfect sincerity and it was these very sentiments which drove them to
do battle against tyranny and corruption.
If one considers the literary men of the first and second century of the
hijrah, we will find that, in spite of the atmosphere of fear and
despair, the poets of the time expressed their aversion towards the
kings of their age and their misdeeds and praised the Ahlu 'l-bayt of
Muhammad al-Mustafa (s.a.w.).
Numerous men of letters have testified against the ruling Caliphs and in
favour of the true Imams (a.s.) in their works. Farazdaq, Kumayt, Sayyid
al-Humayri, Du'bil, Diku'l-Jin, Abu Tamam al-Balarri'and Abu Faras
al-Hamdani are full of praise for the holy progeny. The following
couplet of Abu Faras clearly shows how the poets of that age felt at
that time.
"Religion has been shattered to pieces. Truth has be come the victim of
oppression and the share of the descendants of the Prophet of God has
been usurped."
Du'bil says: "I have been courting death for forty years, but no one has
yet accepted to be the killer." Du'bil railed at Harun ar-Rashid,
al-Ma'mun and al-Mu'tasim, and yet composed a great many famous
panegyrics in praise of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (a.s.), Imam Musa al-Kazim
(a.s.) and Imam ar-Rida (a.s.) in the most colourful verse.
We must ask whether the Shi'as endangered their lives in vain? Did they
give up their ease and comfort without any rhyme or reason? When we
examine the causes and motives for their sacrifices, we find that it was
only the truthfulness of the descendants of the Prophet (s.a.w.) which
made them despise the sky-high golden palaces and attracted their
attention towards the miracle of the Quran.
We could pursue this discussion further but the aim of the introduction
was merely to outline the origin and rise of Shi'ism. We hope nothing
has been left ambiguous despite the brevity of this account. We can only
emphasize that Shi'ism was started by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) himself,
and its spread and propagation is a historical fact. We may observe the
series of causes and motives, connected in a regular sequence, which
gave rise to the separation of Shi'a Islam from the Islam of the rest of
the community.
PART II: The Fundamentals of the Religion
Before we deal with the roots and the articles of faith in detail, we
may divide our study of the Shi'a religion according to five principles:
1. Knowledge of God.
2. Identification of His Prophet
3. How to worship.
4. Doing good actions and refraining from bad ones.
5. Belief in ma'ad (the Day of Judgement), and punishment and reward
There are two parts to religion - theoretical and practical - or, more
precisely, belief or faith in God and the unseen, and daily action based
on this belief.
Tawhid (monotheism), Prophethood and ma'ad (the Day of Judgement) are
the three basic arkan (pillars) of Islam. If anyone denies one of the
arkan, he is neither a Muslim nor a believer (u'min); if he does believe
in them he will be counted among the Muslims according to God Almighty
(refer to the following words which have been taken from the Quranic
text: "He who believes in God, His Prophet and the Day of Judgement"),
and shall be entitled to all the rights of the Muslims. According to the
holy verse the Muslim is the "one who believes in God, His Prophet and
also performs good actions"; the "iman" (faith) of a Muslim refers to
"belief in his heart, verbal acknowledgment and performance of
fundamental acts".
One may add another "rukn" (pillar) to these three, which is the
obligatory acts on which the entire Islamic way of life depends. These
obligatory acts are of five kinds: (1) salat (prayers), (2) fasting, (3)
zakat (generally speaking, the Islamic system of taxation), (4) hajj and
(5) jihad (strivin or exerting oneself (even to the ex tent of fighting)
for Islam).
We may explain the difference between Islam and iman as a matter-of
degree. This difference is based on the words of God Almighty in the
surah "al-Hujurat", "The Arabs say: 'We have iman!' Say (to them, O
Muhammad): 'You do not have iman; but say "we have accepted Islam (aslamna:
lit. we have submitted)", for iman has not yet entered your hearts.'"
For further elucidation, He says in another verse: "Verily, the
believers (mu'minin) are those who accepted faith in God and His Prophet
and never after that entertained any doubt; also they performed jihad
with their life and wealth in the way of God - they alone are the true
believers." "Iman" thus means the combination of testifying one's
belief, and of acting in accordance with it. These are the basic beliefs
of all the Muslim. The Shi'as have another "rukn" thus bringing the
total to five principles. This fifth pillar is faith in the imamate.
According to the Shi'a point of view, the Imamate, like Prophethood, is
divine vicegerency. Just as it is God Almighty Who chose one from
amongst His servants for the rank of Prophethood or Messengership, in
the same way it is God Who chooses the Imams. God Almighty Himself
commanded His Prophet to announce the Imamate (spiritual leadership) of
the selected person before his death.
The Prophet, according to divine command, chose a leader for mankind to
protect and complete the religious code. The only difference between a
Prophet and an Imam is that the Prophet receives "wahy" (revelation)
from God, while the Imam, through a special blessing, receives commands
from the prophet. So the prophet is the messenger of God and the Imam is
the messenger of the Prophet.
The Imamate comprises twelve perfect persons, and every Imam appoints
his successor by a specific indication (nass). Like all Prophets, the
Imams are also infallible; there is no possibility of their committing
any sin. The infallibility of the Imam is clearly proved from what God
Almighty says in the Holy Quran: "Verily, I make you an Imam for
mankind. He (Abraham) said: "And of my offspring?" He said: "My covenant
does not reach to the unjust."
Moreover, an Imam is superior to all men in all matters of knowledge and
character, since the very purpose of the Imamate is that humanity may be
exalted to the highest stage and may be adorned with knowledge and good
actions through the imitation of the Imam. What has been said in the
Holy Quran about Prophethood (that the Prophets have been sent to people
as His signs, to teach them the Book and Wisdom), is equally applicable
to an Imam too, because an imperfect person cannot make mother person
perfect. What can someone give to another, when he does not possess
anything himself? A misguided man cannot guide another man. Judged
accordingly, an Imam is a little below the Prophet, but over every human
being.
Anyone who believes in the Imam is called, according to the Shi'a
terminology, a "mu'min" (a man of faith and trust) in the special sense.
Anyone who acknowledges the four fundamentals, which are the centre of
faith of all the Muslims, is called a "Muslim" and a "mu'min" in a
general sense; as has been said earlier, all Islamic laws apply to him:
the protection of his life, property, respect and honour is obligatory.
By only refusing to acknowledge the Imamate, a person cannot be excluded
from the Islamic fold. Of course, on the Day of Judgement, and in the
stages of nearness to God and "karamat" (miraculous signs), the Shi'a
faith will reveal its excellence over the Islam of the majority.
All Muslims are equal in the world and are brothers, but in the next
world there will certainly be a difference of ranks. People will be
accorded positions according to their performance and intention. The
final decision is in God's hands in these matters, and it is therefore
better for us not to involve ourselves.
We have explained that that which distinguishes the Shi'a from the Sunni
Muslims is their belief in the Imamate of the Twelve Imams, and it is
for this reason that this sect is called "Imamiyah". It should be noted
that all Shi'as are not Imamiyah, because the word Shi'a applies to the
Zaydiyah, the Isma'iliyah, the Waqifiyah and the Fathiyah as well. These
are sects which are counted as Muslim. But a more careful study of other
sects will show that there are many which are totally excluded from
Islam, but which, nevertheless, are sometimes still called Shi'a as, for
instance, the Khitabiyah, who are an example of the hundred or more
sects which cannot be regarded as Muslim.
At the present time, however, the word of Shi'a specifically refers to
the Imamiyah sect; which is the biggest body of Muslims in the world of
Islam after the Sunnis.
In Islamic learning, faith in the twelve imams is not anything new; it
is referred to in all reliable and authentic books by Muslim authors.
The Imams Muslim and al-Bukhari narrated traditions concerning the
twelve Imams in their Sahihs in different ways. A few of them are given
here:
1. Jabir ibn Samrah says, "One day when I went to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)
along with my father, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said: 'The universe
shall not come to an end until all the twelve caliphs have appeared.'
After this the Prophet (s.a.w.) said something silently, which I could
not hear. I asked my father what the Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.) had said.
He said: "The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) says that all of them shall be from
the Quraysh."
2. Another tradition says: "So long as there are the twelve authorities,
the Muslims will continue to exist."
3. Again: "So long as there are the twelve caliphs, the grandeur and
majesty of Islam shall live on.
4. God knows who these twelve caliphs are. The Holy Prophet's statement
that "after me the caliphate shall remain for thirty years, then it will
become the object of deceit and fraud" is well known to all Muslims both
Shi'a and Sunni.
We do not want to enter into discussion and arguments concerning this
topic. If anyone seeks a complete proof of the existence of the twelve
Imams, he can study the thousands of volumes devoted to this subject.
The Fundamental Beliefs
From the Shi'a point of view, the religion is divided into two sections:
knowledge and practice. That is, matters concerning the intellect, and
matters relating to the human body. Those matters which concern
knowledge or wisdom, are called "Usul ad-din" (fundamentals of religion)
and they are five: (1) tawhid (monotheism), (2) nubuwah (Prophethood),
(3) the Imamate (Vicegerency), (4) 'adl (Justice) and (5) ma'ad (the Day
of Judgement). We shall explain each topic separately.
Tawhid (monotheism):
According to the Imamiyah faith, every sane thinking person has a moral
duty to know his Creator. He should believe in His Oneness and Divinity,
and should ascribe no partner to Him in His Actions. He should also
believe that creation, sustenance, life and death are governed by Him
alone. He is the All-pervading, and if somebody ascribes sustenance,
creation, or the giving of life and death to anyone else except God, he
will be considered an unbeliever (kafir), someone who ascribes partners
to God in His work (mushrik) and will be excluded from the Islamic fold.
Similarly, in obedience and worship of God sincerity is necessary. That
is, if somebody worships anything else other than God Almighty, or
adores someone or something else, or considers worship of something
other than Him as a means of nearness to Him, he also, according to the
Imamiyah faith, shall be regarded as an unbeliever.
Worship of anyone except God, the One without any partner, is not
lawful. Obedience to anybody except God the Almighty, the Holy Prophets,
and the Holy Imams is also not permissible.
Obedience to the Prophets and the Imams is indirectly obedience to God,
because they are the ones who proclaim of the divine command; but to
obey them with the idea that it is worship of God is unlawful and purely
a satanic deceit. To seek blessings from these revered persons, to make
them a means of intervention between ourselves and God, and also to
offer certain prayers at their graves is lawful because this is worship
of God and not worship of them. This is quite an obvious difference.
According to the Holy words of God the Almighty, "in houses which God
has permitted to be raised to honour, for the celebration in them of his
name", it is lawful to offer prayers to God in these sacred places. This
is the faith of "tawhid" of
the Imamiyah sect, which is unanimously supported by all our 'ulama'.
The subject of the monotheism has been divided into several types: "tawhid
ad-hdhat" (the Essence of the one God), "tawhid as-siffat" (the
Attributes of the One God), "tawhid al-af'al" (the Actions of the One
God). For the sake of brevity we will not dwell on this topic.
Prophethood:
Imamiyah Shi'as believe that all the Prophets were appointed by God; all
of them were sent by Him and they are all His exalted servants. Hadrat
Muhammad al-Mustafa (s.a.w.) is both the "Seal of the Prophets" (the
final prophet) and the Chief of all the Prophets. He was perfectly
infallible, free from sin and deviation. All his life the Holy Prophet
acted according to the will of God Almighty; God enabled him to travel
from Masjid al-Haram to Masjid al-Aqsa, from where he went bodily to
al-'Arsh and al-Kursi (the throne and the footstool) and even beyond the
"hujub" (the veils) and the "suradiq" (the highest point beyond the
heaven of heavens); he finally came to within two bow spans or less of
the presence of God.
It is the firm faith of the Imamiyah Shi'as that whoever claims
prophethood or revelation after Hadrat Muhammad al-Mustafa (s.a.w.) is
an unbeliever and liable to be put to death.
The Quran which today is in the hands of the Muslims is the same text of
guidance and religious commands which God the Almighty revealed as a
miracle. There has been no addition to, or subtraction from, it. Muslims
believe in "tahrif" (changes in the original) ,are wrong, because it
violates the Quranic declaration: "We have revealed the Book and We are
its Protector". All the 'ulama' (religious scholars) are unanimous on
this point, and if there is any tradition against it, it is unauthentic;
any tradition which has come down to us through imperfect chains of
transmission cannot be relied upon as source of knowledge and cannot
thus be acted upon.
The Imamate:
It is the question of the Imamate which distinguishes the Shi'a sect
from all other sects; it is the basic and fundamental difference which
separates this school from other schools of thought. Other differences
are not fundamental; they are "furu'i" (that is they are concerned with
the details of the code of writing and action). Such differences of
secondary importance are present between the views of the Imams
(religious heads) of the majority community of the Muslims. For
instance, a large number of the Hanafi laws do not correspond with the
laws of Shafi'is- According to the Imamiyah sect, the Imamate is the
rank of the Perfect Man; like prophethood it is sustained by Almighty
God for the guidance of the people. The Shi'as believe that Almighty God
ordered His Prophet (s.a.w.) to appoint 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) as his
successor, so that after the end of Prophethood the mission of spreading
Islam might be continued. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) knew that this
appointment would be looked at with displeasure by others. Many of them
would think that it was due merely to brotherly love or undue regard for
his son-in-law.
It is quite obvious that from the beginning of the Islamic era until the
present age the Muslims have in general not truly followed the Holy
Prophet's guidance. The All powerful declared in very clear words: "Oh
Prophet, deliver immediately what you have been commanded to from your
Lord and if you do it not, then (it will be as in you have not delivered
His message (at all)". Accordingly after his last hajj the Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.) gathered the people at "Ghadir al-Khum" and addressed them
thus: "Am I not better than every believer present here?" Then all of
them said with one voice: "Certainly, O Prophet of God. You are superior
to all of us."
After this testimony of allegiance the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said:
"Whoever has accepted me as his master, then 'Ali is his master . . . "
Moreover, on various other occasions, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) clearly
explained the reality of the Imamate, sometimes by implication and
sometimes quite openly. The Prophet thus performed his duty and God 's
command was carried out. As soon as the Holy Prophet had breathed his
last breath some Muslims presumptuously tried to hide the reality of the
Imamate. They misconstrued the open declaration, and through their
personal interpretation began to make changes in the religious commands.
The result is well known as we have seen.
However 'Ali (a.s.) and his group, which comprised high-ranking sahaba
(companions) kept aloof from this selfish struggle for power and refused
to offer allegiance.
Amir al-Mu'minin (a.s.) remained silent for some time; out of
consideration for Islamic unity, but when Mu'awiyah tried to bring the
Islamic rule and authority under his subjugation and started destructive
activities, Amir al-Mu'minin set himself against him; supporting a man
like Mu'awiyah and tolerating his wrong policies would have been a
deadly poison for Islam, and it was the foremost duty of Hadrat, Ali (a.s.)
to protect the divine religion.
The Imamiyah believe that spiritually they are with 'Ali (a.s.) and are
his followers; anyone who takes 'Ali as a friend, we too are friends of
that person, and of whoever takes 'Ali (a.s.) as an enemy, we also are
his enemy.
This faith is based on the Holy Prophet's words: "Oh God, be a friend of
the one who loves 'Ali (a.s.) and be an enemy of the one who is an enemy
of 'Ali (a.s.)."
The Imamiyah Shi'as believe that Almighty God never leaves the world
without a Prophet or an Imam whether this "proof of God" is apparent or
hidden. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), through an explicit ordinance, made
'Ali al-Murtada (a.s.) his successor. 'Ali (a.s.) made al-Hasan (a.s.)
his successor, and Imam al-Hasan (a.s.) made his brother Imam al-Husayn
(a.s.) his successor. In this way this chain continued until the
eleventh Imam. The Eleventh spiritual guide Imam al-Hasan al-' Askari (a.s.)
was succeeded by his son the twelfth Imam, the Imam of the Age, the
Awaited One (a.s.), vicegerent of God. This belief is not an innovation
of the Shi'as, rather it is a divine practice, which started with Adam (a.s.)
and continued until the last Prophet (s.a.w.).
There are innumerable books written by eminent 'ulama' on this topic. We
give below the names of some 'ulama' of early centuries who have written
on the topic of "wasiyah" (succession).
1). Hisham ibn al-Hakam.
2). Husayn ibn Sa'id
3). 'Ali ibn Miskini
4). 'Aliibn al-Mughirah
5). 'Aliibn Husayn ibn Fadl.
6). Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Sa'id
7). Ahmad ibn Muhammad Khalid al-Barqi, the author of "al-Mahasin".
8). The great historian 'Abdu 'l-'Aziz ibn Yahya al-Judi.
Most of these writers belong to the first and second centuries, but the
number of writings from authors of the third century hijri is also
large:
1). Yahya ibn Mustafad.
2). Muhammad ibn Ahmad as-Sabuni
3). 'Ali ibn Ra'ab
4). Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Farukh
5). The well known historian, Ali ibn al-Husayn alMas'udi, the author of
"Muruj adh-Dhahab".
6). Shaykh at-Ta'ifah Muhammad ibn al-Hasan at-Tusi
7). Muhammad ibn, Ali ash-Shalmaghani
8). Musa ibn al-Hasan ibn, Amir
Books written after the fourth century can hardly be counted.
al-Mas'udi wrote in his famous book "Ithbatu 'l-wasiyah". "Every prophet
had twelve successors". The writer also gave the names of all of them,
and wrote brief life-sketches of each; at the end of the work he writes
in more detail about the twelve Imams.
The Shi'as have been the target of attack from both Muslim and
non-Muslim groups concerning the existence of the twelfth Imam. We
should thus like to explain the reality of this belief in a few words.
Those who object think that the Shi'as believe in a baseless and
ridiculous thing.
When we examine the view-point of these critics however we find that it
is based on two rather naive doubts; the first being "How can a person
naturally live for more than a thousand years?" and the second, "What
advantage is gained from his disappearance?" or "What is the use of a
hidden Imam whose existence and non-existence are both equal?" As to the
first doubt, we should like to draw the reader's attention to the
prophet Nuh's age. According to clear Qur'anic statements the prophet
Nuh lived for nine hundred and fifty years, calling the people to God
among his nation; according to the opinion stated by the 'ulama' his age
was at least one thousand six hundred years, and a number of other
scholars have gone so far as to say that he lived to be three thousand
years old. The scholars of hadith of the majority community also
acknowledge the longevity of other persons besides Nuh (a.s.). The great
scholar an-Nuwi in his book "Tahdhibu 'l-Asma"' writes: "Though there is
a difference of opinion among the 'ulama' about the age and the
Prophethood of Hadrat Khidr (a.s.), the majority of scholars admit that
Khidr is still present with us. The Sufis, moreover, unanimously declare
that he is still alive, and innumerable stories about his meetings with
people, and about what was said at these meetings, are quite
well-known."
Shaykh Abu 'Umar ibn Salah writes in his "Fatawa": "The majority of the
'ulama' decided that Hadrat Khidr is alive, but some of the scholars of
hadith do not accept it." I seem to recall that in another work Shaykh
Abu 'Umar wrote (and az-Zamakhshari also has written this in his Rabi'u
'l-abrar) that the Muslims are unanimous in their belief that four
prophets (a.s.) are still alive among us. Two of them are in the sky,
that is 'Isa (a.s.) and Idris (a.s.), and two are on the earth and these
are Khidr and Ilyas. Hadrat Khidr was born in the time of Ibrahim
Khalilu 'llah (a.s.). Thus we have clear proof of the existence of
persons who lived for hundreds of years. 'Allamah as-Sayyid al-Murtada
has written in his "Imali" about persons who have lived to a great age
and as-Shaykh as-Saduq has given an even a longer list in his "Kamal
ad-Din". Even in the present age we find some people who have lived for
a hundred and thirty years, and some for even longer.
Logically we may pose the question: "If someone is capable of living to
an abnormal age, say a hundred and thirty, then is it possible that in
extraordinary conditions a man may live to be a thousand?" At the most
you can call it something super-normal. Moreover, is super-normality in
the case of Prophets and the "awliyah" (those near to God) a
particularly strange thing?
If one turns over the pages of the old volumes of "Majallatu 'l-Muqtatif",
you will find that they are full of articles written by western scholars
who have scientifically proved that man can theoretically attain eternal
life in this world. Some western thinkers even say. "If Ibn Muljim's
sword had not struck 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), he would have lived
forever. We are justified in this supposition because the Holy Imam was
endowed with such qualities of excellence and healthy liying." Much
could be added on this topic but the scope of this book does not allow
further discussion.
Concerning the second objection, we might ask whether it is fitting that
the Muslim nation should know every detail of divine will and intention.
Is it necessary to know all the secrets of the world and of the
religious commands?
Before demanding such knowledge we must carefully think whether under
the screen of some outwardly incomprehensible divine command there is
also hidden some other secret. For example, a stone, in itself, neither
benefits nor harms man. Nevertheless, we kiss the Hajaru 'l-Aswad (the
black stone in the Ka'bah). What is the wisdom hidden behind that, we
may ask.
The "maghrib" prayers are offered in three rak'ahs (units); the "isha''
prayers are performed in four units. The morning prayers consist of only
two units. What expediency is there in this difference of units?
Rather we must realise that there are a large number of matters of which
neither archangel nor prophet has any knowledge; concerning the
knowledge of the last hour, God, the Almighty says: "Verily God alone
has knowledge of the Hour, the Day of Judgement and when it will rain."
A part from this, there are many other things which have been kept
secret from us and their justification is unknown; we may refer, for
example, to "ismu 'l-'azam" (the Greatest Name), "laylatu 'l-qadr" (the
time for the acceptance of Invocation). We would like to make clear by
the above examples that one need not be amazed at those divine matters
whose wisdom is not apparent. Rather, we should recognise that an order
or action exists, and act accordingly as believing Muslims.
If something is proved by the authentic statements of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)
and his infallible successors, we must accept it. There is no other
option: to enter into an argument about the nature of wisdom and man's
obligation to find a reason for everything would be in vain. As far as
possible we have deliberately not provided arguments and proofs in this
small booklet; there are already large volumes in which these points
have been discussed in detail; likewise we examine the "Qa'im
Al-Muhammad", the presently existing descendant of Muhammad (s.a.w.).
There are a great number of authentic traditions concerning the "qiyam"
of al-Mahdi (the rising of the twelfth Imam) in books of knowledge of
both sects.
Though we acknowledge the fact that God knows better the wisdom about
the occultation of Imam al-Mahdi, we would nevertheless point out that a
number of rational proofs have already been given in reply to some Shi'a
questionners. The decisive fact to bear in mind is that in every age the
existence of an Imam is necessary; the world cannot remain without a
divinely appointed guide; his very existence is a blessing for mankind,
and his authority over us is also a blessing. The question of the wisdom
hidden in this action of God's is thus invalid (a blessing cannot be
rationalised) and acknowledgment of the "ghaybah" (occultation) is a
necessary duty of every obedient Muslim.
'Adl (Justice)
God the Almighty is not unjust to anybody, nor does He commit any action
which could be considered bad by man's primordial sense- This is what is
known as'adl (justice). Justice is one of the attributes of Almighty God
, existence of which is necessary. It is essential, like all the other
attributes of Oneness. The Ash'arites differ greatly in their beliefs
from the Imamiyah and the Mu'tazilah (the Imamiyah and the Mu'tazilah
are both called "'Adliyah") The reason for this opposition is that the
Ash'arites reject "goodness and badness" as rational concepts, and
affirm rather that "goodness" is that which is called "good" by
religion, and "badness" that which the code of religion calls "bad".
They regard knowledge of the Creator and recognition of the prophets as
being outside the scope of the intellect; they accept miracles according
to the dictates of religion, and they completely discard the dictates of
wisdom. Consequently they are in perplexity.
The '"Adliyah" (that is, the Imamiyah and the Mu'tazilah) maintain that
Islam is in accordance with reason.
Reason considers some actions good and some actions bad, and it is
reason too which considers a bad act to be impossible for God the
Almighty. He is All-wise and a bad action would be contrary to the
dictates of His wisdom.
To chastise an obedient person is unjust, and injustice is a bad action;
reason assures us that the Creator of the world could not unjustly
chastise obedient Muslims as this would be a bad action.
The Imamiyah sect have paid special attention to the problem of 'adl and
have included this attribute among the fundamentals of religion. (It is
worthy of note here that the Ash'arites do not themselves deny justice;
their faith in this respect is that whatever God the Almighty does
cannot affect justice and goodness; they are of the view that wisdom is
so insignificant that it cannot decide as to whether one thing is
appropriate for God and another thing inappropriate.) The Imamiyah have
clearly demonstrated that the best criterion for testing goodness and
badness is wisdom. It is through this means that we have come to the
conclusion that the All-perfect Being (God) must have all good
attributes and be free from all imperfections.
On the basis of this view of goodness and badness, and faith in the
justice of God, certain other beliefs have formed: the notion of "lutf"
(God's all-permeating benevolence and blessing), and the belief that it
is the duty of a Muslim to thank God, Who has given him everything. The
notions of "jabr" and "iktiyar" (the coercion of man by God and the
freedom of man to act as he wishes respectively) are closely connected
to the ideas of goodness and badness.
Absolute destiny and freewill have always been a major subject of
discussion in every philosophy or religion. The Ash'arites believed in
"jabr", and the Mu'tazilah and the Imamiyah held and still hold the view
that every man is free and independent: he can do everything
voluntarily, and perform all his actions with his own will; Like the
existence of self, the faculty of volition is also a gift from God. The
Creator of the universe created people and gave them freedom of action;
absolute authority is God's alone, but in his day-to-day speech and
actions man is quite independent. God, the Almighty, neither forces
anyone to some action, nor restrains him from doing it; the sons of Adam
do as they please. It is for the same reason that the intellect demands
that a crime be punished and a good act rewarded or praised.
If we do not follow this basic rule, reward and punishment, the sending
of the prophets, the revelation of the Books, and the promise of Gehenna
or Paradise in the hereafter becomes meaningless.
There is, unfortunately, no further room for discussion within the
restricted framework of this book. We would refer the reader to part I
of our book "ad-Din wa 'l-Islam".
In short the Imamiyah religion believes that God is "adil" (just) and
that man is independent and free to act Ma'ad (the Day of Judgement)
Like all Muslims, the Shi'as believe that Almighty God will bring all
people to life again for accountability, punishment and reward on the
Day of Judgement. Ma'ad involves the appearance of every person before
his Lord in exactly the same human bodily form he had while on earth. It
is not necessary to know in what way the return will be effected;
suffice it to say that whatever has been stated about final requital and
accountability in the Book of God and the authentic traditions is a part
of our faith, namely, belief in hell or paradise, comfort or pain in
"al-barzakh" (i.e. purgatory), "al-mizan" (the balance), "'as-sirat"
(the path), "'al-a'raf" ("the heights", a place situated between
paradise and hell), and "kitabu 'l-a'mal" (the record of deeds) which
will show all the deeds one has done in one's life. The Shi'as therefore
finally believe that every one shall be entitled to receive punishment
or reward according to his deeds. Good actions shall be rewarded and bad
actions shall entail punishment: God says in the glorious Qur'an:
"Whoever does an atoms weight of goodness will see it on the last day,
and whoever does an atom's weight of bad will see it on the last day."
PART III: The Shi'ah - The Divine Code of
Living
The Imamiyah Shi'as believe that an ordinance or order of the Islamic
code exists for every matter of life. The Divine Law has not even
ignored the "diyat" (conciliation money) for injury of a very minor
nature. There is no action of a "mukallaf" (a sane, adult person) which
does not come under the scope of the following definitions: "wajib"
(compulsory); "haram" (unlawful); mustahabb (desirable); makruh
(undesirable) and mubah (lawful). Whether it is a matter of mutual
transactions, trade, marriage or a promise and a pledge, the religious
code will certainly guide us as to whether it is right or wrong.
The personality of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) was the fountainhead of all
divine orders. God the Almighty conveyed these orders to the last
Prophet (s.a.w.) through "wahy" (revelation through Jibril) or "ilham"
(divine inspiration). The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) communicated them to the
people according to the circumstances prevailing, particularly to those
companions who had been close to him at all times, so that they might
carry on the mission of preaching throughout the whole world. There were
many ordinances however which could not be taught, because the time for
them was not opportune, or because there was no need for them during the
time of the Prophet (it is also possible that they could not be
promulgated for some particular reason known only to God). Hence some
orders were known while some remained secret. The Holy Prophet entrusted
these secret ordinances to his (divinely appointed) vicegerents. Later
every "wasi" (vicegerent) communicated them to his successor, so that,
according to the need of the hour and the spirit of the time, they might
be made public.
The Holy Prophet taught as much as he thought proper for the situation
and as much as the companions could understand according to their
intellect. The recipients of this teaching were blessed according to
their own capacity. It also happened that one companion received a
positive order concerning a certain matter, and others heard a negative
order in a matter resembling the former. The result was that the act was
one but orders were (seemingly) two.
We must ask what the cause of this difference was. The reality of the
situation was such that each matter was slightly different from the
other: each had a particular distinguishing aspect. Those present who
reported what happened at the scene, either did not pay attention to
this or that peculiarity, or, if they did recognise it, did not mention
this or that particular aspect. Because of inaccurate description of the
circumstances, traditions may appear to contradict each other, but in
reality they each apply to different circumstances. This inaccuracy
caused difficulties in recognising the exact meaning of an instruction
given to us by the Prophet. Accordingly, the companions who had the
honour of close companionship with the Prophet supported "ijtihad". That
is they realised the necessity for a thorough investigation of the text
of the hadith and the situation in which it occurred. The different
aspects of the hadith were probed, since the apparent meaning of the
tradition is often different from the real aim of the codifier. It has
been pointed out earlier, that these difference were largely due to
faulty copying or shortcomings on the part of the reporters.
Those companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) who were just and
trustworthy and who were also reporters of traditions sometimes
reproduced the statement of the Prophet (s.a.w.) in exactly the same
words in which they had heard it, while sometimes, in place of the text
of the tradition, they would state the order or commandment which was
inferred from the tradition in question. In the first instance their
position is that of a reporter or traditionalist, and in the second they
have the position of learned scholars who declare their opinion about
the meaning of the hadiths; the latter are also called "mujtihids".
All Muslims who do not have this ability and so therefore follow the
opinion of the mujtahid, are called "muqallid". The act of acting on the
verdicts of a mujtahid is called "taqlid".
After a thorough examination of this matter we find that during the time
of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), the door of ijtihad was open and the
companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.) themselves acted upon it; of course
at that time ijtihad was not so strong as it is today, because the
people could ask the Prophet (s.a.w.) directly about any matter they
were not sure of.
As time passed, however, and relations between the Arabs and non-Arabs
increased, there were difficulties in understanding the correct meanings
of the Arabic language. The number of traditions and reports became
larger.
Among them were very many doubtful and fabricated traditions. At this
stage it was not easy to test the validity of the religious orders.
Accordingly "ijtihad" grew stronger and the modes of analysis of hadith
were refined: scholars began to distinguish between correct and the
faulty statements. The principle of preference was put into practice
after a thorough investigation of two conflicting hadiths. Among the
Imamiyah sect this blessing still exists.
We may observe, moreover, that all people are from one of two groups
according to whether they have knowledge or not. Those without knowledge
have to seek the help of the other group in all matters of which they
are ignorant. Similarly in the religious world there are also two
classes: the learned mujtahid and the ignorant muqallid.
As a matter of principle, the people of the second class should turn to
the people of the first class in order to learn what they themselves do
not know. Like all other Muslims the Shi'a believe that all religious
orders are based upon the "kitab" (Qur'an), and the "sunnah" (the
sayings, practise or approval of the Prophet, and, in Shi'ite Islam, the
Imams). They add to these "aql" (intellectual reasoning) and "ijma"
(consensus of opinion). The Imamiyah sect do not agree with others in
the following matters.
Firstly, the Shi'as never act upon "qiyas" (arrival at decisions through
analogy and reasoned supposition) because their Imams have on many
occasions said that if supposition is allowed in religious matters the
entire structure of religion will be dashed to the ground. We would have
stated in detail the evils of such a method had not the aim of this book
been merely to outline the fundamentals of Shi'a beliefs.
Secondly, if a tradition of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) comes through the
Ahlu 'l-bayt (a.s.) it is reliable, otherwise it is unacceptable. The
unauthentic traditions, reported by persons like Abu Hurayrah, Samrah
ibn Jundub, Marwan ibn Hakam, 'Imran ibn Hattan al-Kharji and 'Amr ibn
al-'As for example, have no value in our eyes. Even the Sunni 'ulama'
have strongly condemned these reporters, and have revealed the selfish
or political motives for their reporting false hadiths.
Thirdly, as we have seen, the door of "ijtihad" is still open and shall
remain open forever. Among the majority community, however, the doors of
ijtihad are locked. When and on what basis this practice started cannot
perhaps be adequately answered even by their 'ulama' themselves.
Besides these three matters, all other differences pertain to the
articles of practice.
One who, by reasoning and logic, gains the power of drawing conclusions
and making inferences can be said to have reached the rank of being able
to do ijtihad; the mujtahid however should possess certain other
qualities if we are to accept what he says about the divine code to be
followed. The most important quality is that he possess a sense of "adalah''
(justice). "Adalah'' means that quality of the inner spirit with which a
man can abstain from carnal desires and can develop a command over the
correct performance of compulsory acts. In other words it is the state
of fear of God which always permeates the just man's mind. It is of
several degrees, the highest being the degree of "ismah" (infallibility)
which is a condition for the Imamate.
Besides this there are necessary or obvious matters (those matters which
pertain to sure knowledge in which there is neither "taqlid" nor "ijtihad",
for instance the compulsion to "sawm" (fasting) and "salat" (prayers).
Similarly the fundamentals of religion are also beyond the sphere of "taqlid",
because they are matters for personal investigation on the part of every
adult person: this search to determine for oneself the truth and reality
of the fundamentals of Islam depends on the corresponding sagacity,
understanding and cognition of each individual and cannot be left to the
opinion of others. All other matters concerning the articles of practice
come under the scope of "ijtihad" and "taqlid". indeed every action of
man is encompassed by this code of religion. Hence to know the
corresponding law for each action is very necessary. There are only two
ways of arriving at this knowledge: taqlid or ijtihad. It should be
remembered that it is incumbent on each Muslim to make use of one of
these two ways; if not, he will have to suffer punishment on the Day of
Judgement. We may describe a Muslim's actions in the following way:
a) Some actions are concerned with God and His servants. These are
called "ibadat" (acts of service or slavery). Their correctness depends
upon one's making the intention of coming closer to God. "Ibadat" may be
either physical, like "salat" (prayer), "sawm" (fasting) and "hajj"
(making the pilgrimage to Makkah), or financial like "khums" (a giving
of one-fifth of certain commodities: e.g. booty of war, treasure-trove,
wealth from mineral desposits), "zakat", "kaffarat" (fines or
penalties).
b) Some actions pertain to the individual and his relations with
society. They are of two kinds: involving agreement between two persons
(such as mutual transactions and marriage), and others involving the
decision of just one party (for instance "talaq" (divorce) and "itq"
(the setting free of a slave).
c) Some actions are purely individual and personal; for example, eating,
drinking and the clothes one chooses to wear.
Fiqh (Jurisprudence)
Fiqh deals with all the orders and commandments which govern the
previously mentioned actions. The most important acts of 'ibadat are six
in number: two are purely physical ("salat" and "sawm"), two are purely
"financial" ("khums" and "zakat"), and two are common to each category
("hajj" and "jihad"). God, the Almighty, says:
"You should perform jihad with your wealth and yourselves." (jahidu bi
amwalikum wa anfusikum). Finally, "kaffarat" (penalties) are special
kinds of punishments for particular crimes.
1. Salat (prayer)
Like all other Muslims, the Shi'as too regard "salat" as one of the
pillars of religion. This prayer is a means of bringing God's servant
near to Him. If one does not perform the prayer, the relation between
God and His servant is broken. That is why the traditions of Ahlu 'l-bayt
(a.s.) say that not offering the prayer even once or twice is the
distinguishing mark between infidelity and Islam.
According to the religious code "salat" has great importance. No other
act of worship can bear comparison with it. The Imamiyah sect
unanimously believe that anyone who does not perform "salat" is a great
sinner: moreover he has no place in Islamic society. He is neither
credible nor trustworthy- One is even permitted to criticize him behind
his back. There are very strict orders about "salat"; five kinds of "salat"
are compulsory;
1. The five daily prayers.
2. The "salatu 'l-jum'ah" (the Friday prayers)
3. "Salatu 'l-ayat" (on the occasion of a solar or lunar eclipse, an
earthquake, or any frightening natural event).
4. "Salatu 'l-'idayn" (the salat of 'idu 'l-fitr and 'idu'l-azhar).
5. "Salatu Ka'bah).
In addition, an adult person may make "salat" compulsory for himself by
making a promise or taking an oath to perform a certain number of
prayers or by accepting a reward for performing prayers under certain
conditions.
Besides these, all other kinds of salat are "nawafil" (supererogatory
prayers). The most important "nawafil" am those attached to the five
daily prayers, which are twice the number of units of the compulsory
prayers (that is thirty four units). The total number of units of both "nawafil"
and compulsory prayers is thus fifty one.
Here we remember an interesting incident which Raghib al-Isfahani wrote
about in his distinguished book "al-Muhadirat". We learn that during the
days of Ahmad ibn 'Abdu 'l-'Aziz there was a man named Kanani in Isfahan.
Ahmad was learning the correct way to do the prayers and the basic Shi'a
beliefs from Kawani. one day Ahmad's mother happened to see them during
a lesson and she said to Kanani: "Oh master, you have made my son a
Rafidi! (one of the Rafidah - i.e. a particularly zealous Shi'a). Kanani
immediately retorted: "Foolish woman! The Rafidah perform fifty one
units of prayer daily, and your son does not perform even one unit out
of the fifty one. How can he be one of the Rafidah?"
The "nawafil" of the month of Ramadan are of great blessing and
significance. Their number is one thousand. Our Sunni brothers also
perform these prayers, but in congregation (jama'ah), and they are known
among them as "tarawih" from the Shi'a point of view these prayers are
not permissible in congregation (jama'ah), because only the Friday
prayer is a compulsory congregational prayer. For details one can refer
to the tens of thousands books which contain elaborate and explicit
descriptions of the correct way to perform the various compulsory or
recommended prayers, and the numerous recitations and invocations which
are especially associated with each prayer.
According to the religious code correct "salat" depends upon three
things. Firstly, there are certain conditions which have be to be
fulfilled before the actual performance of the prayers, although they
are not included in the salat itself; these conditions are so important
that salat becomes absolutely void if they are not attended to. They are
six in number. (1) 'Taharah' (one must be in state of ritual purity);
(2) Time (each compulsory prayer, and most ofthe recommended prayers,
are to be performed. "at a particular time); (3) Qiblah (that is one
should face the'Ka'bah); (4) Covering (dress); (5) Intention (one must
make the intention to perform the prayer according to that particular
prayer); (6) Place (it must be lawfully occupied; and the place for
prostration must be pure and clean).
Secondly, the constituent parts of salat are of two kinds: they are
either considered to be a fundamental part of the prayer and thus
absolutely compulsory, or not. There are four compulsory actions. (1)
Takbiratu 'lihram (that is the initial "allahu akbar"); (2) qiyam
(standing to perform the prayer); (3) ruku' (bending for ward) and
finally sujud (prostration on the ground). Likewise there are four
conditions which are compulsory but do not make the salat void if, for
example, one unintentionally does not fulfill them: (1) qira'ah (the
reading of Surah al-Hamd and one other complete surah); (2) dhikr,
tashahud and the final salam. One must be Still and in a state of
remembrance throughout the prayer. Adhan and iqamah before the start of
the prayer are both strongly desirable (indeed almost compulsory).
The following invalidate the prayer: anything which breaks one's state
of wudu', turning one's back on the qiblah, and excessive movement. Any
other action (which is not a fundamental part of the prayer) such as
talking, laughing, weeping, looking to the right or left, eating or
drinking invalidate the prayer if done intentionally.
To purify oneself, ready for any act of 'ibadat (such as prayer), one
must make either wudu' (the minor purification) or ghusl (the major
purification). In case of absence of water, or for some other reason
like illness, unbearable cold, shortness of time, when it is not
possible to do either of these two acts of purification, their
substitute is "tayammum" (cf. the Qur'an which indicates this method of
purification: fa tayammamu sa'idan tayyiban - so perform tayammum on
pure earth - Surah al-Ma'idah). The scholars of jurisprudence and the
lexicographers give various meanings for the word "sa'id". Some of them
say it only means dust, and some say. that it means all kinds of pound
(including sand, fragments of rocks, stones, and mineral substances). We
have limited our ascription of salat to fundamentals: more detailed
studies may be found in numerous other works.
2. Sawm (Fasting)
According to the Shi'a faith, sawm (plural siyam), fasting, is a pillar
of the Islamic code. There are four kinds of siyam: wajib (compulsory),
mustahabb (recommended), haram (forbidden) or makruh (undesirable). The
fasts made incumbent by the shari'ah (code of religion) are those of the
Holy month of Ramadan. Other fasts become incumbent for some specific
reason, for instance "sawm kaffarah" (the penalty fast), "badal"(in lieu
of sacrificing an animal), in lieu of someone else, "nadr" (as a vow, or
oath). The fasts of the months of Rajab and Sha'ban are desirable as
well as other fasts too numerous to mention in this brief work. Fasting
on the two 'id days and "ayyam at-tashiq" (the three days after hajj) is
forbidden; to fast on the days of 'Ashurah and 'Arafat are undesirable
(according to many the 'Ashurah day fast is strictly forbidden).
Details concerning the conditions and actual performance of a certain
fast, as well as the courtesies (adab) and recitations associated with
each, may be found in the large number of books on this topic. The
Shi'as are extremely particular about the Ramadan fasts: many of them
would rather die of thirst or hunger than not undertake it.
3. Zakat (Taxation)
We may consider salat and sawm as two acts of worship ('ibadat) whose
immediate basis is physical rather than spiritual. Zakat is of an
entirely different nature. According to the Shi'as, after salat in rank
comes "zakat" (taxation); indeed from some of the traditions of the Holy
Imams (a.s.) it is understood that if somebody does not give "zakat" his
salat also is invalid Like all other Muslims the Imamiyah consider "zakat"
compulsory on nine things: Animals - camels, cows, goats; Grains -
wheat, barley, dates, raisins; Money - gold, silver coins.
Besides these, zakat on other things, such as all kinds of merchandise,
horses and crops is desirable. The precise conditions and regulations
can be found in the appropriate books of jurisprudence. It is
interesting to note that all the rules are in basic conformity with
those of the "fiqh" of the four Sunni schools of thought, Hanafi,
Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali. Among those entitled to receive zakat are
the poor and the needy, according to God the Almighty's command in Surah
at-Tawbah: innama 's-sadiqatu li 'lfuqara' wa 'l-masakin.
Zakatu 'l-fitrah (poor-tax on the day or 'idu 'l-fitr) is compulsory for
every adult and sane person who can financially support himself and his
wife and children and other members of the household dependent on bun.
Its quantity is one "sa'" (approximately 3 kilos) of wheat, barley, or
dates on behalf of every individual.
The nature of zakat is basically the same; whether from the point of
Shi'a or Sunni fiqh.
4. Khums
"Khums" which is another kind of tax, is compulsory on five things: the
booty taken from an enemy in war; the pearls and minerals drawn from the
sea; hidden treasures mineral substances extracted from the land; and
lawfully gained money which has been mixed with unlawful money, or
profits gained from business, or land transferred to a "dhimmi" (a
Christian or a Jew, living within the Muslim nation) from a Muslim.
The obligation of "khums" is based on the command of Almighty God :
"Know that the one fifth of what you get as booty is the share of God,
the Prophet (s.a.w.). the relations, the orphans, the beggars and the
wayfarers" (Surah Anal). Moreover, we believe that "khums" is a right
which God the Almighty particularly reserved for the descendants of
Muhammad (s.a.w.). Since charity is unlawful for the children of the
Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) (they can not receive zakat), "khums" is a kind of
compensation from the bounty of God the Almighty.
"Khums" is divided into six parts: three are for God, the Prophet
(s.a.w.) and his kith and kin; and the other three parts must be paid to
the holy Imam, when he is present. However, "khums" should be handed
over to the representative of the Imam, that is the "just mujtahid",
when the former is in occultation, The Imam is to use these funds to
protect the religion of Islam and to complete the development plans of
the Muslim nations. This is the real purpose for which it is to be used;
it must be stressed that Sayyid Muhammad Alusi wrote in a rather
flippant manner in his commentary on the Qur'an when he said: "In these
days the money accumulated from "khums" should be placed in the cellar."
This, in fact, refers to a fictitious story current among certain of our
Sunni brothers, which relates that the Shi'as say that their Imam
disappeared in a cellar; we need hardly point out that occultation of
the Imam had not the slightest connection with the aforementioned
cellar.
The Ithna Ashari Shi'as go to visit the cellar at Samarrah, because it
was the place where the Holy Imam used to offer "tahajjud" (mustahab
night prayers). Also that was the place where the father and the
grandfather of the Holy Imam used to offer prayers to God, the Almighty.
The remaining three parts of "khums", as we have said, are the right of
the poor people of the Hashimi family (that is the family of the
Prophet).
Such were the commandments of "khums" which have been followed from the
time of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) until now. After the death of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.), the Muslim rulers suppressed this right to "khums" of
the Al Hashim (the progeny of the Prophet) and instead collected the
money into the baytu 'l-mal in order that they themse1ves could control
its use. This family, who had no right to "zakat", were now also
deprived of "khums".
It seems that Imam Shafi'i himself, in his book entitled "Am", pointed
out that the descendents of the Prophet (s.a.w.), for whom "khums" was
set aside in place of charity, can neither be given anything out of the
prescribed charities, nor may they take it, and if the giver of charity
knowingly gives it to them he will have to forego his heavenly reward.
Moreover, he adds: "if they have been deprived of the right of "khums"
it does not mean that charity and other such things which are unlawful
for them will become lawful." Indeed, since the people in power did away
with this "right" altogether the books of jurisprudence of the majority
community are quite silent upon this topic and not surprisingly Imam
Shafi'i has omitted to mention this topic in his books on "fiqh".
In all Shi'a books of "fiqh", "khums" has been given a special chapter
just like "zakat". (we must admit however that the learned scholar Hafiz
Abu 'Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Salam (died 224 A.H.), in his great work "Kitab
al-amwal", dealt with all the problems of "khums", including the ways in
which it should be spent, in a special chapter. Most of the points he
discussed are in perfect consonance with Shi'a beliefs (vide pages
303-349).
5. Hajj
According to the Shi'a faith, 'hajj' (the pilgrimage to Makkah) is one
of the pillars of Islam. One who abstains from performing this duty when
he is able must die the death of a Jew or a Christian as a punishment
for his failing. Anyone who refuses to obey this divine command has come
close to the threshold of being a "kafir". God refers to such a person
in Sural Al 'Imran: "wa man kafara fa in allaha ghani un 'an al 'alamin
- anyone who commits "kufr" should know that God is independent of all
the worlds."
Hajj is a kind of financial and physical "jihad". Indeed hajj should be
called the true jihad, and jihad should be called the true hajj. If we
ponder over their relationship a little carefully this hidden meaning
and basic harmony between the two will become quite apparent.
Hajj becomes obligatory for a Muslim under the following conditions: he
should have reached the age of puberty and be sane of mind; moreover he
should have sufficient financial means, be in good health and the route
leading to Makkah should be open and safe for travel. Should these
conditions be fulfilled, hajj becomes immediately "wajib" (compulsory),
but once performed, a person need never go again in his lifetime. Hajj
is of various kinds:
(1) "Hajj afrad". The basis of this is the holy verse: "For the sake of
God, hajj is compulsory for those who can reach there" (Al 'Imran: 97).
(2) "Hajj Qur'an". It is mentioned in the verse: "Complete hajj and
"umrah for the sake of God" (Al Baqarah: 196).
(3) "Hajj tamatu'". This hajj is mentioned in the following verse:
"Whoever wishes to continue the 'umrah to hajj should offer the
sacrifice which, he can afford" (Al Baqarah: 190).
Each of the above has been the subject of much research. The decisions
of the 'ulama' concerning the various conditions for each kind of hajj
are recorded in the books of jurisprudence.
After going through a large number of books of the Sunni 'ulama' we have
come to the conclusion that in this matter most of their laws are
similar to those of ours; of course, there are some differences to be
found, but they are not many.
The Shi'as give great importance to hajj and are very particular about
the performance of this obligation. Even during the days when they had
to journey amongst people who were thirsting for their blood and enemies
of their honour and respect, they were unmindful of all the dangers. So
devoted were they, and so anxious to reach Makkah, that they arrived in
hundreds of thousands to make the "tawwaf" of the Ka'bah ("tawwaf" is
the special circumambulation of the hajj). Fears for their life and
property did not lower their spirits. The feeling of the obligatory
nature of this pillar of Islam continued to move their steps forward.
Moreover they often performed hajj at enormous expense. It is regretful
that, in spite of this obvious obedience to God's orders, it is still
said that the Shi'as seek the destruction of Islam!
6. Jihad
Jihad is the foundation stone of the magnificent building of Islam. In
its absence the religion of God would neither have been the cause of
mercy for the world, nor would it have proved a source of blessing to
mankind.
For jihad means fighting against oppression and oppressors, and
sacrificing one's life and wealth in the way of God. for the
preservation of peace and tranquility.
In the Shi'a religion it is of two kinds: "Jihad al-akbar" (the greater
jihad) and "Jihad al-asghar" (the lesser jihad).
To face that internal enemy called the "nafs" (self), and to fight
against its harmful qualities, such as ignorance, cowardice, oppression,
tyranny, envy and pride, is the "jihad al-akbar". It was the Prophet of
God himself who declared: "your greatest enemy is the self and it is to
be found right in your own body." Jihad al-asghar means subduing anyone
who is opposed to justice and equity, peace and humanity, and religion
and reality.
7. Amr Bi 'l-ma 'Ruf and Nahy 'ani 'l-munkar
(The enjoining of good and the prevention of evil)
This is one of the most important of the compulsory acts prescribed by
religion and the basis of the Muslim's moral duties; moreover, it is the
most effective means of demonstrating the truth and reality of Islam and
is a successful weapon against infidelity and paganism.
Any nation which ignores this holy law is doomed to ruin; indeed it will
become the haven of oppressors and cheats.
It is for this reason that the Prophet (s.a.w.), who taught the divine
code of religion, and our infallible Imams (a.s.), who have preserved
and protected it, have laid great stress on this matter; they have, on
numerous occasions explained in detail the benefits accruing from its
execution and have warned against the horrible consequences of
neglecting it.
Today we are seeing with our own eyes the truth of these statements: we
have totally abandoned the "enjoining of good and the prevention of
evil". We can only pray that the situation does not become so degenerate
that what is ma'ruf comes to be regarded as munkar, and what is munkar
as ma'aruf. "Verily we are God's and verily to Him shall we return!" We
pray to God to protect us from these who call to the enjoining of good
deeds but themselves do not heed the call. God the Almighty curses the
wicked scholar, and wicked preachers and guides!
Such prayers are called the "mother of prayers" (meaning the best
prayers); we have been able to make only cursory references, but one can
research further on this topic in numerous books written by 'ulama'
belonging to the period ranging from the first century A.H. till the
present time. Countless fine works of research are still available
despite the attempt in past centuries to destroy any trace of them.
8. Mu'amalat (Mutual Dealings)
In mutual dealings there must be two individuals or two parties (the one
has something to offer and the other accepts). Proposal and acceptance
is a necessary condition.
Mu'amalat are of two kinds: in the first the dealings are purely
financial (for instance, buying and selling, contract and pledging, or
loans and gifts), but in the second, property and wealth are only of
secondary importance, and the real aim of the deal between the two
parties is the management of domestic life, the numbers of the Muslims
and the preservation of the human race: a contract of marriage often
involves money, but this is not an essential part of it.
8. (a) The Marriage Agreement
Marriage is of two kinds: (1) for life; (2) temporary. As the name
implies, temporary marriage (also blown as mut'ah) means that it is for
a fixed period of time which is agreed upon, before completing the
marriage agreement.
So far as the first kind of marriage is concerned, all Muslims are
unanimous in accepting it. As regards the second kind, only the Shi'ah
consider it lawful. The latter base their acceptance on the following
verse of the Holy Qur'an: "famastamtatum bihi minhunna fa'tu hunna
ujurahunna - and as such of them with whom you had mut'ah, give them
their dowries as a fixed reward." (Surah an-Nisa': 24) This problem has
been a topic of discussion since the time Of 'sahaba" (companions of the
Prophet (s.a.w.) up to the present time. In view of the importance of
this matter it would seem appropriate to clarify some of its points.
No-one who has spent some time in the study of religious laws can deny
the validity of mut'ah. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) himself made it
lawful. During the life of the Prophet (s.a.w.), many distinguished
'sahaba' put it into practice. Moreover, after the demise of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.), the noble 'sahaba' continued to take advantage of this
law. 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, Jabir ibn 'Abdillah al-Ansari, ibn Mas'ud,
and Ubay ibn Ka'ab, who were men of exalted rank and eminence, all
insisted on the lawfulness of mut'ah and would recite the verse in this
way: "Famastamtatum bihi min hunna ilaajalin musamman" (And as such of
them with whom you had mut'ah for specified term). We should not however
think that these companions considered that there was any defect in the
Qur'an, since they were well-versed in its interpretation, they merely
wanted to make a commentary on this verse so that its meaning might be
clearer. Since these distinguished persons had remained devoted to the
Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) throughout his mission, they had had the
opportunity to understand the interpretation of the Qur'an directly from
the tongue of the Prophet himself (s.a.w.). They therefore had no
hesitation in disclosing the true meaning of this verse according to
what they had learnt from the Prophet (s.a.w.).
We should add however that the tradition which ibn Jarir mentions in his
large work of Qur'anic commentary shows that the part "Ila ajalin
musamman" (for a specified term) was actually an original portion of the
verse, as revealed by God. Ibn Jarir quotes Abu Nasirah as saying: "When
I read this verse before ibn 'Abbas he said: 'Say 'ila ajalin musamman'.
I said that I did not read like that. Upon this ibn 'Abbas said three
times 'By God! This verse was revealed in this very way.'"
It is obvious that such an exalted personality as ibn 'Abbas would never
have wilfully changed the text of the Qur'an. If this tradition is
correct, the meaning of this eminent Companion must surely have been
that God the Almighty had revealed its interpretation in this way.
According to all the 'ulama' this temporary marriage was allowed and
practiced by the closest companions of the Prophet.
Those who reject the lawfulness of mut'ah insist that God revealed
further commands to his Prophet which revoked the former law. The
various hadith which are concerned with this revocation have conflicting
meanings and cannot be relied upon. For the revocation of an express
ordinance an express proof is necessary: some Sunnis claim that
revocation took place through the sunnah, that is, the Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.), after declaring it lawful, made it lawful. Some of them say
however that it was through the Book of God that a change in the law of
mut'ah was imposed upon the people. There is even conflicting views
within the latter group : one party considering the "verse of divorce"
as the relevant verse concerning the revocation, and the other the
"verse of inheritance".
Furthermore most of the opponents of mut'ah think that the following
verse proves its abrogation "Illa ala azwajuhum aw ma malakat
aymanuhum". The verse gives two causes for the lawfulness of marriage,
either the woman is one's wife or she is one's slave-girl (kaniz), and
as Sayyid al-Alusi (a Sunni scholar) writes: "The Shi'ahs cannot regard
the "Mumtu'ah" (woman taken in mut'ah) as 'kaniz', a slave-girl (who is
bound by laws other than those which affect a free woman), and they
cannot call her the wife either, because she does not possess the
conditions of wife-hood, that is 'mirath' (inheritance), 'iddah'
(waiting period); the right to sustenance and maintenance on the part of
husband, and divorce."
If we examine al-Alusi claim we find it to be completely without
foundation. Contrary to what he says, the wife in a temporary marriage
does have certain of the rights of wife-hood. One of these concerns
inheritance. The wife of a temporary marriage may receive the
inheritance (unconditionally according to some Shi'a 'ulama', and
according to others, on condition that the right to inheritance is
stipulated at time of marriage contract). Moreover if al-Alusi is
claiming that inheritance is an obligatory feature of non temporary
marriage, then he is not speaking in accordance with the law. according
to the Islamic code there are many occasions where the law of
inheritance become invalid: a wife, who for example, is an unbeliever or
a murderess does not get inheritance. Likewise a woman who is married to
a sick man who dies before he has sexual intercourse with her is
deprived of the inheritance. On the contrary if somebody divorces his
wife during a time of illness, and subsequently dies, even if her 'iddah
is over she is entitled to receive inheritance one year after the death
of her husband.
Again, the Shi'ah believe in the lawfulness of mut'ah and regard 'iddah
after such a marriage as compulsory. Subsistence for the wife (nafagah)
is another subject of dispute. The Shi'a believe that this too cannot be
regarded as a primary right of wife-hood. One may look for example at
the case of the women who refuses to have sexual intercourse with her
husband in spite of her being a wife; no faqih would consider
subsistence as one of her rights.
There is no divorce in temporary marriage: after spending the Weed time
together the two parties may separate.
We should point out to those who still deny the Iawfulness of temporary
marriage that the abrogation of mut'ah is impossible because the
relevant verse is in the Surah anal-Mu'minin and al-Mi'raj, both of
which were revealed in Makkah.
Moreover, even some distinguished Sunni 'ulama' say that the Qur'anic
verse concerning mut'ah was not revoked. az-Zamakhshari, in his
commentary al-Kashshaf, reports, on the authority of ibn 'Abbas, that
the verse concerning mut'ah is one of the irrevocable ones. Other
'ulama' have reported that Hakam ibn 'Ayniyah, when asked whether the
verse of mut'ah had been revoked, said that it had not.
At first the majority community of the Muslims acknowledged the
lawfulness of mut'ah, but later they began claiming its revocation; we
have tried to show the weakness of their claims. Sometimes as we have
seen they tried to prove abrogation of the verse by another verse, and
sometimes, as we shall see, they attempted to prove the abrogation of
the verse through a tradition : they rely upon the tradition in the
'sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim which relate that the Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.) made mut'ah unlawful either during the Conquest of Makkah, or
the Conquest of Khaybar, or the Battle of Awtas. These hadith are the
subject of considerable dispute. It is even reported on the authority of
Qadi Ayad that some 'ulama' say that the mut'ah was made lawful a second
time after a first abrogation, then subsequently made unlawful for the
second time. Moreover it is recorded in some books that mut'ah was
revoked on the occasion of hajjat al-wida'. (that is the last hajj) in
the 10th year of the hijrah. Other books show that this was not so and
that it was revoked during the battle of Tabuk in the 9th year of the
hijrah. Some writers claim that mut'ah was abrogated during the battle
of Hunayn in the month of Shawwal in the 8th year of the hijrah; it is
also claimed by some that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) made mut'ah lawful
on the occasion of the Conquest of Makkah, but declared it to be
unlawful only a short time later in the very place he was supposed to
have declared it lawful.
Most of the Sunni 'ulama' are of the opinion that the abrogation of
mut'ah.
We must stress that the Qur'anic Verse concernin mut'ah is not called
into question by anyone who examines the validity of these so-called
hadith. Moreover the hadith reported by the Sunni (ulama) are so full of
conflicting reports that their falsehood is self-evident.
It is reported in the Sahih of al-Bukhari that Abu Raja' quotes 'Imran
ibn Hasin as saying that the verse concerning mut'ah is present in the
Qur'an and "we acted upon it in the life time of the Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.); neither did Allah make it unlawful in the Holy Qur'an, nor did
the Prophet (s.a.w.) prohibit it during his life time. The prohibition
of mut'ah was an arbitrary act of one man. and it is said that this man
was the Calip 'Umar." It is also reported in the Sahih of Muslim on the
authority of Atta' that "one day Jabir ibn 'Abdillah al-Ansari came to
perform 'umrah and people asked him various questions. We went to visit
him at his house. When he was asked about mut'ah, Jabir said: 'Yes we
practiced mut'ah in the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.) and also in the
days of Abu Bakr and 'Umar.'"
Muslim gives another report and that is from Jabir also. He says:
"During the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.) we used to practice mut'ah
while giving a handful of dates or a handful of baked flour as a dowry."
Muslim also reports in his Sahih that Abu Nudrah said that he was
sitting with Jabir ibn 'Abdillah al-An-Sari when another man came in and
said that there was a difference of opinion about the two mut'ahs
(namely the mut'ah of temporary marriage, and the kind of haj called
hajj tamattu'a) between Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubayr. Jabir said: "While
the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) was present we used to act upon both of them,
but later 'Umar prohibited both of them, so we could not do them again."
Indeed they could not do it again because Hadrat 'Umar would have a man
stoned to death if he was caught practising mut'ah.
The fact is that if the Chapter relevant to marriage in Muslim's Sahih
is carefully studied, we will find such contradictory statements that we
can only wonder at their source. There are claims of abrogation in one
place, while in another place proofs of non-abrogation are given. As an
example of such hadith we may quote Jihni who says: "On the occasion of
the conquest of Makkah, the Prophet (s.a.w.) himself ordered that we
should be permitted to perform mut'ah, but we had still not left that
place when the Prophet (s.a.w.) forbade us to do it."
Thus abrogation is sometimes attributed to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.),
and sometimes to Hadrat 'Umar. Moreover they say that mut'ah was current
during the time of the Prophet, and during the period of the first
Caliphate.
They also say that Hadrat 'Ali (a.s.) forbade Ibn 'Abbas on various
occasions to talk about mut'ah, and so the latter subsequently changed
his opinion about it. In a refutation of this we may cite the report
that says that once Ibn Zubayr stood up in Makkah and said: "There are
some people here who have been deprived of foresight just, as God has
deprived them of their eye-sight: such persons are those who claim that
mut'ah is lawful." (Here the reference was to Ibn 'Abbas, who had become
blind.) At this, Ibn 'Abbas uttered loudly. "Why? I swear that mut'ah
was practiced up to the time of 'Ali (a.s.)." This clearly shows that
Ibn 'Abbas never changed his opinion, and that even during Ibn Zubayr's
caliphate he stood by his belief.
Rather surprisingly, the prohibitory order has even been attributed to
Hadrat Amir al-mu'minin (a.s.), though it was characteristic of all the
Imams (a.s.) that they had declared mut'ah wedlock to be lawful. Imam
'Ali's statement that if 'Umar had not forbidden mut'ah there would have
been only a few unfortunate men who committed fornication has become
proverbial at-Tabari has reported this tradition in his "tafsir" also.
In this connection Imam Ja'afar as-Sadiq is reliably understood to have
said: "I do not do taqiyah (to deliberately conceal one's beliefs or
opinions under certain conditions) in the matter of three things:
mut'ahtu 'l-hajj, mut'atu 'n-nisa', and al-mash 'ala 'l-khafayn." (The
latter item refers to the Sunni practice of wiping over the shoes in
place of washing the feet when performing wudu'.) According to the
principles of jurisprudence the conflicting reports of the Sunni
commentators have been analyzed and proved to be full of false hadith.
The lawfulness of mut'ah has been proved, and just as it was lawful at
the time of the Prophet so it is today
It was Hadrat 'Umar who prohibited mut'ah during his rule; his
prohibition was based on personal social considerations of the day, but
it had nothing to do with religion. He is reported to have said, "During
the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.) two mut'ahs were permissible, but I now
make them unlawful, and will punish those who disobey my order." What is
worth noting is this that the second Caliph did not attribute the order
of unlawfulness or abrogation of mut'ah to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.),
but made himself responsible for it. He, too, was responsible for the
matter of punishment. We can only repeat what we have tried to
demonstrate with the above example: that mut'ah, the Qur'anic ordinance
concerning its legality, the Sunnah (practice) of the Prophet (s.a.w.),
the practice of his Companions, its being practised during the rule of
Abu Bakr and in the early period of 'Umar's own Caliphate, are all
verifiable realities which are above all argument and discussion. The
books of history and traditions bear witness to the fact that during the
age of the Prophet (s.a.w.) the high-ranking companions and respected
members of the Quraysh all practised mut'ah; indeed many of the noble
Muslims of that time were sons of temporary marriages.
Raghib al-Isfahani, the celebrated Sunni scholar, has reported that a
Sunni scholar Yahya ibn Aktham, asked one of the important nobles of
Basrah whom he followed about the justification for mut'ah. The noble
siad "'Umar ibn Khattab." "How is this," asked Yahya, "he was the sworn
enemy of mut'ah." The man said: "Yes, it has been proved that once
Hadrat 'Umar announced from the pulpit: "Oh people! God and His Prophet
made two mut'ahs lawful, but I now declare them unlawful. Also I will
punish those who disobey me.' We accept his statement but we do not
accept the validity of his prohibition." A similar hadith has been
related by 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar; it is shorter and less harsh than the
former: "During the age of the Prophet (s.a.w.) there were two mut'ahs,
and I now make them unlawful." Some have argued that 'Umar did not want
to alter the command of Allah but only to make a law which was suitable
for the society of the time.
At this stage it would be useful to recall a great work by a renowned
scholar of the 6th century A.H., Muhammad ibn Idris al-Hilli, namely the
"sara'ir", in which the author writes: "Temporary marriage within the
Islamic code of religion is lawful. Muslims believe that its lawfulness
is proved according to the Book of God and also according to the Sunnah.
However some people have claimed that it had been revoked, but the
veracity of this requires proof. Moreover 'aql (the faculty of reason
which allows us to understand the workings of God in his creation) tells
us that every useful act about which we have no fear that it will give
us any loss in this world or the next is permissible. This condition
applies to mut'ah. We must, through our reason, acknowledge its
lawfulness. Now, if somebody asks what is the proof, given the
conflicting opinions concerning its legality, that it would not cause us
loss in the next world, the answer is that the onus of proof lies on the
person who pleads the possibility of its being harmful. It is beyond
doubt that mut'ah was permissible during the days of the Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.), and that it was only later that they began talking of its
unlawfulness and revocation. Thus until revocation can be proved we have
no right to deny its lawfulness.
"When we examine the hadith which relate that the Prophet did make
mut'ah unlawful, we find that these traditions all have weak chains of
transmission and do not qualify as sources of certainty, nor do they
provide a justification for action on the part of the Muslim.
"Let us examine again the relevant verse in the Qur'an. It occurs after
the passage concerning the women who are mahram (one is not allowed to
marry them for reasons of consanguinity, etc.) "
And lawful for you are all (women) besides those mentioned', so that you
may seek them by means of your wealth, taking (them) into marriage, and
not committing fornication; and those with whom you concluded mut'ah
give them their dowries as a fixed reward, and it shall not be a sin on
you in whatever you mutually agree (to vary) after the fixed reward"
(Surah an-Nisa'). In this holy verse the disputable work is
"istamta'tum" which has two meanings - either to take pleasure in and
profit from, or to make the agreement for mut'ah according to the
Islamic code - the first is the literal meaning and the second is
according to its meaning within the Islamic code. According to the
principles of 'fiqh', if a word in the Qur'an has two meanings - one
literal and the other used specifically in the language of the
"shari'ah" then the latter meaning must be accepted and the literal
meaning should not be relied upon. That is why for example the words
"salat", "zakat", "sawm" and "hajj" are all to be understood according
to the precise meaning of the Islamic shari'ah (code), and not according
to the literal meaning to be found in the dictionary.
We have already made it dear that a well-known group of the companions
believed in the lawfulness of mut'ah and that Amir al-mu'minin himself
openly declared its lawfulness; 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas used to enter into
polemical discussion with ibn Zubayr on this topic and these discussions
became so widely known that they were not only talked of by the common
people but the poets of that time also gave vent to their reactions in
their verses. Also 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Mujahid, Ata'i, Jabir ibn
'Abdullah al-Ansari, Salmah ibn al-Akwa', Abu Sa'id Khudri, Mughirah ibn
Sha'hab, Sa'id ibn Jabir and Ibn Jarih also gave the verdict that mut'ah
was lawful. All these men are esteemed and trustworthy men of knowledge;
they arrived at their decision through careful examination of the
matter.
We have so far thrown light on this topic from only a religious or
historical point of view. Now let us assess it from the ethical and
social point of view. Islam is a great blessing and mercy for the world.
The message of Islam is like a divine song which is diffused from heaven
over the world of man, and which gave and still gives the answer to
those who seek to understand the reason for man's existence on earth.
Our revealed religion suits every age, meets the needs of all men in
every age in this world, and guarantees for them prosperity both
spiritual and material. Islam was revealed by God not to make man's life
harder but on the contrary, to fill it with mercy, meaning and order.
That is why Islam is the most perfect religion and the last code of
religion before the end of the world; this divine law adorns human
culture and civilization with perfection; no other man-made institutions
or laws are needed.
Let us now examine one activity which every individual is obliged to
undertake at some time in his life, namely, travel. We find that the
Islamic code indicates precisely the code of conduct to be expected from
the Muslim who is travelling, whether for trade, for war or on the hajj
or 'umrah, for example.
It hardly needs to be pointed out that God, the All-Wise, has endowed
man with sexual desire for the preservation of the human race. And it
also goes without saying that a traveller is unable to fulfill the
requirements of a permanent marriage.
Under these conditions, what should this traveller do who has been away
from his home for a long time?
How should be behave especially when he happens to be young and subject
to strong sexual urges.
There are only two alternatives possible if we do not allow mut'ah; he
should either control his passion or must indulge in unlawful
relationships. It should be stated that excessive control and
suppressing of sexual desires sometimes causes serious physical and
mental illness. Sterility is also another possible consequence of such
self-control. Such practice is patiently against the dictates of wisdom,
and God says in the Quran, "God wishes ease for you and does not wish
for you discomfort."
May God save us from sexual mal-practices. Most parts of the world are
suffering its consequences today.
I swear to God that if the Muslims act in compliance with the religious
laws, this universe, according to the divine promise, will become
complete mercy for them, and man will live in harmony and prosperty.
Mut'ah is thus a welcome and necessary law of the Islamic religion. If
the Muslims acted in accordance with the conditions for lawful mut'ah
(the making of an agreement between the two parties stipulating the time
limit and dowry, and the 'iddah, for example), and take advantage of
this divine blessing, evil-doing would to a great extent be eradicated,
the honour of man and woman would be saved, the Muslim community would
grow in number, the world would be rid of illegitimate children and
moral values would be strengthened. The pronouncement of the exalted man
of the community, 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas cannot be over-praised. Ibn Athir
relates that he says, "Mut'ah was a blessing with which God the Almighty
endowed the ummah of Muhammad (peace and the blessings of God be upon
him and his descendents) and, had it not been prohibited, no-one, except
the truly perverted ones, would have committed adultry (see the
"Nahayah" of Ibn Athir and the "Fa'iq" of az-Zamakhshari). The effects
of his exalted teacher and guardian, Amir al-mu'minin are reflected in
this statement of Ibn Abbas. The fact is that the Islamic world is
rejecting this divine mercy and as a result has plunged itself into
shameless immorality.
8 (b) Talaq (Divorce)
It is clear that the essence of marriage is the very special union which
is established between man and woman, and which makes the two different
individuals close companions and partners to each other. The cooperation
and communion between wife and husband may be compared to a person's
eyes and hands - each hand is different from the other but each
complements and perfects the other.
The very nature of this act, that two personalities, who are quite
unacquainted with each other, are so strongly joined and united through
wedlock that it precludes any conception of a stronger union, shows the
particular strength of this alliance. There can be no better words than
the following verse of the Holy Quran: "Hunna libasuln lakum wa antum
libasuln lahunna" (2:187), "They are your garments and you are their
garments." Truly this verse expresses the subtle intimacy of the
relationship of marriage.
The obvious feature of the non-temporary alliance is that the two make
an agreement to remain together for life.
It may happen however that the marriage is no longer desired either on
the part of one or both parties and divorce becomes necessary. The code
of religion ordains that certain conditions be fulfilled according to
the kind of divorce in question. There are three kinds of divorce:
firstly, if divorce is desired from the side of the husband, separation
is called "talaq"; secondly, it is desired from the side of the wife,
she can obtain "khul"'. And lastly, if disagreement is on both sides,
they can have recourse to "mubarat" to obtain separation.
Since Islam is a social religion and it has been founded on unity and
oneness, its greatest objective is love and concord. The creation of
disharmony in whatever form is to be avoided whenever possible.
Accordingly, a large number of traditons have expressed the
undesirability of "talaq" (divorce) and some of them say that among the
acts made lawful by God, there is no act more undesirable than divorce.
That is why the messenger of God has made clear to man the conditions
and restrictions of divorce, so that it may occur as infrequently as
possible within the Muslim community. Among the rules of divorce, the
presence of two just witnesses is a necessary condition. If divorce is
pronounced in the absence of two just witnesses, it will be considered
null and void. This condition is the best means of doing away with
mutual hatred, because two 'just' persons will consider it their duty to
bring about peace and friendship between the couple through admonition
and preaching before carrying out the divorce.
Of course, it will not be successful on every occasion but the number of
divorces can be minimized by the intervention of these two persons who
are respected within their community for their good sense and justice.
It is regretful to note that our Sunni brothers, do not accept this
argument. They did not consider the presence of two just witnesses
necessary for divorce. Consequently the number of divorces is growing so
great among them that it causes inconvenience to a great number of
people. Unfortunately, many of us, as well as our Sunni brothers, are
unaware of the hidden wisdom contained in the religious code. We pray
that Muslims may whole-heartedly comply with the divine laws so that the
bitterness that has been created in their private lives, and the
confusion that has spread in their social affairs, may at least be
reduced.
The important condition of divorce is that the one who divorces must not
be under compulsion, or in a state of anger, or any other state of mind
which diminishes his ability to think clearly and make decisions in a
reasonable manner. (Moreover, the divorce should have completed her
monthly period of menstruation and not have had sexual intercourse in
the 'new month'. This condition inevitably helps to delay and eventually
lessen the number of divorces).
In the Ja'fari (Shi'a) 'fiqh', pronouncement of divorce three times in
one sitting is counted as only one divorce. Thus if a man pronounces
divorce three times in one sitting, his wife does not become forbidden
for him forever. They can be united again without any condition.
If the man then again divorces his wife, returns a second time to the
woman and then divorces her a third time, the woman shall become
forbidden after this third divorce. After that, she cannot become lawful
for him unless she marries (and subsequently divorces) another man. If
this thing happens, nine times, he will be unlawful for her former
husband forever.
Most of the 'ulama' of the Sunni community stipulate that if a husband
says three times to his wife that he has divorced her, it will be
considered as an irrevocable talaq; resumption of conjugal relations is
only possible if the wife marries and subsequently divorces another man,
though it is clearly stated in certain of their accepted hadith that
divorce pronounced three times in one sitting is to be counted as one
divorce. It is narrated in al-Bukhari, on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas,
that "during the time of the Prophet, and during the caliphate of Abu
Bakr, and for two years during the caliphate of 'Umar, the 'three
divorces' meant only one divorce, but Hadrat 'Umar said: that although
people were entitled to delay divorce, they did not wish to wait, and
so, seeing no obstacle in the way, we granted permission for them to
carry it out" (that is, he recognized the validity of irrevocable
divorce after pronouncing divorce three times in one sitting).
The Holy Quran is itself unambigious in this matter: "Divorce (shall be
lawful) only twice, then (you should) either keep her in fairness or
send her away with kindness." (2:229) After this, God, the Almighty,
says: "So if he divorces her (for a third time), then she shall not be
lawful to him until she weds another husband." (2:230) We have tried to
give a brief account of the causes of divorce; if more details are
required, one may refer to the books of Islamic jurisprudence..
* * * * *
There are also other causes of separation such as defects and diseases
in either party. If the man is sexually impotent or becomes insane, the
woman has the right to divorce him. Certain diseases of a woman's sexual
organs entitle the man to divorce his wife. Zihar and illa' (kinds of
oaths of rejection of the woman on the part of the man, common amongst
the Arabs before the coming of Islam) may also be a cause of separation.
The various kinds of "iddah" and other allied matters are dealt with
comprehensively in more specialized works of fiqh. Suffice it to say
that after the death of the husband, it is compulsory for the wife to
observe "iddah" even if she is "ya'isah" (past the menopause), or is a
minor, or has not had coition with her husband. In divorce, "iddah" is
compulsory in cases other than the three mentioned above. In unlawful
coition (adultery), there is no 'iddah. The necessary waiting period
after the death of the husband is four months and ten days, but, in case
the woman is pregnant, she must wait until delivery. This, of course,
may be less or more than the four months and ten days. The duration of
the "iddah" after the divorce is three months, and for the pregnant
woman, it is till delivery and for the kaniz, or slave girl, it is half
the period of the free woman. If the divorce has not accrued twice
before and there is no 'khul', the husband can resume conjugal relations
at any time during the period of 'iddah. The man no longer has the right
to return to the wife unless the two parties are willing to make a new
act of marriage (and only then under certain conditions). It is not
considered necessary by the Shi'a that two witnesses be present for the
resumption of marriage (as it is in the case of divorce), but it is
desirable; it is not necessary moreover to recite anything specific.
Such words and signs as serve the purpose are sufficient.
As we have already made clear, the relationship of marriage cannot be
broken unless one or both partners expresses dislike for the other; if
the dislike is from the side of the husband, he has the right to talaq,
through which he can, if he desires, divorce his wife; and if the wife
detests him, she can, on payment of some money, demanded by the husband,
(it may be equal to or more than the dower) and after reciting the
prescribed words (sighah), be released from the bond of wedlock. This
latter is called khul' and it is only valid if all conditions of divorce
are fulfilled and there is very strong ill-feelings on the part of the
woman for the husband. This is in accordance with what the Holy Qur'an
says:
"And if you fear that they shall not (be able) to keep (themselves)
within the limits (fixed) by God, there shall be no sin on either of
them about what she gives up to get herself free (from the wedlock).
These are the limits ordained by God. Beware! Exceed them not." (2:229)
The commentary of the ahlu 'l-bayt about this verse is that it concerns
the wife who says to her husband, "I will not believe in your swearing;
I will not respect the divine code concerning marriage conduct as far as
you are concerned. I will not allow coition; and will bring undesirable
people into your house." This obviously shows extreme hatred on the part
of the wife and there would then appear to be no possibility of
harmonious relations between her and her husband.
If, however, the feeling of dislike is equally strong on both sides, any
divorce which takes place is called a "mubarat" divorce. This kind of
divorce is likewise only valid if all the conditions of talaq (divorce)
are fulfilled, but in this case, the husband has no right to claim more
than the dower money that he has paid to the wife. In khul' and
'mubarat', the divorces is irrevocable. After it, the husband cannot
assume conjugal relations. If however the woman takes back the money she
gave the husband at the time of 'khal", they may resume the conjugal
alliance as long as the period of "iddah" has not come to an end.
There are also other causes of prohibition (for instance, if the husband
calls his wife 'mother' or 'sister' or likens her to either, the wife
becomes prohibited to him till he performs an act of atonement. This is
called zihar.
These are explained in the relevant books. Such incidents seldom take
place today as they were particular to the Arabs of pre-Islamic days.
9. Inheritance
After a person's death, the transfer of his or her property, or rights,
to another person by virtue of their blood relationship or some other
tie, is called inheritance.
The living relative is called the "warith" (heir), the deceased is
called the "muruth" (one who bequeaths), and the right is called "irth"
(inheritance). The relationship between a person born of another, or
that of two persons who are born of a third, is called a blood
relationship (nasab).
If the right of an heir is fixed in the Qur'an, he or she shall be
counted in the category of those who receive inheritance as a matter of
obligation, otherwise he or she shall be entitled to receive inheritance
by virtue of blood relationship.
In the Holy Qur'an, the chief shares are six. The description of the
shares and the inheritors is as follows:
1. The half-share (nisf):
a) the husband, provided that the wife has no son.
b) one daughter; here too the absence of a son is a condition.
c) a sister; here also the same condition applies
2. The quarter-share (rub'):
a) the husband, when the deceased wife's son inherits.
b) the wife, provided that the husband does not leave behind a son.
3. The eighth share (thamin): the wife, when the husband leaves a son.
4. The third-share (thulth). the mother, when there is no son; also some
inheritors from the mother's side.
5. The two-thirds share: two daughters when there is no son.
6. The sixth-share (sudus): each of the father and the mother in the
presence of a son; also an inheritor from the mother's side whether man
or woman.
Those who are not included in the above settlements shall be inheritors
on account of their blood relationship with the deceased, observing the
rule that the share of the man is double that of the woman.
The heirs who are in a state of blood relationship with the deceased are
divided into three groups:
(i) the mother, the father, sons, daughters (or failing these, their
descendants).
(ii) grandfathers, grandmothers, brothers and sisters (or failing this,
their descendants)
(iii) paternal uncles and aunts, maternal uncles and aunts (or failing
this, their descendants)
The universal principle is that the presence of members of group (i)
prevents members of group (ii) presents members of group (iii)
inheriting. Thus, the one closer in blood-relationship acts as a barrier
to the remoter, and this principle also holds within each group.
The only really significant difference between the Shi'ah and Sunni
schools of jurisprudence in the laws of inheritance concerns the
principles of " "awl" and "ta'sib" 3. The Imamiyah jurisprudents have
proved by means of ahadith from the Ahlu'l-bayt (a.s.) that there is no
'awl or ta'isb in the matter of inheritance. This was also the opinion
held by the great companions of the Holy Prophet. The well-known
statement of Ibn 'Abbas in which he speaks against 'awl and ta'sib can
be taken as authoritative. There are also other grounds of proof for
negating these two principles.
10. Endowments (waqf); Gifts (nibah) and Charities (sadaqah):
If someone owns some property and wishes to relinquish possession of it,
his transference of it may be such that it is final. That is, now only
will it go out of his possession, but he can never claim it back,
whether, e.g., he frees a slave, or gives up possession of a house or
some land to make it a place of worship, a mosque, or a place for use in
pilgrimages. By such an act, the property can never again return to the
ownership of that person again. In such a case, in fact, the item can
never again be anyone's property.
On the other hand, the person may relinquish possession of some property
which then passes into the hands of another. Such a transaction may be
based on exchange or a monetary transaction, it may be part of a peace
treaty, etc.
Thirdly, he may relinquish ownership without any exchange taking place,
but solely with regard to the world to come and recompense therein. This
is what is commonly known as "sadaqah", and this is in turn divided into
two parts:
a) if the property is durable and the donor's intention is that it
should last and any profits from it used in good acts, it will then be
called an endowment (waqf);
b)if it is not durable or the donor has not stipulated any conditions
for its being permanently kept and utilised, it will then be called
sadaqah proper (charity).
Fourthly, if possession of some property is handed over to someone else
without there taking place any exchange and without any thought of
Divine recompense (e.g. for the sake of friendship), the donation is
called hibah (gift). If, however, some exchange takes place, e.g. one
man gives another his shirt on the condition that the second man gives a
book to him, it is called " 'iwad" (a consideration). ,If the second
party accepts, the gifting will become binding and neither party will
have the right to take his property back, except if they both agree to
break their agreement. It is necessary that the something gifted must be
in the possession of the donor. If the gifting was without any 'iwad,
the item (s) may be taken back. Naturally, this does not apply to gifts
given between close relatives or between husband and wife, or if the
item(s) is (are) lost or damaged.
This contrasts with the situation in the case of sadaqah; for here, once
possession has been relinquished, the thing(s) cannot be taken back. The
declaration of intention to donate is enough to make the taking back
unlawful. This is called the sighatu 'l-waqf, and the property then
passes to the trustee, who may be the original owner himself. It may not
be taken back, sold, divided, pawned, or otherwise pledged, whether it
be a "waqf khass" (special endowment), for descendents, for example, or
a "waqf 'amm" (general endowment), for the poor, the needy, a mosque or
a school.
There are, of course, some occasions when exceptions can be made and the
trust property can be sold. This may happen, for instance, if the
property has become damaged, but the damage should be to an extent that
prevents the property from being of any use. The waqf property can also
be sold if there is serious fear of its being destroyed, in which case
it should be such that no profit would accrue from it. The property can
also be sold if there are acute differences among those who are in
possession of it and there is danger of loss of life and property or
loss of honour and respect.
In spite of all these conditions, no one can take the decision to sell
the property or divide it. The decision rests entirely with the hakimu
"sh-shar" (the mujtahid) The hakimu 'sh-shar" alone has the right to
pass the necessary decree after assessing all the prevailing conditions.
But it is a pity that in the matter of endowments, people have become
extremely apathetic. They pay no attention to the limitations of the
Divine Law. God is aware of all their intentions and actions.
This was a brief account of sadaqah as it is generally understood.
11. Passing Judgement (qadawah)
The rank of qadi (judge), and that of the administrator of justice have
great importance, and in fact these are ranks worthy of great respect.
In the Imamiyah sect, the responsibility of the judiciary is considered
an adjunct of the prophethood, the imamate and the state in general.
God, the Almighty has said, "O David. We have appointed you vicegerent
in the earth; so judge between the people with justice." (38:26) And
again He says, "By the Lord (O Prophet), they believe not until they
have set you up as their judge in all that they dispute about among
themselves, and thereafter find not in their selves any vexation against
what you decide, and submit with total submission." (4:65)
The qadi and judge are the nawamisu' th-thalathah (custodiansof three
things - life, property and honour).
That is why there are serious dangers in this rank at every step, and if
the texts of the traditions are carefully studied, we shall find that it
is so exalted a rank that even the mountains seem to be insignificant
before it.
Hadrat Amir al-Mu'mimin (a.s.) says, "The qadi should be considered to
be on the brink of Hell. The qadi's tongue is between two balls of fire.
O Shurayh, you are sitting at a place where sits either a prophet or his
"wasiy" (successor) or else some wicked person." It is stated in a
tradition of the Prophet (s.a.w.), "If somebody is made a qadi it means
that he has been slaughtered without a knife." There are many traditions
of this nature.
If a ruling which a "faqih" (expert in jurisprudence) deduces from
proofs concerns some general principle, it is called a "fatwa"; for
instance, it is unlawful to use someone else's property without his or
her permission, the wife of a man is lawful to him but she is unlawful
to a stranger. But if the order pertains to some particular case it is
called a judgement (qada). for instance, "This woman is the wife. "This
woman is a stranger." "This is Zayd's property. "That is the property of
such and such a person."
Whether it is a "fatwa" or a "qada", both of them are duties of a just
mujtahid who is the general proxy of the Imam.
Judgement is in fact the identification of the legal nature of points
under dispute, whether they pertain to defense and accusation in a
court, or to matters such as the sighting of the moon and the
determination of the beginning of the month, or the administration of
endowments and the determination of lineage, and it demands great wisdom
and intellectual ability. In fact it is more difficult a task than
issuing a "fatwa".
Now, if somebody who is devoid of these qualities undertakes to perform
this duty, it will certainly do more harm than good. Accordingly, it is
unlawful in Imamiyah "fiqh" for anyone except a just mujtahid to
undertake to perform this work. Indeed, it is regarded as one of the
major sins if anyone else does do it, and the extent of its enormity
borders on infidelity. Our respected teachers used to be very cautious
about passing judgements. We also follow the same line.
Judgment can only be passed on the basis of three things: (1)confession
(iqrar), (2)an oath (qasm), or (3) two just witnesses (bayyinah). The
question of how to establish preference or priority in cases where there
may be difference or contradiction between the witnesses is a matter for
the section of fiqh which deals with the giving of evidence, and there
is little point in going into the details here suffice it to say that
the matter has been examined in great detail by our jurists and they
have left many writings on it. We, also, have written a book on the
subject called "Tahriru 'l-majallah".
One who does not act in accordance with the order of the authorized
"qadi" (i.e. one who fulfills all the conditions of a "qadi"), will be
considered to have violated the divine commands. Also no one has the
right to revise the decision of a "qadi". Of course, the qadihimself may
re-examine his judgment.
12. Slaughtering and Hunting
The basic principle in Shi'ah jurisprudence concerning animals whose
blood spurts 4 is that they become "najis" (impure) when they die, and
that it is unlawful (haram) to eat their flesh.
There is also a division of animals into two categories: those which are
impure (najis) in essence and cannot become pure, such as the dog and
the pig, and cannot therefore on no account be eaten; and those which
become essentially impure if they die in any way other than as a result
of hunting or slaughtering in accordance with the shari'ah, but which
become pure if they are correctly hunted or slaughtered in accordance
with the rules laid out below.
However, the mean of correctly killed animals of the second category can
only be eaten provided they are not carnivorous.
There are two ways of killing animals in accordance with the shari'ah.
The first is hunting.
Hunting may be in two ways. Firstly by a trained hound who obeys the
orders given it and does not normally eat the animal it has killed. For
his prey to be lawful, the person who released and sends the hound must
be a Muslim and must pronounce "bismillah" when releasing it, and the
hound should at no time leave his sight.
Secondly, hunting may be by means of a weapon, i.e. a sharp sword, spear
or arrow, or the bullet of a gun. In all cases, the death must be
directly due to the penetration of the weapon into the animal, and not
to some side effect such as fright. The person who uses the weapon must
be a Muslim and he must pronounce "bismillah" at the time of taking aim.
If the animal is killed by either of the above methods, its flesh is
lawful. But if the hunter gets his animal when it is still alive, he
must slaughter it (see below). All other means of hunting (i.e. trap,
net, etc.) are forbidden, unless, of course, the animal is taken alive
and correctly slaughtered.
The second way to lawfully kill an animal is by slaughtering it
(dhabih). The slaughterer must be a Muslim or someone under the rules of
Islam such as the minor son of a Muslim. The second condition is that
the instrument of slaughtering should be made of sharp metal. However,
in case of necessity, any sharp implement (glass, sharp stone, etc.)
which cuts the arteries clearly may be used. In the Name of God
(bismillah) must be pronounced when the intention to slaughter is amde,
and the animal must be lying with its face towards the "qiblah". All
four main blood vessels of the neck must be completely severed above the
vocal chords. (There is a special method of killing a camel called
"nahr", which may also be used for other animals when "dhabih" is not
possible.
It should be noted finally that all namilas whose blood does not spurt
are unlawful (haram) except fish which have scales. A hadith of Muhammad
ibn Nu'man Ahwal, Mu'min at-Taq, says, "One day I went in to see Abu
Hanifah. I saw there was a pile of books in front of him. Abu Hanifah
said, 'Do you see all these books?' I said, Yes.' He said, 'They are all
to do with divorce.' I said, God has made us free from all your books by
one single verse of the Quran, "Oh Prophet, (say to the believers),
'When you divorce (your) women, divorce at their prescribed period, and
reckon the 'iddah (exactly).' "He said, 'Well then, have you ever asked
your friend Ja'far ibn Muhammad (al-Imam as-Sadiq (a.s.)) about the
seacow?' I said, 'Yes, he said that every sea-animal with scales, even
if it be a 'sea-) camel or a (sea-) cow, can be eaten, and that if it
has no scales it is unlawful to eat.'" 5
13. The Nature of Foodstuffs
Animals: There are three kinds of animals - animals of the land, animals
of the sea and animals of the air.
It has just been pointed out that, in general, the only animals of the
sea which are lawful are those which have scales. The eggs of such fish
are also lawful.
Of land animals, only a few species can be lawful the camel, the cow,
the sheep or goat, the wild cow or buffalo, the mountain sheep or goat,
the gazelle, the deer. The meat of horses, mules and donkeys is not
approved of (makruh). Animals which eat najis substances, such as
excrement, become haram, but they can be purified by "istibra"' (keeping
itaway from najis eatables for a specific period).
All kinds of carnivourous animals are unlawful. Rabbits, foxes, badgers
and mongooses are all unlawful. Insects, reptiles and amphibians like
worms, snails, cockroaches, scorpions, wasps, bees, snakes, frogs etc.
are all forbidden; only the locust can be eaten.
Among birds, those which feed on flesh such as hawks and eagles, are
completely forbidden. Apart from this, the Prophet (s.a.w.) prescribed
three signs in three conditions for the indentification of lawful birds:
1) if the birds are in the air, the pause in the movement of their
wings, i.e. their gliding, should be less than their flapping;
2) if they are on the ground, the spurs on their claws should be
visible;
3) when the bird is slaughtered, it must be found to have a crop and/or
a gizzard.
Bats and peacocks are forbidden. The kind of crow which eats herbage is
lawful, but the kind which eats carrion is forbidden.
Besides animals, there are other things which are for bidden to eat or
drink. They can be classed under four headings:
1) everything which is impure (najis) is unlawful (haram);
2) every kind of food (eatable or drinkable) which has been taken
illegally is haram.
3)every kind of food (eatable or drinkable) which has deleterious
effects is haram.
4)every kind of food (eatable or drinkable) which seems repulsive is
haram.
Of liquids, one of the most impure is urine, but even more than that is
wine (any kind of alcoholic beverage), and in Imamiyah fiqh, the
unlawfulness and impurity of wine is more strongly emphasized than in
any other school. The traditions that have come down to us from our
Imams on this subject are enough to frighten one off them forever.
Distillers and fermenters of alcoholic drinks, stockists, merchants and
drinkers, all are cursed, and wine has been called in fiqh "ummu
'l-khaba'ith" (the mother of all evils). Some traditions say it is
forbidden to sit at a table on which alcoholic drinks have been laid,
probably so as to encourage people to abstain therefrom so that their
bad effects may be limited.
Today, expert scientists have confirmed by chemical tests that wine is a
very destructive and harmful thing. Islam warned against alcohol
thirteen hundred years ago. Today, even those who do not abstain for
religious reasons do so for reasons of health. The shari'ah of Muhammad
(s.a.w.) cannot be over praised, those who neglect it do so to their own
disadvantage and peril.
14. Penology (hudud)
Under an Islamic government, certain punishments are prescribed for
certain crimes, so that the society may be kept healthy and the roots of
corruption destroyed. Some of these penalties (hudud) are as follows
according to Shi'ah fiqh.
1)The penalties for adultery (zina): If an adult, sane man knowingly and
deliberately has sexual intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to
him, it is then an obligation on the authorized judge to flog him with a
hundred lashes; his head will be shaved and he will be forced to leave
the city for a period of one year. If he is "muhsin", i.e. he is in a
position to satisfy his sexual urges in conformity with the shari'ah, he
will be stoned to death as well as being given a hundred lashes. If the
woman consented, she shall, if also "muhsinah", be stoned, and if
otherwise, she shall be given a hundred lashes. If a man has sexual
intercourse with a forbidden woman of his relatives (mahrum), or with a
woman who has suckled at the same breast as he was (his rida'ih), or
with his step mother, or if a dhimmah (a non-Muslim under the protection
of a Muslim state) has sexual intercourse with a Muslim woman, he shall
be beheaded; and the penalty is the same for rape.
The adultery can only be proven by:
1) a confession repeated four times;
2) the witnessing of four just men that they saw him actually in the act
of penetration;
3) the witnessing of three just men and two just women.
If the adultery is witnessed by two just men and four just women, it
shall be deemed proven but the penalty may only be flogging, their being
no capital penalty. If the evidence is less than this, it is not
considered complete, and, what is more, if less than four men give
evidence, they shall be punished for slander (qadhaf). For the evidence
to be accepted there must be unanimity between the witnesses, and they
must all have seen the actual penetration with their own eyes.
If a man is to be stoned after a confession, but then disavows his
confession, he shall not be stoned; and if, after confession, he repents
of his deed, the qadi may exercise his discretion. If he repents when
four witnesses have seen his act, there will be no alteration in the
penalty.
If a person is being punished for the third time for the same offence
(adultery), he shall be beheaded. A pregnant Woman or a sick person must
not receive his or her punishment until the baby is born or the sickness
goes away, respectively .
2) The penalties for homosexual acts : The punishment for sodomy between
two males (liwat) is more severe than that for any other crime. It is
the only case in which the offender may be burnt to death. The qadi may
sentence the active partner in the act to one of four penalties:
beheading, stoning to death, being thrown from a height so that his
bones are all broken up, burning to death. The passive partner, if he is
adult and responsible for his actions, is to be beheaded. If he is not
yet of the age of puberty, he will be given a reduced punishment
(ta'zir). The same conditions of proof hold here as in adultery.
In the female homosexual act (sihaq), both offenders will be given a
hundred lashes. If they are married, it is not impossible for them to be
stoned to death.
3) The penalty for the procurer: the procurer (qawwad) who arranges for
an unlawful sexual act to take place, will be given seventy lashes, his
head will be shaved, and he will be expelled from the city. The proof
for this is met by the evidence of two just melt or by a confession made
twice.
4) The penalty for false witnessing and slander. if someone falsely
accuses a sane, adult and free Muslim of a crime for which some sentence
can be inflicted, for instance, adultery, sodomy or drinking wine, then
the false accuser shall be punished with eighty lashes. In case of the
proof being admissible on confirmation by the accused person, the
sentence against the accuser shall become void. The crime shall be
considered proved as long as there is "bayyinah)) (see above).
It is also a punishable offence for a person to call someone else with
some undesirable epithet which he does not deserve, e.g. "sinner",
"corrupter", "leper", etc. If someone claims to be a prophet, or curses
or declares enmity with one of the fourteen pure ones (the Prophet
(s.a.w.), the twelve Imams (a.s.) and Hadrat Fatima), he shall be
beheaded.
5) The penalty for the drunkard: the penalty for any one who avails
himself of any intoxicating beverage of any kind is eighty lashes, to be
given on his or her bare neck and arms.
If someone has been punished for three times and he commits the crime a
fourth time, he or she shall be beheaded. One who considers wine lawful
is liable to the same punishment.
If the dealer in wine repents and leaves his profession, it is well and
good, otherwise he too shall be liable to beheading.
6) The penalties for theft: if an adult and sane person steals something
from a "safe" place (i.e. somewhere which is locked or firmly closed, or
someplace similar) which is valued at more than a quarter of a mithqal
(about 1 gm - a mithqal is a little over 4.5 grams 0) of pure gold, he
will have the four fingers of his right hand cut after duly being
sentenced by a qadi on the evidence of double confession or "bayyinah"
(see above). If he commits the crime a second time, his leg will be cut
off under the knee. For the third offence, he shall be sentenced to life
imprisonment. And, if he commits theft in prison, he shall be beheaded.
If he has committed theft a number of times before he is subjected to
the prescribed punishment, only one penalty shall be inflicted upon him.
For children and insance people, there is no hadd only ta'zir (a lenient
punishment). The thief must invariably have to pay compensation, and for
this, one acknowledgement, or the evidence and oath of one just witness
is sufficient.
The "hands" of the father shall not be cut off for stealing the property
of the son. But, if, conversely, the son steals, his "hands" shall be
cut off
7) The penalty for causing fear and terror (muharib): if someone causes
fear among the people in a town or in the open country or at sea and/or
intimidates them for the purposes of seizing what belongs to them, the
qadi is empowered to have him or her executed, crucified, to have his
right hand and left foot cut off, or to have him banished from the
country.
God, the Most High, has said, "The recompense of those who war against
God and His Messenger, and strive in the land spreading corruption, is
only that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet
should be cut off, from the opposite sides, or be banished from the
land." (5:33)
In case of banishment, the people of the place to which the culprit has
been deported must be informed in writing, so that they may refuse him
entry to their meetings, to their meals, etc., till he repents.
The thief who attacks a house is also a "muharib". If he is killed, his
blood will be considered shed with impurity.
If someone attacks the modesty of a woman or her child, these latter
have the right of self-defence. If the assailant is killed in the
struggle,(his blood too will have been shed with impunity. Thugs,
ruffians and false witnesses (excluding those in 4 above) are liable to
reduced punishment. The judge can give them any appropriate punishment.
8) Sundry penalties: anyone who perpetrates an indecent act with a
quadruped shall be given a less severe punishment. If he persists in his
activities, he may be executed. The meat of the animal (if it is a
lawful animal) will become forbid den, and it must be slaughtered and
its body burnt. In case it belongs to someone other than the perpetrator
of the act, he must be awarded the cost of the cost of the animal. If
the animal is of doubtful ownership, it should be decided by lots. If
the animal is in any case unlawful, it must be sold in another city, and
the price obtained given in charity. If the animal belongs to another,
he must be suitably recompensed for his loss. The evidence of two just
persons or a double confession is sufficient to prove guilt.
A person who has sexual intercourse with a dead body shall be dealt with
as if it were alive; rather, the punishment will be even more severe. In
the case of it being the body of his wife or slave girl, the punishment
will be milder. The proof for this is the same as is required for
adultery.
A person who indulges in masturbation also deserves a mild punishment.
As far as is possible, every person has the right to defend his own
person as well as his property and the persons of his family. But he
should start by adopting less severe measures, and he should only
increase his precautions if necessary.
If someone looks without permission into someone else's house and the
dwellers pelt him with stones causing his death, do penalty may be
extracted from them, and his blood is considered shed with impunity.
Murder is the greatest sin and the greatest social crime. "And whose
slays a believer willfully, his recompense is Hell, therein dwelling
forever, and God will be wroth with him and will curse him, and prepare
for him a mighty chastisement." (4:93) Crimes against the person,
whether it causes death, loss of a part of the body, or not, can be
divided into three kinds:
1) premeditated or willful,
2) similar to (1),
3) by accident.
First, (1), premeditated or willful, needs no explanation. (2) means
that the attacker took the initiative, but did not intend to kill. For
example, someone beats someone else as a warning, but this results in
death, or a person is given some medicine to cure him, but it ends his
life. (3) accidental means that there is neither any intention nor any
initiative, yet someone is killed; for instance, somebody is aiming at a
bird and, by mistake, a human being becomes the victim, or a man is
lifting his gun and it accidentally goes off and kills somebody.
More clear examples are the actions of a man who is sleep walking, of an
unconscious person, of a mad man or of an innocent child.
It must be clearly observed that as far as the crime and its punishment
is concerned, there is no difference between the actual committer of the
crime and the person who devised and ordered it to be done; nor does it
make any difference if the crime is committed by one or many.
Retaliation (qisas) applies only in the case of willful or premeditated
murder or injury. In (2) and (3) there are only compensation (diyah).
There can be no retaliation from the child or the lunatic, nor can there
be any retaliation if the murdered person is a child or a lunatic. An
adult who kills a child is subject only to the deliverance of
compensation. However, some jurists are of the opinion that there is
retaliation here, and also for the killing of a lunatic.
Another condition for retaliation is that the culprit was not compelled
or under constraint, although this does not apply in the case of death,
for in a matter of murder, there is no "taqiyah" (dissimulation). It is
also necessary that the person murdered by "without sin", i.e. not
someone whose death is permitted by the shari'ah. There is no
retaliating against the father, the grandfather or the
great-grandfather, if they murder their son, grandson or great-grandson,
only compensation. A Muslim is subject to retaliation only in the case
of the murder of another Muslim. Likewise, retaliation shall be taken
against the freedman only for the murder of a freedman.
The blood money or compensation for a free Muslim is: a hundred camels,
or two hundred cows, or a thousand sheep, or two hundred items of
clothing, each consisting of two parts, or a thousand dinars. If the
heirs of the murdered person agree to take the compensation, retaliation
is voided, and the murderer must pay the compensation within one year.
In (2), the period for payment is two years. In (3), the period is three
years, with a third being payable each year.
In cases of parts of the body, retaliation can be extracted if the
action was deliberate. The retaliation is like for-like, i.e. an eye for
an eye, an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth.
If the crime is of kinds (2) or (3), there are special compensations:
some equivalent to the whole compensation for a man (i.e. 1000 dinars),
some a half, and some less than a half. In general, organs and parts of
the body which occur singly, such as the nose or the penis, demand the
whole compensation, those which occur in twos demand half the
compensation (i.e. two hands demand the whole compensation). In (1) and
(2) the compensation must be paid by the culprit himself, but in (3) it
may be paid by his 'aqilah (certain near relatives on the father's
side).
If the reader is interested, he or she may consult the extensive books
which deal with this topic for further details. However, since it was
our intention to deal with, matters only briefly, we have left out a
great many things.
Our purpose was to give a few examples, so that our aim might be made
clear with only a few references.
Part IV: Allegations Against the Shi'a
Refutation of the Claim that their are Un-Islamic Borrowings in Shi'a
Beliefs.
All that we have set down in this book is but a mere indication of the
beliefs and convictions of the Imamiyah sect. It would require many
volumes to deal with them in detail. But the religious leaders, and
indeed the Muslims in general, can tell us if there was anything in the
facts that we have just stated which could be said to be the cause of
the destruction of Islam, or if there is any matter which has been
derived from Judaism, Christianity, or Zorastrianism (see introduction),
or if anything appears which is against the basic principle of
monotheism (tawhid) or against the Book (the Qur'an) and the sunnah
(words and deeds of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)). By God, you should be
just and not simply utter caluminous remarks.
Finally, our prayer is that our brothers in Islam should come out of the
world of doubt and uncertainty, and gather together under the one banner
of the Qur'an, so as to successfully regain their past glory. It is
quite obvious that this is an impossibility as long as our sectarian
conflicts continue.
May God bless us with mutual tolerance and may the bonds of love between
us be strengthened.
The Problem of Bada'
In this matter also the Shi'as are much reviled. The misconstrues,
distorting the concept of "bada", try to convince people that according
to the Shi'a faith, God, the Almighty, performs actions of which He has
no knowledge. God forbid. Can there be greater ignorance than this? This
is plain infidelity because, on the one hand, it is a denial of the
attribute of knowledge of God the Almighty, and on the other, He is
considered as being subject to accidents and changes. This negates the
very essence of the infiniteness and absoluteness of God. The Imamiyah
sect vehemently opposes these foolish and absurd ideas. Rather, no
Islamic sect supports this misleading view. Of course, these nonsensical
ideas have been attributed to some of those elements who believe in the
physical body of God. Thus it was one of them who said about God, "Only
excuse Me for My beard and private parts. Otherwise you may ask Me
anything you like."
The correct meaning of "bada", which the Shi'as believe in, is included
in the secrets and mysteries of the House of Muhammad (a.s.),. The
traditions of the ahl ul-bayt (a.s.) say, "There is no other way in
which the duty of worship of God is better performed than it is with the
acknowledgement of "bada". One who does not make "bada" the proof of
this knowledge does not possess a complete understanding of God."
There are many other reports with the same sense. In fact, knowledge is
of two kings: One is that with which God has endowed His angels and
prophets (a.s.). According to this knowledge, whatever has been told
them must surely happen. The second kind is that which is neither known
to an angel close to the Presence of God, nor to any exalted Prophet (a.s.).
It is only He Who knows it. So, according to this, He may cause
something to happen earlier or delay a happening, or efface or write
down something as He pleases. That is the stage of knowledge, which God
the Almighty calls "'umm al-kitab". This shows the perfect Might,
absolute Wisdom and divine Sovereignty of the Lord of the universe.
The problem may also be understood in the following way. "Bada" in the
world of existence has the same status as "naskh" (abrogation) in the
commands of the shari'ah. Thus, just as in the shari'ah, amendments,
additions, changes and alterations give untold advantages, so also, in
the world of being, the secrets and unknown advantages of "bada'" are
beyond human understanding.
"Bada'" can also be explained thus. The highest servants of God have
knowledge of a matter, but they do not know what will facilitate or
hinder its occurrence. For example, Jesus knew that the bridegroom would
die on the first night of his marriage, but he did not know that failing
to give charity was a condition for this. So it happened that the
bridegroom's mother gave out charity and he was spared. When the reality
of the matter was put before Jesus, he said, "you must have given
charity on his behalf. Charity wards off calamities."
There are many other instances of this sort. The advantages that accrue
from these states of affairs is that, in the first place, human beings
are put to the test, and, in the second, they are trained in the habits
of submission. A clear proof of this is the manner in which Abraham was
put to the test over his son.
Also, if there were no "bada'", all the invocations, charity,
intercession, weeping and impoloring of the Prophet (s.a.w.) and his
successors (a.s.), and their fear of God, would be meaningless, despite
their complete obedience to Him.
Evidently the cause of their fearing and trembling is that hidden and
treasured knowledge which nobody is aware of and which is the
fountainhead of "bada'".
If someone wishes to know the details of the different kinds of "bada"',
"qada", "qadr" and the "lawh mahw" and the "lawh ithbat", he or she
should read the first volume of our book "ad-Din aw l-Islam". We have
there gone into these topics in great detail.
Taqiyah
(pious dissimulation or concealing one's faith in dangerous
circumstances)
In the matter of taqiy ah also the Shi'as are very much defamed and the
reason for that is that ordinary people are quite ignorant of its
reality. A careful consideration will show that the taqiyah in which the
Shi'as believe is not peculiar to them alone. Rather, it is a logical
necessity and a natural demand. There is no commandment of the shari'ah
which is inconsistent with wisdom and learning. In every problem,
knowledge and wisdom appear together .
If one assesses innate human tendencies, one has to admit that everyone
has a natural disposition to defend himself: life is dear. Of course, if
there is a matter of honour at stake, or a question of protecting the
truth, then, even though life is dear, it is not given any relative
importance. But if circumstances do not reach such an extreme, what sane
man would be prepared to endanger his own life just so that the world
may laugh at him?
What is more, to court danger is against the counsel of wisdom and
religion.
Thus the Holy Lawgiver has permitted the Muslim who is surrounded by
danger and who risks his or her life or his or her honour to hide his or
her belief outwardly although he or she must continue to observe his or
her religion inwardly. There are also verses in the Holy Qur'an
suggesting the same thing and the story of 'Ammar, his parents and some
other companions of the Prophet shows that when he was suffering the
persecutions of the idol-worshippers, he professed unbelief.
There are of course rules for taqiyah. They are three:
1) if life will be lost for no purpose, then it is an obligation;
2) if expressing the truth would serve some useful purpose, then it is
optional;
3) if atheism (kufr) is gaining the upper hand, people are being led
astray, and their is danger of cruelty and oppression, then taqiyah is
forbidden.
Now let us throw some light onto the matter so that a conscientious
person may make up his own mind as to whether the Shi'a are actually
guilty of taqiyah (supposing that it is condemnable), or whether they
were forced to do taqiyah by certain groups who took away their freedom
and forced them to dissimulate their beliefs.
As soon as Mu'awiyyah took over power, he made the shari'ah into a
plaything and victimized the Shi'as of 'Ali (a.s.) with unconcealed
savagery. The blood of the Shi'as was cheaper to him than water. The
Marwanid caliphs also followed the same iniquitous policy. Then came the
'Abbasid period, and they even increased the atrocities. Consequently,
those who loved the ahl ulbayt (a.s.) had to adopt various tactics.
Sometimes they went into hiding, sometimes they rose up. Sometimes they
were forced to conceal themselves and sometimes they stood up against
the oppression in their enthusiasm for the truth so that their blood
might become a beacon lighting the path for others.
Some great Shi'ahs, therefore, paid no heed to taqiyah and braved all
kinds of cruelties, sometimes ending up. as martyrs. There is the very
famous story of the martyrs of Maraj Azra, who were fourteen brave
warriors who sacrificed their lives in the way of God under the
leadership of the pious companion Hajar ibn Abi Kindi. He was also the
military leader who was responsible for the conquest of Syrai.
Mu'awiyyah said of him, "I know what was the case with everyone of those
whom I put to the sword in Maraj Azra, but I am at a loss to understand
what the crime of Hajar was for which he was killed." But we can easily
say what his fault was. He did not feel there was any need to do taqiyah,
because he wanted to let the world know the tyranny of the Umayyids and
the deep religious feelings of his own family.
Let us not forget the events surrounding the ends of the great
companions 'Amr ibn Himq al-Khuza'i and 'Abdu'r-Rahman ibn al-Hasan
al-Ghazi, who were buried alive by ibn Ziyad. Nor Maytham Tammar,
Rushayd al-Hajari and 'Abdullah ibn Yaqfar who were crucified. Moreover,
there are the examples of the hundreds and thousands of other Muslims
who died fighting for their beliefs. in the way of God before the
disbelievers who crushed them to death.
These lovers of truth did not do taqiyah because such was the need of
the moment. Their abstaining from taqiyah protected the truth and showed
up the false religiosity of Mu'awiyyah, Yazid, Ziyad and Ibn Ziyad.
How can we possibly forget the events surrounding the martyrdom of al-Husayn
(a.s.) and his worthy companions? They, of course, considered taqiyah to
be unlawful in its particular circumstances, but there are other
situations in which it may be compulsory, or may be merely optional.
It is reported that once Musaylimah, the false prophet, captured two
Muslims and forced them to acknowdedge his prophethood and deny the
prophethood of Muhammad (s.a.w.). One of them refused and was therefore
killed, but the other accepted and was released. When the news reached
the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), he said, "The first man made haste to reach
heaven, the second man marked his time. Both of them will be
recompensed."
O Muslims! Do not taunt your brothers concerning taqiyah. May God bless
you and us in the hereafter, and may we all be united on the point of
guidance. Salam, peace, to you all, and may God bestow on you His Mercy
and His Blessings.
Endnotes
[1] (s.a.w.): is the abbreviation of the Arabic phrase "Salla 'llahu
'alayhi wa alih" (may God bless him and his progeny).
[2] (a.s.): is the abbreviation of "'alayhi 's-Salam" (peace be upon
him)
[3] The principle of 'awl (proportionate reduction) is applied by Sunni
jurists when the estate of the deceased is 'oversubscribed' by Quranic
heirs. In such a case they scale down all the heirs' portions pro rata,
or, in other words, they increase the number of portions into which the
inheritance is to be divided so that each may take a share.
Shi'ite jurists, on the other hand, maintain that a diminution must be
made only in the shares of daughters and agnate sisters.
The principle of ta'sib is applied by Sunni jurisprudence to give
priority to male agnates as heirs, and this results in many mathematical
complexities in their system of inheritance. The Shi'ite jurists
completely repudiate this.
The tradition from Ibn 'Abbas concerns mainly the question of 'awl where
he establishes two types of Quranic heir, the first whose portions are
fixed, the second whose portions are not guaranteed.
Another peculiarity of the Shi'ahs is the principle that the clothes,
sword, Qur'an and ring of the father are to be left solely to the son.
Finally, the wife can never inherit cultivated or uncultivated land,
neither in itself, nor the money obtained from its sale. Similarly she
cannot inherit trees or buildings, but she can take their sale price.
This matter is attested to by, and can be proved from the ahadith of the
Imams.
There is a basic classification in fiqh of animals whose blood spurts
out when a blood vessel is cut (e.g. cows, dogs, chicken, etc.) and
those whose blood does not (e.g. fish).
The point which this hadith may seem a little obscure. Mu'min at-Taq
wishes to show that the existence of the Imam precludes the need for
reference to numerous and obscure books and traditions. We are to
understand that it is the Imam who has guided him to the correct verse
in the Qur'an for this matter and to its correct interpretation. Thus
Abu Hanifah thinks he will catch him off-guard with an obscure question
about an unusual species of sea creature, but the answer if forthcoming.
The material for this page are
reproduced from the
Light of Islam site.