Many sects appeared in Islam and they differed in usul and furu’. However, generally these were based upon different views, misunderstandings, philosophy, and misinterpretation of Qur’anic verses. From among the various sects, none of them opposed the Sahabah or the Ahlul Bayt radiya Llahu ‘anhum making them the targets of censure and condemnation besides two sects: the Shia and Khawarij. Their difference led them to harbouring enmity for the Sahabah and Ahlul Bayt radiya Llahu ‘anhum. And the cause for this is the matter of khilafah. Due to them including this matter among the fundamentals of din, they have transgressed the limits of balance. One of them caught hold to the Ahlul Bayt and excluded the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum from Islam while the other, i.e. the Khawarij, leaned so much to the Sahabah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that they made the Ahlul Bayt the target of censure and deemed their condemnation the crux of Islam. Due to this matter of khilafah, the Shia have created so much of hatred for the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum that they declared them as infidels, turning a blind eye to the difficulties and hardships they bore for the spreading of the Qur’an and Islam. It is this belief of theirs that has forced them to fabricate and accept those narrations which condemn the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. We do not regret over the fact that this matter of Imamah has made a sect enemies of the Sahabah but more surprising and regretful is that this belief has not even spared the Prophets and the children of the Imams from condemnation. Their jealousy and hatred for those who reject Imamah have made the Prophets and the bulk of the Ahlul Bayt targets of their criticism and censure just as the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum were made. The only difference is that they openly declare hatred for the Sahabah and publicly defame them on the one side while on the other hand they make ludicrous interpretations for the Prophets and the Ahlul Bayt and verbally acknowledge their purity and greatness. Otherwise, if one looks deeply, this matter of Imamah has not spared the Prophets and the family of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – besides a few – from condemnation and blame. Some have been criticised for harbouring jealousy for the Imams, some have been labelled kafir due to rejecting Imamah, and some have been branded with kufr and fisq due to them claiming Imamah. In short, we do not have remorse over the opposition of one Sahabi. The reality is that in whichever direction one looks, everyone has become the target of the arrows of Imamah.
Let us study the Prophets first. The Shia boast that their belief in the greatness, virtue, purity, and infallibility of the Prophets is not possessed by any other sect of Islam. It is the sole honour of the Shia that they believe that the Prophets were innocent and pure from every type of sin – major and minor – and every type of flaw and imperfection. Dildar ‘Ali writes in Husam:
تمام اہل اسلام اتفاق دارند بریں کہ در باب عصمت انبیاء آنچہ امامہ مبالغہ می دارند ہیچ یک از فرق اہل اسلام آن قدر ندارد وزیراکہ امامیہ منفرداند باینکہ می گویند انبیاء از اول عمر تا اخر از گناہ صغیر و کبیرہ عمدا و سہوا منزہ می باشند بخلاف دیگراں و قال بعض افاضلہم کہ اہتمام شیعیان آل عبادر باب تنزیہ انبیاء و اوصیا از اول عمر تا اخر عمر از جمیع گناہان صغیرہ و کبیرہ بحدی است کہ ہیچ فرقہ را غیر ایشاں حاصل نیست حتی اینکہ اجتہاد راہم بر زمرہ انبیاء و اوصیا جائز نمی دارند فضلا عن وقوع الخطا فی الاجتہاد
All the Muslims unanimously agree that the level the Shia have adopted regarding the purity and infallibility of the Prophets has not been adopted by any other sect. It is the belief of the Shia alone that all the Prophets, from beginning to end, were pure from every type of sin, major and minor, intentionally and unintentionally. Other sects disagree with this. Some of their scholars complain that the Shia have taken so much pains to prove the purity and infallibility of the Prophets and Awsiya’ from every type of minor and major sin from their births until their deaths which has not been observed by any other sect. To the extent that they do not regard ijtihad permissible for the Prophets and Awsiya’ since there exists the possibility of error in ijtihad.
However, when we study their books and listen to the ahadith of their Imams, we realise that the defects which the infidels regard as the worst and the qualities which the heretics and atheists regard as immoral and wicked; they attribute these to the Prophets. Together with claiming their infallibility, they accuse them of committing major sins. May Allah protect us! Listen with an open heart to the ahadith attributed to the Imams regarding Sayyidina Adam ‘alayh al Salam, the father of mankind.
Muhammad ibn Babawayh in ‘Uyun Akhbar al Rida has narrated from ‘Ali ibn Musa al Rida who said:
When Allah honoured Adam ‘alayh al Salam by ordering the angels to prostrate to him and entering him into Jannat, he thought to himself that he is the greatest of creation. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala called to him, “O Adam! Lift your head and look at the leg of My Thrown.”
As Adam ‘alayh al Salam lifted his head, he saw:
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله على ولى الله امير المؤمنين و زوجته فاطمة سيدة نساء العلمين و الحسن و الحسين سيدا شباب اهل الجنة
There is no deity but Allah. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. ‘Ali is the wali of Allah and Amir al Mu’minin. His wife Fatimah is the Queen of the women of the world. Hassan and Hussain are the leaders of the youth of Jannat.
Sayyidina Adam enquired, “Who are they?”
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala replied, “They are your progeny and they are greater than you and superior to My entire creation. Had they not been, I would not have created you, nor Jannat, Jahannam, nor the heavens and the earth. Beware O Adam! Do not look at them with the eyes of jealousy. If you do, I will remove you from My proximity.”
Adam looked at them with the eyes of jealousy so Shaitan overpowered him until he ate from the tree Allah prohibited him from.
Do not think that this is the only hadith regarding the father of mankind Sayyidina Adam ‘alayh al Salam from Imam ‘Ali ibn Musa al Rida. Listen to the narration which involves the grandmother in the grandfather’s sin.
It appears in Ma’ani al Akhbar with the sanad of Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar from Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah:
When Adam and Hawa’ saw the names of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, ‘Ali, Fatimah, and Hassanayn written on the ‘Arsh with celestial light, they submitted, “O Allah! What lofty status and how beloved are these to You!”
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala said, “Had they not been, I would not have created you. They are the treasures to My knowledge and the safe keepers of My secrets. O Adam and Hawa’, be vigilant. Do not look at them with jealousy and do not aspire their status and rank or else you would disobey Me and become of the oppressors.”
Thereafter, Shaitan whispered to them and deceived them and they looked at these five with jealousy. Hence, Adam and Hawa’ were removed.
Dildar ‘Ali writes two answers to this in Husam in response to Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz rahimahu Llah:
Firstly, this hadith is not authentic so believing it and authenticating it is not of the fundamentals of din. Secondly, jealousy is of two types: 1. envy 2. Desiring the removal of a favour [of another]. The first is permissible and the second is forbidden. So why is the jealousy of Adam not taken to be of the first type.
He did not stop here. He narrated a hadith from Sahih al Bukhari to shut the Sunni’s mouths. He says:
اما حدیث حسد حضرت آدم کہ در کتب امامیہ مروی گشتہ و اسباب تشنیع ناصب عداوت عترت طاہرہ بر شیعیان اہل بیت گردیدہ پس از جملہ احادیث صحاح نیست تا اعتقاد کردن بآں و تصحیح نمودن آں از جملہ ضروریات نزد امامیہ باشد و ایضا گویا بگوش ایں ناصب عداوت عترف نرسیدہ کہ حسد برد و قسم ست یکی بمعنی غبط ست و دوم حسد بمعنی استدعا زوال نعمت اول مباح ست و دوم مذموم و می دانم کہ اگر بمجرد ادعاۓ ایں تقسیم اکتفا نمایم ناصب عترت طاہرہ تکذیب خواہد نمو و لہذا بذکریک حدیث صحاح ایشاں کہ دلالت صریح دار و بر آنچہ ادعا نمودہ ام پرواز و دہن اورا یایں تقریب می دوزم کہ گفتہ اند دہن سگ بہ لقمہ دوختہ بہ و یساغ بعد ذلک ان یقال فی حقہ فبہت الذی کفر کانہ التقمہ الحجر و آں ایں ست کہ بخاری روایت نمودہ از ابو ہریرہ رضی اللہ عنہ قال لا حسد الا فی اثنین رجل اتاہ اللہ القران فہو یتلوہ اناء اللیل و النہار فسمعہ جار لہ فقال لیتنی اوتیت مثل ما اوتی فلان فعملت مثل ما یعمل و رجل اتاہ اللہ مالا فہو ینفقہ فی حقہ فقال رجل لیتنی اوتیت مثل ما اوتی فلان فعملت مثل ما یعمل و بتفاوت یسیر قریب ایں مضمون حدیث دیگر ست کہ آں را بخاری و مسلم و ترمذی روایت کردہ اند پس چرا جائز نباشد کہ حسد حضرت آدم ازیں قبیل بودہ باشد و چگونہ چنیں نباشد و حال ایں کہ مفضل بن عمر کہ ناصبی آن را مذکور ساختہ متضمن کلمہ و حملہا علی تمنی منزلتہم است در قوت تفسیر معنی حسد ست لیکن چوں غبطہ ہر چند مباح ست اما بنظر علو منزلت و شرف مرتبت جناب عترت سید المرسلین غبط ایشاں از قبیل ترک اولی ست لہذا حق سبحان تعالی علی حسب جری العادۃ الالہیۃ حضرت آدم را معاتب ساختہ و ایضا حسد بمجرد ایں کہ بمقتضاۓ بشریت عارض و ما دامیکہ بمقتضاۓ آں کار کند آدمی گنہگار براں نمی شود چنانچہ دریں معنی احادیث از ائمہ عترت ماثور گشتہ و ایضا معلوم ست کہ حضرت آدم متمسک گرویدہ بکلماتیکہ تفسیر آں بنا بر احادیث بسیار با سماء آل عباشدہ پس بایں قرینہ بدیں حسد بمعنی غبطہ کہ از قبیل ترک اولی بودہ
The jealousy of Adam is recorded in Shia books which the Sunni use as proof for the Shia’s hatred for Adam ‘alayh al Salam. This hadith is not authentic, so belief in it is not necessary and to accept it is not one of the fundamentals of din. The ears of the Shia’s enemy, the Sunni, have not heard that jealousy is of two types: 1. envy 2. Jealousy, i.e. to hope for the removal of a favour. The first, i.e. envy, is permissible whereas the second, i.e. jealousy, is reprehensible. I know that this division is sufficient to prove the Sunni wrong. However, I wish to reproduce a hadith from their Sihah which will shut their mouths as the saying goes, “It is better to shut the dog’s mouth with one morsel.” And it is befitting to say after this, “Silent was that kafir, as if he swallowed a stone.”
This hadith appears in Sahih al Bukhari as reported by Abu Hurairah. “Jealousy is not permitted except in respect of two persons. One whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has bestowed with the Qur’an and he recites it in the hours of the night and the hours of the day. His neighbour hears him and says, ‘I wish I could be bestowed like him and practice as he does.’ And the second to whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has given wealth and he spends it in the right avenues. A man says, ‘I wish I could be given like him and practice like him.’”
The subject matter of this hadith can be found in Sahih al Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and Sunan al Tirmidhi so how is it not possible for Sayyidina Adam’s ‘alayh al Salam jealousy to be of the same type? Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, Sunni, has declared this incident equal to Adam’s desire for status. And the commentary of it [the desire for status] is jealousy. Although envying is permissible, but since Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam family’s position is the highest, to envy them is abandoning which is best. It is for this reason that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala disciplined Adam ‘alayh al Salam. Jealousy is the nature of man. And until one does not display his jealous through action, he is not sinful as explained in the Imams’ ahadith. It is also known that the words uttered by Sayyidina Adam ‘alayh al Salam are found; their commentary is found copious in the ahadith of Asma’ Al ‘Aba. Taking this into consideration as well, this jealousy will mean envy which is abandoning the best.
This explanation of Dildar ‘Ali has not removed the imperfection his elders cast on Sayyidina Adam ‘alayh al Salam. If this hadith does not appear in the Sihah, it means that it does not appear in the four canonical works, i.e. al Kafi of al Kulayni, Tahdhib, Istibsar and Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih, then this does not prove unauthenticity. There are thousands of narrations which do not appear in these four books and are regarded as authentic by the Shia. If the meaning is that the narrator is weak or there is some flaw in the sanad, then he should have clarified it. But what could he have said? This hadith appears in reliable books like ‘Uyun and Ma’ani al Akhbar whose author’s truthfulness and honesty is apparent from his name, i.e. al Saduq (extremely truthful). He is one of the authors of the four canonical works. Moreover, he has narrated this hadith with a strong sanad from the infallible Imam. To reject the authenticity of such a hadith which is directly linked to the Imam without proving any fault of a narrator is unacceptable. Dildar ‘Ali himself has quoted extensively from ‘Uyun and Ma’ani al Akhbar in this book of his, i.e. Husam, and his other books and presented them to support his claims. In such a situation, if it is permissible to claim that this hadith is not from the authentic ahadith without any proof then it will be permissible to reject all of the narrations of the Sunni which condemn the Sahabah by merely claiming that they are unauthentic. The author of Istiqsa’ al Afham has accepted the authenticity of this hadith and interpreted the words of Dildar ‘Ali in the following words:
غرض آنجناب از انکارمعدود بودن ایں حدیث در احادیث صحاح آنست کہ ایں حدیث از جملہ احادیث قطعیۃ الصدور نیست الی قولہ کی مراد آں جناب یعنی صحت بمعنی قطعی الصدور ست زیراکہ ازاں مفہوم می شود کہ اگر ایں حدیث از جملہ احادیث صحیحہ می بود اعتقاد کردن بآں از جملہ ضروریات می بود پر ظاہر ست کہ ایں لازم نمی آید مگر بعد صحت قطعیۃ الصدور
Dildar ‘Ali’s rejection of this hadith with the words, “This hadith is not from the authentic books,” shows that his objective is that this hadith is not from among those ahadith which are qat’i al sudur (definitely spoken by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or the Imams). The meaning of authentic is for it to be qat’i al sudur. From this we learn that had this hadith been authentic, it would have been necessary to believe likewise. This is only necessary when a hadith is qat’i al sudur.
Hamid Hussain could not establish Dildar ‘Ali’s answer as correct by this explanation. In fact, he further supported and substantiated our stance because he says:
اگر ایں حدیث از جملہ احادیث صحیحہ می بود اعتقاد کردن بآں از جملہ ضروریات می بود پر ظاہر ست کہ ایں لازم نمی آید مگر بعد صحت قطعیۃ الصدور
From this we learn that had this hadith been authentic, it would have been necessary to believe likewise. This is only necessary when a hadith is qat’i al sudur.
We accept this explanation on condition that they accept this principle in relation to our ahadith. It should not be that they utilise weak and fabricated ahadith as proof against us whereas they do not accept their own authentic narrations as proof against them due to them “not being qat’i al sudur,” i.e. yaqini. Nevertheless, we will substantiate this hadith with narrations whose authenticity and reliability are unobjectionable.
وَقُلْنَا يَا آدَمُ اسْكُنْ أَنتَ وَزَوْجُكَ الْجَنَّةَ وَكُلَا مِنْهَا رَغَدًا حَيْثُ شِئْتُمَا وَلَا تَقْرَبَا هٰذِهِ الشَّجَرَةَ فَتَكُوْنَا مِنَ الظَّالِمِيْنَ
And We said, “O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat therefrom in [ease and] abundance from wherever you will. But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers.”
In the commentary of this verse, it is written in Tafsir Imam Hassan ‘Askari that the meaning of tree is the knowledge of Muhammad and the family of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declared it exclusively for them and Adam ate it, thus being removed from Jannat.
Read this from the pen of Mulla Baqir al Majlisi who states in Hayat al Qulub:
در تفسیر امام حسن عسکری مذکور ست کہ چوں حق تعالی ابلیس را لعنت کرد بآبا کردن او و گرامی داشت ملائکہ را بہ سجدہ کردن ایشاں آدم علیہ السلام را امر کرد کہ آدم و حوارا بہشت برند و فرمود کہ یا آدم ساکن شو تو و جفت تو در بہشت و کلا رغدا حیث شئتما و بخورید از بہشت کشادہ و گوہر جا کہ خواہید بے تعبے و لا تقربا ہذہ الشجرۃ و نزدیک مشوید ایں درخت را کہ درخت علم محمد صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم و آل محمد ست کہ حق تعالی ایشاں را منع کرد ازآں کہ نزدیک آں درخت شوند کہ مخصوص محمد و آل محمد صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم ست و کسے بامر خدا نمی خورد ازاں درخت مگر ایشاں الی قولہ و حق تعالی فرمود کہ نزدیک ایں درخت مروید کہ خواہید طلب کنید درجہ محمد و آل محمد صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم و فضیلت ایشاں زیراکہ خدا ایشاں را مخصوص گردانیدہ است بایں درجہ از سائر خلق و ایں در ختیست کہ ہر کہ ازیں درخت بخورد باذن خداۓ تعالی الہام کردہ می شود علم اولین و آخرین را بے آنکہ از کسی بیاموز دو ہر کہ بے رخست خدا بخورد از مراد خود نا امید می شود و نافرمانی پروردگار کردہ است فتکونا من الظالمین پس خواہد شویدا و ستم گاراں بنافرمانی شما و طلب کردن شما درجہ را کہ اختیار کردہ است خدا بآں درجہ غیر شما ہر گاہہ قصد کنید آں درخت را بغیر حکم خدا الی قولہ پس بایں سپ فریب خورد آدم و غلط کرد و ازاں درخت خورد پیش رسید بایشاں آنچہ خداوند در قرآن ذکر کردہ است فازلہما الشیطان عنہا فاخرجہما مما کانا فیہ
It appears in the Tafsir of Imam Hassan al ‘Askari that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala cursed Shaitan due to his rejection and honoured Adam by commanding the angels to prostrate to him. When Allah entered Adam and Hawa’ into Jannat, He proclaimed, “O Adam. Live in Jannat with your wife and eat from wherever you like of this spacious Jannat without any hesitation. But do not approach this tree – the tree of the knowledge of Muhammad and the family of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbade going close to that tree since it was exclusively from Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his family. No one besides Adam and Hawa’ ate from that tree. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala commanded not to go close to the tree, i.e. do not desire the status and virtue of the family of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam for this is exclusive to them. The specification of this tree was that whoever eats from it, he is bestowed with the knowledge of everything by the will and permission of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and he learns everything without being taught. Whoever eats of it without Allah’s permission is unsuccessful and hopeless. And he is from the oppressors because he disobeyed Allah and intended to reach that status which is above his. When Adam ‘alayh al Salam and Hawa’ intended to eat from the tree without Allah’s permission, and went close to it and ate from it thus committing a mistake, then Allah removed them from Jannat.
فَأَزَلَّهُمَا الشَّيْطَانُ عَنْهَا فَأَخْرَجَهُمَا مِمَّا كَانَا فِيْهِ
But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been.
It is proven from this hadith that the tree from which Adam and Hawa’ were prevented from eating was the tree of the knowledge of Muhammad and the family of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam which when eaten, the knowledge of all is acquired without learning. Due to eating from this tree, Adam ‘alayh al Salam and Hawa’ ‘alayh al Salam were removed from Jannat. This much is proven that due to Shaitan’s misguidance, Adam and Hawa’ ate from the tree due to which they fell into a calamity. Another hadith which is narrated with a reliable sanad from Imam ‘Ali al Naqi rahimahu Llah states that the tree which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala prohibited was jealousy which Sayyidina Adam ‘alayh al Salam ate from intentionally, i.e. he was jealous of the Imams. Al Majlisi states in Hayat al Qulub:
بسند معتبر از حضرت امام علی نقی منقول است کہ در ختیکہ آدم و زوجہ اش را نہی کرد از خوردن ازاں درخت حسد بود و حق تعالی عہد کرد بسوۓ آدم و حوا کہ نظر نکںد بسوئی کہ حق تعالی آنہاں را بر ایشاں و بر جمیع خلائق فضیلت دادہ ست بدیدہ حسد و نیافت حق تعالی از و دریں باب عزم و اہتمام
With a reliable sanad, it is related from Imam ‘Ali Naqi that the tree which Adam and Hawa’ were prevented from eating was the tree of jealousy. Allah prohibited them from looking at the tree since the family of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam have been given superiority over the entire creation so no one should be jealous of them. Allah did not see determination and resolution in Adam and Hawa’ to fulfil this command.
This hadith does not state that Sayyidina Adam ‘alayh al Salam ate from the tree of jealousy, i.e. he looked at the Imams with the eyes of jealousy and did not fulfil the divine command, due to Shaitan’s misguidance. Rather, it states that Adam and Hawa’ had no resolution and determination to fulfil this command, i.e. they did not bother of the command of Allah. This is clearly stated by the words:
حق تعالی از و دریں باب عزم و اہتمام
Allah did not see determination and resolution in Adam and Hawa’ to fulfil this command.
Most probably, it will appear to some that Sayyidina Adam ‘alayh al Salam forgot the divine command and thus acted contrary to it just as some Shia Mufassirin have written. However, with a reliable sanad from Imam Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah, it is stated that Sayyidina Adam ‘alayh al Salam did not forget Allah’s command and transgressed the prohibition nonetheless. Al Majlisi states in Hayat al Qulub:
بسند معتبر مروی ست کہ از امام محمد باقر پر سید نداز تفسیر قول خدا فنسی و لم نجد لہ عزما کہ جمعے تفسیر کردہ اند کہ حضرت آدم فراموش کرد نہی خدا حضرت فرمود کہ فراموش نہ کردہ بود و حال آنکہ در وقت وسوسہ کردن شیطان نہی خدا را بیاد ایشاں آورد و می گفت کہ خدا شمارا براۓ ایں نہی کردہ است کہ ملک نباشیدہ و در بہشت ہمیشہ نباشید پس نسیان درینجا بمعنی ترک ست بمعنی ترک کرد امر خدارا
In a reliable narration from Imam Muhammad al Baqir, it appears that people asked clarification of the verse,
“But he forgot; and We found not in him determination.”
People say that the meaning is that he forgot the prohibition of Allah. In answer to this, Imam al Baqir said, “He did not forget. How could he have forgotten whereas when Shaitan whispered to him, he reminded him of Allah’s prohibition by saying, ‘Allah prohibited you from going close to this tree so that you do not become an angel and live in Jannat for ever.’? So the meaning of ‘forgot’ in this context is discarded, i.e. Adam discarded the divine command.
This proves that Sayyidina Adam ‘alayh al Salam intentionally broke Allah’s command and although Shaitan reminded him of the prohibition, he did not bother. And why would he bother? When he saw the lofty status of the Imams, his jealousy erupted – May Allah forbid – and he forgot his religion and his world. Desire for their status made him so hopeless and helpless – May Allah forbid – that he did not make a resolution otherwise.
Listen to a hadith of Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah regarding the jealousy he had for the status of the Imams. Mulla Baqir al Majlisi has narrated a hadith from Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah in Hayat al Qulub with a reliable sanad that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala granted the souls of the pure five and the rest of the Imams the loftiest status and presented them to all the inhabitants of the heavens and earth declaring, “These are My friends and proofs upon the creation. Whoever claims their position, I will punish him as I never punished any creation and fling him into Jahannam with the mushrikin whereas whoever acknowledges their wilayah and Imamah, I will grant him place in Jannat. Their wilayah is a trust upon the creation. Which of you will accept it?”
The heavens, earth and mountains declined from accepting it fearing the majesty of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. When Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala entered Adam and Hawa’ into Jannat and they saw the status of the Imams, they asked, “Who enjoys this status?”
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala replied, “Look at the ‘Arsh’s leg.”
When they looked at the ‘Arsh, they saw the names of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hassanayn, and the Imams and said surprisingly, “They are very beloved to You and honoured in Your sight.”
Allah warned, “Do not look at them with the eyes of jealousy and do not desire their position in My eyes nor hope for the lofty and honoured rank they enjoy. Otherwise you will disobey Me and become of the oppressors.”
Adam and Hawa’ enquired, “Who are the oppressors?”
“Those who unjustly claim their status,” came the reply.
Thereupon, Adam and Hawa’ requested Allah to show them the place He prepared for the oppressors in Jahannam. Allah commanded Jahannam and it showed them all the various forms of punishments and tortures that were prepared for the oppressors. They will be in the deepest part of Jahannam and will want to escape, but Jahannam will pull them back. Their skins will be burnt and they will be given new skins so that they do not get any comfort from the punishment. After showing them this, Allah stated, “O Adam and Hawa’! Do not look at My lights and proofs, i.e. the Imams, with the eyes of jealousy, or else I will remove you from My proximity and humiliate you.”
Shaitan whispered to them and misled them to desire their status. Thus, they looked with the eyes of jealousy at them due to which Allah released Shaitan upon them and removed His help and friendship from them.
This is the gist of the lengthy narration we reproduce in the footnotes. Where are the eyes to see and the ears to hear this narration? Where are the hearts that will ponder over it? Notwithstanding the fact that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala warned Adam and Hawa’ of the evil consequences of desiring the status of the pure five and Imams and displayed to them the punishments that are stored for them and advised them sincerely, Adam and Hawa’ did not listen and harboured jealousy. Notwithstanding such a narration which proves that Sayyidina Adam ‘alayh al Salam and Hawa’ ‘alayh al Salam committed a major sin the punishment of which is burning in the lowest depths of Jahannam with the mushrikin, the Shia claim that the Prophets and infallible and protected from both major and minor sins. They not only make this claim but declare:
در باب عصمت انبیاء آنچہ امامہ مبالغہ می دارند ہیچ یک از فرق اہل اسلام آن قدر ندارد
In the matter of the infallibility of the Prophets, the overemphasis the Shia observe is not displayed by any other sect of Islam.
If this is infallibility and this is the type of overemphasis the Shia observe, then they are truthful. May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala protect the poor Sunni from being upholders of the infallibility of the Prophets to this extent that behind this guise, they accuse them of harbouring jealousy for the Imams and being the inhabitants of the lowest depths of Jahannam!
Listen to another hadith which supports the jealousy of Adam and Hawa’ ‘alayh al Salam and gives the final decision from the Imam’s tongue as to which tree Adam ‘alayh al Salam ate from. Mulla Baqir al Majlisi writes in Hayat al Qulub:
بسند معتبر منقول ست کہ ابو صلت ہروی از امام رضا پر سید کہ یا ابن رسول اللہ مرا خبردہ ازاں درختے کہ آدم و حوا ازاں درخت خورند چہ درخت بود بدر ستیکہ مردم اختلاف کردند بعضے روایت کردند کہ آں گندم بود و بعضے روایت کردند کہ آں درخت حسد بود فرمود کہ ہمہ حق ست ابو صلت گنت چگونہ ہمہ حق ست بایں ہمہ اختلاف فرمود کہ ای ابو صلت درخت بہشت انواع میوہا برمی دارد پس آں درخت گندم بود و دراں انگور ہم بود و آنہا مثل درختان دنیا نیستند و بدرستیکہ چوں خدا گرامی داشت و ملائکہ اورا سجدہ کردند اورا داخل بہشت گردانید در خاطر خود گزرانید کہ ایا خلق کردہ ست خدا بشریکے بہتر از من باشد چوں خدا دانست کہ چہ در خاطر او گزشت ندا کرد اورا کہ سر بلند کن اے آدم و نظر کن بسوی ساق عرش من چوں آدم سر بلند کرد دید کہ در ساق عرش نوشتہ ست کہ لا الہ الا اللہ محمد رسول اللہ علی بن ابی طالب امیر المؤمنین و زوجتہ فاطمۃ سیدۃ نساء العلمین و الحسن و الحسین سیدا شباب اہل الجنۃ آدم گفت پوردگار کیستند آنہا حق تعالی فرمود کہ ایہاں ذریت تو اند و ایشاں بہتر انداز تو و ا جمیع آفریدہای من و اگر ایشاں نمی بودند نہ تر خلق میکردم نہ بہشت و دوزخ و نہ آسما و زمین پس زنہار نظر حسد بسوی ایشاں مکن کہ ترا از جوار خود بیروں کنم پس نظر کرد بسوی آنہا بدیدہ حسد و آرزوی منزلت ایشاں کرد پس مسلط شد شیطان بر او تاخورد از میوہ کہ اورازاں نہی کردہ بودند و مسلط شد بر حوا تا نظر کرد بسوی فاطمہ بدیدہ حسد تا خورد ازاں درخت چنانچہ آدم خورد پس خدا ایشاں را از بہشت بیروں کرد و از جوار خود بز میں فرستاد
Abu Salt al Harawi asked Imam al Rida, “O son of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam! Tell me from which tree Adam and Hawa’ ate. People have differences of opinion regarding it. Some say it was the wheat plant and others say it was the tree of jealousy.”
The Imam answered, “All are correct.”
Abu Salt asked how all could be correct with the differences to which the Imam answered, “O Abu Salt. The trees of Jannat bear different fruits. And although that tree was wheat, there were grapes on it too. The trees of Jannat are unlike the trees of this world. Allah honoured Adam; the angels prostrated to him and he lived in Jannat. He thought to himself whether Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala created anyone superior to him. Knowing what was in his heart, Allah commanded him, ‘O Adam, lift your gaze and look at the leg of the ‘Arsh.’ He acted accordingly and it was written:
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله على ولى الله امير المؤمنين و زوجته فاطمة سيدة نساء العلمين و الحسن و الحسين سيدا شباب اهل الجنة
There is no deity but Allah. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. ‘Ali is the wali of Allah and Amir al Mu’minin. His wife Fatimah is the Queen of the women of the world. Hassan and Hussain are the leaders of the youth of Jannat.
Seeing this he asked, ‘O Allah, who are they?’
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala replied, ‘They are your offspring and they are superior to you and all My other creations. Had they not been, I would not have created you, Jannat, Jahannam, the earth, and skies. Remember! Do not even obliviously harbour jealousy for them otherwise I will remove you from My proximity.’
In short, Adam looked at their status and lofty position with the eyes of jealousy and Shaitan overpowered him and fed him the forbidden fruit. Moreover, Shaitan overpowered Hawa’ and made her jealous of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and she ate from the same tree of jealousy Adam ate from due to which Allah punished them by removing them from Jannat and His proximity and sending them to the world.”
Dildar ‘Ali’s answered that jealousy here means envy which is not reprehensible but he himself is not convinced by this, hence he says:
چرا جائز نباشد کہ حسد آدم ازیں قبیل بودہ باشد و چگونہ چنیں نباشد
Why is not possible to take Adam’s jealousy in this meaning?
Even if he had conviction that this interpretation was correct, the words and context of the hadith do not support it. It cannot be understood to be envy. It is definitely jealousy which is reprehensible since Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala warned him about it and threatened him that if he desires their status, he will be among the oppressors. Then too, Adam was jealous and was punished. Did Dildar ‘Ali not see the stern warning apparent from the words:
فاياك ان تنظر اليهم بعين الحسد فاخرجتك عن جوارى و القيا فتدخلا من ذلك فى نهى و عصيانى فتكونا من الظالمين
Beware of looking at them with the eyes of jealousy, or I will remove you from My proximity and you will disobey Me thus becoming of the oppressors.
The sin for which there was such a severe warning which he perpetrated and was punished for by getting removed from Jannat as is apparent from the words:
فنظر اليهم بعين الحسد و تمنى منزلتهم فسلط عليهم الشيطان فنظر اليهم بعين الحسد فخذلا لذلك
He looked at them with the eyes of jealousy and desired their status, thus Shaitan was let loose upon them. He looked at them with the eyes of jealousy and was humiliated due to this.
If this ‘jealousy’ was permissible and in the meaning of envy, then why would he be of the oppressors? Why would Allah remove him from His proximity and Jannat for doing a permissible action?
This is further supported by a hadith whose authenticity is undeniable which states that Allah wanted to take the pledge of the wilayah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Imams from Sayyidina Adam but he did not, in fact he did not intend to. Ibn Babawayh writes in chapter 101 of ‘Ilal al Shara’i’:
العلة التى من اجلها سمى اولوا العزم اولى العزم حدثنا ابى عن سعد بن عبد الله بن احمد بن محمد بن عيسى بن على بن الحكم عن مفضل بن صالح عن جابر بن يزيد عن ابى جعفر فى قول الله عز و جل وَلَقَدْ عَهِدْنَا إِلَىٰ آدَمَ مِن قَبْلُ فَنَسِيَ وَلَمْ نَجِدْ لَهُ عَزْمًا قال عهد اليه فى محمد و الائمة من بعده فترك و لم يكن له عزم فيهم انه هكذا و انما سمى اولوا العزم لانهم عهد اليهم محمد و اله و اوصياء من بعده و المهدى و سيرته فاجمع عزمهم ان ذلك كل و الاقرار به
The reason why the ulu al ‘azm are called ulu al ‘azm. My father narrated to me from Sa’d ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hakam from Mufaddal ibn Salih from Jabir ibn Yazid from Abu Jafar concerning Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala statement:
وَلَقَدْ عَهِدْنَا إِلىٰ آدَمَ مِنْ قَبْلُ فَنَسِيَ وَلَمْ نَجِدْ لَهُ عَزْمًا
And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot; and We found not in him determination.
He said, “Allah took a promise from him regarding Muhammad and the Imams after him, but he denied and did not intend to. They were called the ulu al ‘azm since Allah took a pledge from them of Muhammad, his family, the Awsiya’ after him, and al Mahdi and his sirah, and they all made a determination and assurance.”
When such types of ahadith regarding the Prophets are found in reliable Shia books and yet they believe in the infallibility of the Prophets and claim that these ahadith are “not qat’i al sudur” and interpret them, then it is not fair for them to use absolutely weak narrations from our books which tarnish the image of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Why should they not accept our answers and interpretations which are stronger, more convincing, and more substantiated than theirs? The truth is that the Shia in order to amplify this matter of Imamah, were forced to mention such ahadith which equates Imamah to nubuwwah whether the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum were labelled as infidels or the Prophets were vilified.
I will not mention any other narrations regarding the Prophets in this discussion. I will present a sample of the allegations cast against the Ahlul Bayt due to the matter of Imamah.
One of the beliefs of the Shia is that one who claims Imamah or rejects it is an infidel, whether he be an ‘alawi or fatimi. Rejection of Imamah is sufficient for kufr. History bears testimony to the fact that after the martyrdom of Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, no Imam passed in whose era one of his brothers or family members did not claim Imamah or regard Imamah to be specific to someone and there has always been some fight between the Imam and those who claim it. We will prove this from the beginning, i.e. the era of Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin rahimahu Llah.
After the martyrdom of Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin rahimahu Llah is accepted as the Imam. However, Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah – the uncle of Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin rahimahu Llah – has declared himself worthy of Imamah and told Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin rahimahu Llah, “I am more worthy of Imamah than you. So do not argue with me in this regard and accept me as a wasi and Imam.” This incident between Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin rahimahu Llah and Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah rahimahu Llah is recorded in Kitab al Hujjah of Usul al Kafi in the following words:
عن ابى جعفر قال لما قتل الحسين ارسل محمد بن الحنفية الى على بن الحسين فخلا به فقال له يابن اخى قد علمت ان رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم دفع الوصية و الامامة من بعده الى امير المؤمنين ثم الى الحسن ثم الى الحسين و قد قتل ابوك و صلى عليه روحه و لم يوص و انى عمك و صنو ابيك و ولادتى من على فى سنى و قديمى احق بها منك فى حداثتك فلا تنازعنى فى الوصية و الامامة و لا تحاجنى
Abu Jafar reports, “When Hussain was martyred, Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah sent for ‘Ali ibn al Hussain and met with him in privacy. He said to him, ‘O my nephew! You know well that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave al Wasiyyah and al Imamah after him to Amir al Mu’minin, then to Hassan, and then to Hussain. Your father has been killed – May Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala salutations be upon his soul – and has not made any bequest. I am your uncle and equal to your father. Me being the son of ‘Ali, older in age, and more experienced makes me more worthy of Imamah than you who are tender in age. So do not argue and contest with me in al Wasiyyah and al Imamah.’”
فقال له على بن الحسين يا عم اتق الله و لا تدع ما ليس لك بحق انى اعظك ان تكون من الجاهلين ان ابى يا عم صلوة الله عليه اوصى الى قبل ان يتوجه الى العراق و عهد الى قبل ان يستشهد بساعة و هذا سلاح رسول الله صلى الله عليه و اله عندى فلا تتعرض لهذا فانى اخاف عليك نقص العمر و تشتت الحال ان الله جعل الوصية و الامامة فى عقب الحسين فاذا اردت ان تعلم ذلك فانطلق بنا الى الحجر الاسود حتى نتحاكموا اليه و نساله عن ذلك قال ابو جعفر و كان الكلام بينهما بمكة
‘Ali ibn al Hussain told him, “O uncle, fear Allah and do not claim that which you have no right over. I advise you from becoming of the ignorant. My father – May Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala salutations be upon him – bequeathed to me before proceeding to Iraq and took a pledge from me minutes before being martyred. The weapons of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam are by me (which is a sign). So do not advance for this. I fear that Allah will reduce your lifespan and disturb your affairs. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has kept al Wasiyyah and al imamah in the progeny of Hussain. If you wish to ascertain this, then let us go to al Hajar al Aswad (the black stone) and ask it and make it decide in this matter.”
Abu Jafar says that there dialogue took place in Makkah.
فانطلقا حتى اتيا الحجر الاسود فقال على بن الحسين لمحمد بن الحنفية ابدا انت فابتهل الى الله عز و جل فساله ان ينطق لك الحجر فابتهل محمد فى الدعاء و سال الله ثم دعا الحجر فلم يجبه فقال على بن الحسين يا عم لو كنت وصيا و اماما لاجابك فقال له محمد فادع الله انت يابن اخى و اساله فدعا الله على بن الحسين لما اراد ثم قال اسالك بالذى جعل فيك ميثاق الانبياء و ميثاق الاوصياء و ميثاق الناس اجمعين لما اخبرتنا من الوصى و الامام بعد الحسين بن على قال فتحرك الحجر حتى كاد ان يزول عن موضعه ثم انطقه الله بلسان عربى مبين يقال اللهم ان الوصية و الامامة بعد الحسين بن على و فاطمة بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و اله لك قال فانصرف محمد بن على و هو يتولى على بن الحسين
They walked until they reached al Hajar al Aswad. ‘Ali ibn al Hussain said to Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah, “Begin and implore Allah and beg Him to make al Hajar speak to you.”
Muhammad began imploring and begging Allah in du’a’. He then called al Hajar but it did not respond. ‘Ali ibn al Hussain commented, “Uncle, had you been the wasi and Imam, it would have responded to you. Muhammad then told him, “Now you supplicate to Allah, O nephew and ask Him.”
Thus ‘Ali ibn al Hussain implored Allah for what he wanted and then said to it, “I ask you by the Being Who has placed in you the pledge of the Prophets, Awsiya’, and the entire mankind to inform us as to who is the wasi and Imam after Hussain ibn ‘Ali.”
The stone began shaking violently to the extent it almost moved from its place. Then Allah made it speak in clear Arabic, “O Allah. Indeed al Wasiyyah and al Imamah after Hussain ibn ‘Ali wa Fatimah bint Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is for you.” Muhammad ibn ‘Ali walked away and regarded ‘Ali ibn al Hussain as his Imam.
The least that comes out from this hadith is that Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah claimed Imamah which is sufficient to label him as kafir. If he thereafter regarded Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin as the Imam, then he repented from his kufr. However, there is no doubt that he remained murtad for a few days.
Now listen to the story of Zaid al Shahid rahimahu Llah. It appears in Kitab al Hujjah of al Safi the commentary of Usul al Kafi – the work of Mulla Khalil on page 22; Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Nu’man relates, “Sayyidina Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain called for me. It was a time when Zaid was in hiding. I went to Zaid who asked me, ‘If anyone of us rebels, will you join him?’
I replied, ‘If your father, i.e. Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin, or your brother, Imam Muhammad al Baqir, rebels, then I will join them.’
Zaid thereupon said, ‘I wish to rebel against Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik the khalifah of the Banu Umayyah, so join me.’
I replied by saying, ‘I cannot do so. The reason for this is that if the Imam – whose obedience is compulsory – is present on earth and alive, then those who do not join you will be saved and those who do will be doomed.’”
Mulla Khalil writes in the commentary of this hadith:
بنا بر ایں شق ظاہر ست فسق زید و تابعان او دراں خروج کہ مبنی ست بر مذہب ظاہر الفساد او کہ باداطمی بودن اجتہاد و خروج بہ سیف را شرط امامت می شمردہ
Zaid’s transgression and his rebellion against Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik was such a grave sin according to the Shia leaders that those who join him will be doomed and those who were martyred alongside him – according to Shia principles – are sinful and doomed. The only reason for this is that Zaid rebelled and claimed Imamah whereas he was not the infallible Imam whose obedience is compulsory. His cult was false according to the Shia. He did not believe that being a Fatimid was the only condition for Imamah. He believed that ijtihad and jihad were necessary as well.
I do not understand how the Shia label this son of Sayyidina Zayn al ‘Abidin who rebelled against the Banu Umayyah and attained martyrdom as a fasiq and kafir due to his claim of Imamah. I cannot fathom how they claim to understand the conditions of Imamah better than him. If in reality, belief in Imamah was necessary which Zaid did not understand and it is one of the fundamentals which Sayyidina Zayn al ‘Abidin did not inform his son of, and it is for this reason that Zaid said surprisingly after hearing al Ahwal, “O Abu Jafar. My father loved me so much that when we would eat together, he would wait for the morsel to cool down before feeding it to me so that I am not harmed by the hot morsel. So would he not have saved me from the Fire of Jahannam? Would he have informed you of that which brings salvation in the Akhirah and not informed me?” By saying this, Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah wished to belie al Ahwal and falsify the principles of Imamah as believed by the Shia.
Listen to the response given to Zaid by al Ahwal, “Your father did not inform of it for he feared that if you did not believe him, you will enter Jahannam and he informed me because if I did not believe, then what worry does he have if I go to Jahannam?”
After reading this narration of al Kafi which is the most reliable hadith book of the Shia and whose authenticity is second to the Qur’an, one will be totally flabbergasted at how could the Imam make his one son the Imam and his Wasi and declare him as infallible and his obedience as compulsory and command others to obey him and explain to them the principles of Imamah while he not only deprives the other son of these and inheritance, but does not inform him of Imamah, and does not make him aware of the Imam and Wasi after him. He left him in the darkness and made no efforts to prevent him from falling into misguidance. The result of this was that one brother did not recognise the rights of the other and did not bother about it and claimed Imamah thus becoming a kafir and deserving of remaining in Hell forever.
The Shia believe such narrations, accept these principles, regard the real brothers of the Imams to be ignorant of the principles of Imamah, and regard the Imam to practice Taqiyyah from his own son. They object against the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum due to khilafah and non-acceptance of Imamah whereas Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin did not tell his own son – the coolness of his eyes – about the same and did not explain to him its usul and did not advise him to obey the Imam after him. The result of this is that he himself claimed Imamah, rebelled and was killed; and according to the Shia doomed and suicidal. What is farfetched if such people label the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum as infidels due to rejection of Imamah?
No one should think that this was the belief of only Abu Jafar al Ahwal that Zaid was a fasiq. This was the belief of Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah according to them. When al Ahwal informed Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah of his meeting and discussion with Zaid, the latter praised the former saying, “You caught Zaid properly and left no room for him to escape.” This shows that according to Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah, Zaid’s rebellion was impermissible and his comrades were doomed for Jahannam. May Allah forbid!
Mulla Khalil writes in Kitab al Hujjah of al Safi, the commentary of Usul al Kafi in the translation of the hadith that al Ahwal said:
پس حج کردم پس حکایت کردم امام جعفر صادق را بسخن زید و آنچہ گفتہ اورا پس گفت مرا گرفتی اورا از پیش او و از پس او و از جانب دست راست او و از جانب دست چپ او و از بالاۓ سر او و ازیر قدمہای او و نگذاشتی براۓ اورا ہے کہ بآں راہ رود
I then went for hajj and related to Imam Jafar al Sadiq the discussion I had with Zaid ibn Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin. Imam Jafar al Sadiq said to me on hearing this, “You chained him from all sides – top, bottom, right and left – and left no room for him to escape.”
This dialogue between Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah and al Ahwal took place after the demise of Zaid’s father Sayyidina Zayn al ‘Abidin and his brother Imam Muhammad al Baqir. At that time, Imam Jafar al Sadiq sat on the thrown of Imamah. Hence, Mulla Khalil writes in al Safi:
احول ذکر امام محمد جعفر صادق نکرد و بفرض پدر و برادر اکتفا کرد برای تقیہ و خوف افشا چہ بر امام رفتہ گرفت گیرے نیست و خروج زید در صدر و بست ویک ہجری و دہ و انتقال امام محمد باقر از دار دنیا در صد و چہاردہ ہجری بودہ
Abu Jafar al Ahwal only mentioned his father and brother. He did not mention Imam Jafar al Sadiq out of secrecy and Taqiyyah. This is because it is impermissible to take a deceased Imam to task in any way. Zaid rebelled in 121 A.H and Imam Muhammad al Baqir passed away in 114 A.H.
This only proves that Zaid rejected the Imamah of Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah. Another narration however mentions that Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah also rejected the Imamah of his brother Imam Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah and he did not possess the conditions of Imamah according to him. Imam Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah did not hide this but got angry and said it on his face. It is recorded in al Kafi that Sayyidina Zaid came to his brother Sayyidina Muhammad al Baqir and there were few letters from the people of Kufah requesting him to come to Kufah, for an army had been prepared to rebel against the Banu Umayyah. Sayyidina Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah said, “These letters are the introduction of our recognition from the people of Kufah of our rights, our relationship to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and friendship with him and the compulsion of our obedience as found in the Qur’an.” He also mentioned, “Obeidience to only one of the relatives of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is compulsory. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala commands him with sabr and Taqiyyah when the enemy are in authority. From after Imam Hussain, all the Imams till Imam Mahdi have been commanded to adopt sabr. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has stipulated a time for them. Sabr is compulsory until the promised Mahdi comes.”
Sayyidina Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah told Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah:
پس باید کہ سبک عقل نکند البتہ ترا آں جمعے کہ یقین بربوبیت رب العالمین ندارند و بدر ستیکہ ایشاں اصلا فائدہ نمی رساںد در دفع از تو عذابے را از جانب اللہ تعالی کہ در قیامت باشند براۓ اینکہ اگر امام نبودی چرا خروج کردی پس پیش از وقت کارے را مکن و پیش گیری مکن در حکم بچیزے اللہ تعالی را اکہ عاجز کند ترا محنت پس بیند ازد ترا
Those people are brainwashing you who do not have conviction in the oneness of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and they will not be able to avert the punishment of Allah from you on the Day of Resurrection and they cannot benefit you in any way. When you are not the Imam, then why did you rebel? Do not do anything before its time, do not venture into avenues Allah has made you incapable of and do not humiliate/destroy yourself by exerting yourself.
This shows that Sayyidina al Baqir not only regarded Zaid’s intentions as bad, but the invitation of Allah’s punishment. He understood his rebellion – while not being the Imam – as a source of disgrace and chastisement on the Day of Qiyamah. He not only understood this, he emphatically mentioned it to his brother. Hearing this, Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah became angry and said, “You are not the Imam but I am because revolting with the sword is one of the conditions of an Imam which I possess and you do not.”
The words of al Kafi are:
فغضب زيد عند ذلك ثم قال ليس الامام من جلس فى بيته و ارخى سترة و تبطا عن الجهاد و لكن الامام من منع حوضه و جاهد فى سبيل الله حق جهاده و رفع عن رعيته و ذب عن حريمه
An Imam is not one who sits at home behind veils and runs away from Jihad. Rather, an Imam is one who protects his country from harm and wages jihad in Allah’s path as it ought to be waged, who protects his flock, and safeguards his sanctuary.”
Mulla Khalil commentates on this in the following words:
پس غضب نامک شد زید نزد آں اما باینکہ تو امام نیستی و من امامم بعد ازاں براۓ ایں کہ خروج بہ سیف یکے از شروط امامت است آں در مت ست نہ در تو گفت نیست امام از جملۂ ما اہل بیت رسول کسیکہ نشستہ خانہ خود و آویخت پردۂ خود را و کارہ شد از جہاد و امر بترک جہاد کرد و لیکن امام از ما کسی ست کہ نگرہداری کرد از ضرر مملکت خود را ور جہاد کرد در راہ اللہ تعالی و دفع کرد ضررا از رعیت خودوراند ضرر را از نگاہ داشتن خود
Zaid became enraged at Imam Muhammad al Baqir and said, “Listen. You are not the Imam but I am because rebelling with the sword is one of the conditions of an Imam which I possess and you do not.” He further said, “That person cannot be an Imam who sits at home behind veils and runs away from Jihad and commands others to do the same. Rather, an Imam is one who protects his country from harm and wages jihad in Allah’s path as it ought to be waged, who protects his flock and safeguards his sanctuary.”
Imam al Baqir replied:
پس گفت امام محمد باقر ایامی شناسی بعلم یقینی اے برادر من از خودت چیزے را آنچہ نسبت دادی نفس خود را بوی آنکہ خواص امام باشد پس آوری برای چیز گواہی یقنیی را از کتاب اللہ تعالی در ایام گزشتہ کسے را امام کردہ باشد کہ صفات او موافق صفات تو باشد مثل آنکہ جہل باحکام الہی داشتہ باشند و اجتہاد و مثل آنکہ ما دامیکہ خروج بہ سیف نکردہ باشد امام نباشد و زمانہ خالی از اما باشد و چون خروج کند امام شود پس لازم آید کہ علی بن الحسین امام نباشند و ایضا رسول علیہ السلام در اوائل رسالت مامور بجہاد نبود و در غار پنہا شد اما نباشد و ایضا مملکت کل روی زمین ست و جہاد کل از رسول واقع نشد و امثال اینہاں در انبیای سابق و اصیای ایشاں بسیارست چہ بدرستیکہ اللہ تعالی حلال کردہ جنس حلال راو حرام کردہ جنس حرام راو در محکمات کتاب خود لازم کردہ لازمی چند را وزدہ مثلے چند را براۓ ائمہ حق و ائمہ باطل و طریقت خود کردہ در ائمہ حق و باطل طریقتے چند را و نگر دانیدہ امامے را کہ ایستادہ ست بامارت اللہ تعالی در شبہ در آنچہ نہی از اختلاف و پیروی ظن ہست چہ دراں صریح ست در اینکہ مجتہد امام نیست تا مبادا کہ سبقت گیرد بر اللہ تعالی بکارے پیش ازاں جاۓ تا آں کار باجتہاد کندر راہ او پیش از حلول اہل آں جہاد انتہی
O my brother! Do you know with conviction that you possess those qualities of Imamah which you attribute to yourself? If you do have, then present it from the Qur’an or Sunnah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or present an incident of an Imam of the past whom Allah bestowed with the qualities you mention. For example, when being ignorant of the command of Allah, he makes his own ijtihad. Or that until he did not take up arms and rebel, he was not accepted to be an Imam and the seat of Imamah remained empty. If this is the case, then ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, i.e. Zayn al ‘Abidin, was not an Imam and in the first stages of nubuwwah when Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was not commanded to wage jihad and when Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam hid in the cave then he was not a Rasul. Remember that the sovereignty of the Imam stretches the whole world and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not wage full jihad. These types of examples of the past Prophets and Awsiya’ are plenty. Allah has declared halal as halal and haram as haram and emphatically declared this in the Qur’an. He provided examples of the true and false Imams and mentioned their methodologies. Allah has given the Imam His leadership under His supervision. Remember that a mujtahid cannot become an Imam until Allah does not utilise him for some great work and he strives in Allah’s way.
After advising him and counselling him he said,
اتريد يا اخى ان تحيى ملة قوم قد كفروا بايات الله و عصوا رسوله و اتبعوا هوائهم بغير هدى من الله و ادعو الخلافة بلا برهان من الله و لا هدى من رسول الله اعيذك بالله يا اخى ان تكون هذا المصلوب بالكناسة ثم رفضت عيناه و سالت دموعه ثم قال الله بيننا و بين من هتك سترتنا و جحدنا حقنا و افشى سترتنا و نسبنا الى غير جدنا و قال فينا ما لم نقله فى انفسنا
O my brother, do you wish to revive the methods of a nation who belied the verses of Allah, disobeyed His Messenger, followed their whims and fancies without guidance from Allah and claimed khilafah without a proof from Allah or direction from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. O my brother, I seek Allah’s protection from you being crucified at the church. Saying this, tears become to flow from his eyes.
O my brother, Allah will decide between us and the one who disgraces us, deprives us of our rights, reveals our secrets, attributes us to anyone besides our grandfather and ascribes to us what we did not say.
The translation as provided by Mulla Khalil is as follows:
ایامی خواہی کی تجدید کنی طریقت جمعے را کہ منکر شدند آیات محکمات اللہ تعالی را کہ در انہا نہی از اختلاف و پیروی ظن ہست مراد ابو بکر و عمر و عثمان و ساشر ائمہ ضلالت ست کہ مخالفت رسول اورا و تابع شدند رایہای و اجتہادات خود را بے راہنمائی از جانب اللہ تعالی و دعوی کردند خلافت رسول را بے برہانے از جانب اللہ تعالی و نہ وصیتے از جانب رسول او پناہ می دہم ترا باللہ تعالی اے برادرم ازاینکہ واقع در روزگار امام محمد باقر نمی شود چہ در روزگار امامت امام جعفر صادق شد بعد ازاں اشک داد چشم امام محمد باقر و جاری شد اشکہای او بعد ازاں گفت اللہ تعالی قاضی ست میان او و میان جمے کہ دریدند پردہ مارا بیان شرک ائمہ ضلالت و جمعے کہ برا راہ ایشان می روندہ باشند و منکر دانستہ شدند حق مارا کہ اطاعت باشند خواہ در امر بہ صبر و تقیہ و خواہ در غیر آں وفاش کردند راز مارا کہ دعوی امامت باشد و نسبت دادند مارا بغیر مرتبہ بزرگی مابایں معی کہ باعث ایں شدند کہ در سال صد و چہل ہجری اظہار دولت حق نشود چنانچہ می آید در حدیث اول باب ہشتاد ویکم و گفتند در ما چیزے را کہ نگفتیم در خود اشارت بایں ست کہ خیال ایشاں این است کہ ماباوجود افشای سر ارادہ خروج داریم و ایں باعث آزار مامی شود و حال آنکہ ما ارادہ آں نداریم تا وقت ظہور مہدی موعود
O my brother, do you wish to revive the methods of a nation (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman and other misguided leaders) who belied the verses of Allah, disobeyed His Messenger, followed their whims and fancies without guidance from Allah, and claimed khilafah without a proof from Allah or direction from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. O brother, seek protection from Allah, when Imam Muhammad al Baqir will not be around and Imam Jafar al Sadiq will be the Imam.
Thereafter, Imam Muhammad al Baqir began weeping and said, “O my brother, Allah will decide between us and the one who disgraced us, supported the leaders of misguidance and shirk, deprived us of our rights in every situation whether we make sabr or observe Taqiyyah. They have revealed our secrets, claimed Imamah, and wish to snatch greatness from us without attaining it themselves.” The reason for this is that in 140 A.H there will not be true leadership as appears in the first hadith of chapter 81.
“And attribute to us what we did not say.” This indicates that although the secret has been disclosed we are believed to intend rebellion which is the cause of our suffering whereas we do not intend to rebel until the emergence of Imam Mahdi.
What greater proof you want that Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah claimed Imamah due to which his brother Imam Muhammad al Baqir considered him to be deserving of divine punishment on the Day of Qiyamah? He believed him to be a reviver of the ways of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman and one of the misguided leaders.
Now let us look at what the Shia scholars believe regarding Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah and what do they say about his claim for Imamah and how do they save him from kufr and fisq notwithstanding his claim. The belief of the Shia in general regarding Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah is good. They accept him as superior after Imam al Baqir rahimahu Llah and a man of piety and worship. They say regarding his claim for Imamah that he did not claim for himself but rather for his brother Imam Muhammad al Baqir and that his rebellion was not for his Imamah but for some other reason. Dildar ‘Ali while answering Tuhfah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah on the discussion of Zaid’s rahimahu Llah claim for Imamah says:
شیخ مفید در ارشاد خود می فرماید کہ زید بن علی بعد امام باقر افضل برادران و صاحب ورع و عبادت و فقاہت بودہ و بہ سخاوت و شجاعت موصوف و خروج بہ شمشیر نمودہ و امر بہ معروف و نہی از منکر کرد و طلب خون جناب سید الشہداء می نمود و بسیارے از شیعان اعتقاد بامامت او داشتند و نشا ایں اعتقاد آنہا ایں بود کہ چوں دیدند کہ او خرود بہ شمشیر نمود و دعوی می کرد بطرف الرضاء من آل محمد گمان کردند کہ مراد او ازیں صرف نفس خود ست و چنیں نبود چہ عارف بود بایں کہ منصب امامت حق برادر بزرگوار او جناب امام محمد باقر است و او وصیت کردہ بود در آخر وقت بہ حضرت صادق و سپ خروج او ایں بود کہ روزے پیش ہشام بن عبد الملک کہ خلیفہ وقت بود رفت خلیفہ امر نمود باہل شام کی در مجلس او حاضر بودند کہ چناں در مجلس تنگی نمائید کہ زید تا پیش خلیفہ نزسد زید گفت کہ ہیچ یک از بندگان خدا فوق ایں نیست کہ وصیت بہ تقوی نماید و من ترا وصیت می کنم بہ پرہیزگاری ہشام گفت کہ تو خود را از اہل خلافت می پنداری و حالانکہ تو از ام ولدی زید گفت مادر جناب حضرت اسماعیل ام ولد بود و حال اینکہ مرتبہ نبوت نزدیک خدا فوق تر از مرتبہ خلافت ست و چوں ہشام زید را از لشکر خود بیروں کرد زید در کوفہ آمدہ خروج نمود و مردماں بسیار باوبیعت کردند و آخر نقض بیعت نمودند و او شہید شد چوں خبر شہادت اور بجناب صادق رسید بسیار غمگین و ملول گردید و کسانیکہ بازید شہید شدہ بودند لک دینار بورثہ آنہا حضرت صادق از مال خود تقسیم نمود انتہی و چوں عبد الکاذب الغادر میان ہشام بن الحکم و ہشام بن عبد الملک امتیاز ںمودہ ایں مناظرہ را بر مناظرہ امامت رجما بالغیب حمل نمودہ انتہی
Sheikh al Mufid says that after Imam Muhammad al Baqir, Zaid ibn ‘Ali is most righteous and a greater worshipper than his brothers. He was very generous and extremely brave. He took up arms and rebelled. He enjoined good and forbade evil and avenged the blood of Sayed al Shuhada’. Majority of Shia believe in his Imamah and the purport of this belief is that when they saw Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah rebelling with arms and claiming Imamah for the family of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, they thought he referred to himself whereas he was not concerned about himself but rather acknowledged that his elder brother Imam Muhammad al Baqir was the rightful Imam who bequeathed Imamah for his son, al Sadiq, at the time of his death. The reason for Sayyidina Zaid’s rahimahu Llah rebellion is that he once went to Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik. The khalifah commanded the people of Sham to crowd the gathering so that Zaid could not approach him. Zaid ‘alayh al Salam exclaimed, “There is no servant of Allah who cannot be commanded to fear Allah. O Khalifah! I command you to fear Allah.”
The Khalifah answered him, “O Zaid, You think yourself worthy of khilafah whereas you are the son of a slave-girl.”
Zaid responded by saying, “Sayyidina Ismail ‘alayh al Salam was the son of a slave girl. The reality is that nubuwwah holds a higher rank than khilafah in the sight of Allah.”
When Hisham ordered his army to remove Zaid, the latter came to Kufah and rebelled. Majority of the people pledged allegiance to him but broke their pledges later and Zaid was martyred. When Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah was informed of his martyrdom, he was extremely remorseful and saddened. He distributed 100000 gold coins to the heirs of those who were martyred alongside Zaid. Since the treacherous ‘Abdul Kadhib did not differentiate between Hisham ibn Hakam and Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik, he interpreted a debate to be the debate over Imamah without any knowledge or information.
Although Dildar ‘Ali has taken great pains to save Zaid rahimahu Llah from kufr, he was not successful in his attempt to prove that Zaid rahimahu Llah did not claim Imamah and provide evidence that he accepted Imam Muhammad al Baqir as Imam. In fact, if you have a look at the narrations we reproduced from Usul al Kafi, it seems as Dildar ‘Ali is a drowning man clutching onto straws.
Furthermore, his claim that Zaid did not reject Imamah is in conflict to those historical incidents which have reached authenticity. This is not confined to Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah. The children of which Imam have not claimed Imamah for themselves? After Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah, his son Yahya, after Imam Musa al Kazim, his sons Ibrahim and Jafar, Hassan ibn Hassan Muthanna and his son ‘Abdullah and his son Muhammad whose title is Dhu Nafs Zakiyyah, Ibrahim ibn ‘Abdullah, Zakariyyah ibn Muhammad al Baqir, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al Hussain ibn al Hassan, Muhammad ibn al Qasim ibn al Hassan and Yahya ibn ‘Amr etc.; these children of the Imams have claimed Imamah. Majority of them rebelled and were martyred.
Can these historical occurrences be denied? In fact, the difference in the matter of Imamah due to which the Shia have been divided into many sub sects are evidence that the Imams’ children never believed Imamah as one of the fundamentals of din and did not regard its rejecter equal to one who rejects nubuwwah. Had the Imams’ children believed that Imamah was equal to nubuwwah and the Imam appointed only one of his children as an Imam after him and bequeathed it to him, and had every Imam reminded his children of his bequest, and explained to them that the rejecter of Imamah is a kafir like the rejecter of nubuwwah, then is it possible to believe that the pure children of the Imams did not accept their father’s bequest and did not accept the true Imam but rather claimed Imamah for themselves? The difference in this matter of Imamah which took place among the Shia and the various sub sects that they split into would not have happened. This spintering has reached such a level that one sub sect accepts Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah as Imam after Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu; the Kaysaniyyah sect. There is then difference with regards to Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah. Some say that he did not pass away while others say he did and imamah was transferred to his son, Abu Hashim. What the grandfather said, “The seventh Imam is existing and he will have the name of the recipient of the Tawrah.”
In brief, the only reason why there is so much dispute in this matter of Imamah is that the children of the Imam have not unanimously agreed on the Imamah of one and have not forsaken the claim to Imamah. It is only the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah sect which believes in 12 Imams from Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to Imam Mahdi. The obvious result of this belief is that those Imams’ children who claimed Imamah or did not accept the true Imam, are all infidels and doomed to Jahannam forever, may Allah forbid.
Appendix – Imamah
(Sheikh Muhammad Firasat)
In the above pages, the author of Ayat Bayyinat rahimahu Llah has sufficiently proven that the made up belief of Imamah of the Shia which is believed to be emphatic from Allah and his obedience as compulsory was not known to the individuals of the family of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who debunked this belief by their statements and actions. To prove this, he presented a dialogue which is recorded in Usul al Kafi, chapter 79, page 218 between Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu son, Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah, and Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn al Hussain (Zayn al ‘Abidin) after the Karbala incident. This dialogue adequately establishes the fact that the former was ignorant of the reality of Imamah. He did not even know that Allah selected the children of Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu for Imamah and wasiyyah.
Qadi Nur Allah al Shustari has interpreted this incident in Majalis al Mu’minin with reference to Kitab al Khara’ij by saying:
Some people began regarding Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah as the Imam, so he thought it befitting to decide this matter in public so that no one falls into misguidance.
This interpretation of Qadi is not only in conflict with reality and pathetic, but very astonishing for a scholar of his calibre. Where is there scope to make such an interpretation? The answer to this interpretation is found in the hadith itself; this conversation between uncle and nephew took place in solitude where the nephew was reforming his uncle’s belief in Imamah. They were no other people present.
During this conversation, the uncle said to his nephew:
و انى عمك و صنو ابيك و ولادتى من على فى سنى و قديمى احق بها منك فى حداثتك فلا تنازعنى فى الوصية و الامامة و لا تحاجنى فقال له على بن الحسين يا عم اتق الله و لا تدع ما ليس لك بحق انى اعظك ان تكون من الجاهلين
I am your uncle and equal to your father. Me being the son of ‘Ali, older in age and more experienced makes me more worthy of Imamah than you who are tender in age. So do not argue and contest with me in al Wasiyyah and al Imamah.
‘Ali ibn al Hussain told him, “O uncle, fear Allah and do not claim that which you have no right over. I advise you from becoming of the ignorant.
It also appears at the end of this dialogue that after the black stone’s testimony, Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah accepted Imamah. But this does not change anything. The hadith is clear that Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah never regarded himself as infallible, nor his obedience as compulsory and nor did he claim being the offspring of Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, yet claimed Imamah. This clearly shows that he was unaware and ignorant of all the laws of Imamah which the Shia have stipulated.
If we hypothetically agree that this dialogue was in accordance to what Qadi Nur Allah al Shustari has stated, it still proves that the full picture of Imamah was not in the minds of the Shia of that era. This is the reality. That is why they split into sub sects very quickly. After the martyrdom of Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, those who propagated the belief of Imamah secretly were divided into few sects. One group rejected the Imamah of both Sayyidina Hassan and Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. They explained that if the reconciliation and agreement between Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu was correct, then Sayyidina Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu revolt against Yazid ibn Muawiyah was incorrect. And if the latter was correct, then the former was incorrect. A renowned Shia scholar of the third century Abu Muhammad Hassan ibn Musa al Nawbakhti writes in his treatise Firaq al Shia:
پس درکارآن دو در گماں شدند و از امامت آناں باز گشتند و در گفتار باتودۂ مردم داستاں گردیدند
These people lost confidence in both these luminaries due to their conflicting approaches. They turned away from their Imamah and joined the general masses in belief.
A second group raised the flag of Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah’s Imamah. A third group were those who accepted the Imamah of Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin but were few in number. It is reported from Imam al Sadiq rahimahu Llah in Rijal al Kashshi:
عن ابى عبد الله قال ارتد الناس بعد قتل الحسين الا ثلاثة ابو خالد الكابلى و يحيى بن ام الطويل و جبير بن مطعم ثم ان الناس لحقوا و كثروا
Abu ‘Abdullah said, “All people apostatised after the martyrdom of Hussain except three: Abu Khalid al Kabili, Yahya ibn Umm al Tawil, and Jubayr ibn Mut’im. Then people joined and multiplied.
A fourth group were those who believed that Imamah had ended at Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu. There were only three Imams: Sayyidina ‘Ali, Hassan, and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum. They did not believe in any Imam after Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
A fifth group believed that Imamah was not restricted to the offspring of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu but rather the children of both Sayyidina Hassan and Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma; whoever stands up for the post of Imamah and invites people publicly, his obedience is compulsory like Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Those who disobey him and are proud or invite people to their own Imamah are infidels. Similarly, whoever claims Imamah for their offspring but then sits at home behind closed doors; all of his followers are kuffar and mushrikin.
‘Ali ibn al Hussain rahimahu Llah saw these with his own eyes. Intelligence demands that such an important fundamental of din be pronounced at the two ‘id, hajj, or some other major gathering so that the masses are not ignorant about this belief like his uncle Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah. If there was some wisdom in not proclaiming it publicly, then at least mention it to the Banu Hashim and children of Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu and narrate to them the emphatic statements of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam listing the Imams’ names. Or at least display the slate of emerald to the Mu’minin which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sent to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam which has the Imams’ names inscribed on it. The incident of this slate as mentioned in Usul al Kafi pg. 343, 344 goes as follows:
عن ابى بصير عن ابى عبد الله عليه السلام قال قال لجابر بن عبد الله الانصارى ان لى اليك حاجة فمتى يخف عليك ان اخلو بك فاسئلك عنها فقال له جابر اى الاوقات احببته فخلا به فى بعض الايام فقال له يا جابر اخبرنى عن اللوح الذى رأيته فى يد امى فاطمة عليها السلام بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و ما اخبرتك به امى فى ذلك اللوح المكتوب فقال جابر اشهد بالله انى دخلت على امك فاطمة عليها السلام فى حياة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فهنيتها بولادة الحسين و رايت فى يدها لوحا اخضر ظننت انه من زمرد و رأيت فيه كتابا ابيض شبه لون الشمس فقلت لها بابى و امى يا بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ما هذا اللوح فقالت هذا اللوح اهداه الله الى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فيه اسم ابى و اسم على و اسم ابنى و اسم الاوصياء من ولدى و اعطانيه ابى ليبشرنى بذلك فقال جابر فاعطنيه امك فاطمة عليها السلام فقرأته و استنسخته فقال له ابى فهل لك يا جابر ان تعرضه على قال نعم فمشى معه ابى الى منزل جابر فاخرج صحيفة من رق فقال يا جابر انظر فى كتابك لاقرأ انا عليك فنظر جابر فى نسخته فقرأ ابى فما خالف حرف حرفا فقال يا جابر فاشهد بالله انى هكذا رأيته فى اللوح مكتوبا
Abu Basir relates that Abu ‘Abdullah rahimahu Llah said to Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah al Ansari radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “I have some work with you. When can I have I private moment with you and talk to you about it?”
Jabir said, “Whatever time suits you.”
He met with him one day and said, “O Jabir, inform me of the slate you saw in my mother’s hands Fatimah bint Rasulillah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and what my mother told you about what was written on it.”
Jabir answered, “I bear witness that I went to your mother Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha in the lifetime of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and congratulated her on the birth of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu. I saw a green slate in her hand, and I thought it was of emerald. I saw some writing in white similar to the colour of the sun. I asked her, ‘May my parents be sacrificed for you, O daughter of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, what is this slate?’
She explained, ‘Allah gifted this slate to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It has the name of my father, the name of ‘Ali, the names of my two sons, and the names of the Awsiya’ from my offspring. My father gave it to me to grant me the glad tidings of it.’”
Jabir continues, “Your mother Fatimah gave it to me. I read it and copied it.”
My father requested him, “May you show it to me, O Jabir?”
He replied in the affirmative. My father walked with him to Jabir’s house. He then took out a book. My father then said, “O Jabir, look into your book. I will read to you.”
Jabir looked in his copy and my father read. There was not even the difference of one letter. My father then said, “O Jabir, bear witness to Allah that I saw it written on the slate in this way.”
This narration has the exact text written on the emerald slate with the 12 names of the Imams coupled with their qualities. If Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn al Hussain’s objective was to protect people from misguidance (as claimed by Qadi) then the above mentioned method was appropriate. It was not appropriate to speak to him in secrecy.
Had Zayn al ‘Abidin announced the belief of Imamah in public to protect the Shia from misguidance and division, he would have fulfilled the duty of speaking the truth and at least those major differences between the Shia which are due to the belief of Imamah would not have surfaced in the later years which resulted in the emergence of new sects after the demise of every Imam, and the sons of the Imams; one labelling the other as misguided.
Nawab Muhsin al Mulk rahimahu Llah has provided another example from Kitab al Hujjah of Usul al Kafi printed in Lucknow on page 100, i.e. the dialogue between the great grandson of Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu Zaid – Zayn al ‘Abidin’s son – and Abu Jafar al Ahwal Muhammad ibn Nu’man – a notable student of Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah concerning the belief of Imamah. This dialogue took place before Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah revolted against the Umayyad Khalifah Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan. When Abu Jafar al Ahwal listed some principles of the belief of Imamah before him, the latter debunked the former saying:
قال فقال لى يا ابا جعفر كنت اجلس مع ابى على الخوان فيلقمنى الضعة السمينة و يبرد لى اللقمة الحارة شفقة على و لم يشفق على من حر النار اذا اخبرك بالدين و لم يخبرنى به
Abu Jafar relates, “He said to me, ‘O Abu Jafar. I would sit and eat with my father. He would feed me the nice pieces of meat and would cool a hot morsel before feeding it to me out of love for me yet he showed no affection to me from saving me from the fire of Jahannam? He informed you of din and did not inform me?’”
Sayyidina Zaid ibn Zayn al ‘Abidin rahimahu Llah mentions clearly in this conversation that his father did not inform him of the belief of Imamah. Any intelligent and sound person will deduce from this that this belief has no relation to Islam. Had it been one of the fundamentals of din, Sayyidina Zayn al ‘Abidin rahimahu Llah would have definitely informed his son about it. Can any Muslim comprehend that those who are charged with guiding the masses and protecting them from misguidance will not teach their children of such an important aspect of din and allow them to fall into misguidance and bear that responsibility? Is it fathomable that Sayyidina Zayn al ‘Abidin rahimahu Llah reforms the belief of his uncle and does not inform his son?
I will reproduce an important extract from this narration:
فلما فرغن من غسلها و كفنها دخل صلى الله عليه و سلم فحمل جنازتها على عاتقه فلم يزل تحت جنازتها حتى اوردها قبر وضعها و دخل القبر فاضطجع فيه ثم قام فاخذها على يديه حتى وضعها فى القبر ثم انكب عليها طويلا يناجيها و يقول لها ابنك ابنك ابنك ثم خرج و سوى عليها ثم انكب على قبرها فسمعوه يقول لا اله الا الله اللهم انى استودعها اياك ثم انصرف فقال له المسلمون انا رأيناك فعلت اشياء لم تفعلها قبل اليوم فقال اليوم فقدت بر ابى طالب ان كانت ليكون عندها الشىء فتوثرنى به على نفسها و ولدها و انى ذكر القيامة و ان الناس يحشرون عراة فقالت واسوأتاه فضمنت لها ان يبعثها الله كاسية و ذكرت ضغطة القبر فقالت واضعفاء فضمنت لما يكفيها الله ذلك فكفنتها بقميصى و اضطجعت فى قبرها لذلك و انكببت عليها فلقنتها ما تسئل عنه فانها سئلت عن ربها فقالت و سئلت عن رسولها فاجابت و سئلت عن وليها و امامها فارتج عليها فقلت ابنك ابنك ابنك
When they were complete with her (Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu mother) ghusl and kafn, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam entered and picked up her bier on his shoulders. He walked with it until he reached the grave. He entered the grave and laid in it. He then stood up and lifted her and placed her in the grave. He then remained beside her for a long time speaking to her softly and telling her, “Your son. Your son.” He then came out and levelled the grave (with sand). He then remained beside her grave. They heard him saying, “There is no deity but Allah. O Allah! I hand her over to You.” He then left.
The Muslims asked him, “We saw you doing things never before.”
He salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam replied, “Today, I have lost the wife of Abu Talib. When she had anything, she would give me preference over herself and children. I mentioned Qiyamah and that people will be resurrected naked. She said, ‘O remorse!’ I took responsibility that Allah will resurrect her with clothes. I mentioned the squeeze of the grave. She said, ‘O my weakness.’ I took responsibility that Allah will suffice for her this. I thus shrouded her with my shirt and laid in her grave for this. I then sat beside her and reminded her of what she will be asked about. She was asked about her Rabb and she answered correctly. She was questioned about her Rasul and she answered correctly. She was then asked about her Wali and Imam, she was speechless so I said, ‘Your son. Your son.’”
According to this narration of Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah, Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu mother answered the questions regarding Allah and His Rasul, but when she was asked about the Wali and Imam, she kept quiet upon which Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had to teach her, “Your son. Your son.”
It is possible that one might argue that until then, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not propagate the belief in Imamah. The objection on this is that whose fault is it – May Allah forbid – Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or the angels’. Why was she burdened with answering something she was not taught?
This is one angle of the situation according to which the Ahlul Bayt and Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu own mother were unaware of Imamah. This is an open confirmation of the fact that this has nothing to do with Islam otherwise they would have known about it.
On the other hand, the Shia have included this belief among the fundamentals of din like tawhid, risalah, and qiyamah and made acknowledgement of the pedestal of Imamah the means of salvation in the Hereafter. A narration of Imam al Baqir or Imam al Jafar appears on page 10 of Usul al Kafi in the chapter regarding recognition of the Imam and referring to him:
الحسين عن معلى عن الحسن بن على عن احمد بن عائذ عن ابيه عن ابن اذنيه قال حدثنا غير واحد عن احدههما عليهما السلام انه قال لا يكون العبد مومنا حتى يعرف الله و رسوله و الائمة كلهم و امام زمانه و يرد اليه و يسلم له ثم قال كيف يعرف الاخر و هو يجهل الاول
Hussain narrates — from Mu’alla — from Hassan ibn ‘Ali — from Ahmed ibn ‘A’idh — from his father — from Ibn Udhunayh who said that more than one person narrated from one of them, Imam al Baqir or Imam Jafar who stated: “A servant cannot be a believer until he recognises Allah, His Rasul, all the Imams, and the Imam of his era and refers to him and submits to him.”
He further stated, “How can he recognise the latter when he is ignorant of the former?”
What is Imamah?
The Shia believe Imamah as a divine position like nubuwwah. They believe in all those qualities for Imamah which are specific to nubuwwah, i.e. the Imam is infallible like the Prophets, his appointment is by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, his obedience is compulsory like the Nabi’s, revelation descends on him, he has the capacity to make halal or haram, he has the knowledge of the past and future, etc. The Imam’s position is equal to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and greater than all the other Prophets. The ‘aqidah of Imamah of the Shia is what separates them from the Ahlus Sunnah.
I will present below some narrations and some statements of the Shia scholars which shed light on the importance of Imamah and the rank of the Imams.
‘Allamah al Majlisi relates from Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah in Bihar al Anwar vol. 26 pg. 281:
عن ابى بصير عن ابى عبد الله عليه السلام قال ما من نبى و لا من رسول ارسل الا بولايتنا و فضيلتنا على من سوانا
Abu Basir narrates from Abu ‘Abdullah who says, “There was no Nabi nor Rasul sent except (after acknowledging) our wilayah and virtue over everyone else.”
One of the chapters of Kitab al Imamah of Bihar al Anwar is:
تفضيلهم عليهم السلام علي الانبياء و على جميع الخلق و اخذ ميثاقهم عنهم و عن الملئكة و عن سائر الخلق و ان اولوا العزم انما صاروا اولى العزم بحبهم صلوات الله عليهم
Their superiority over the Prophets and entire creation. Taking their pledge from them (the Prophets), the angels, and the entire creation. The ulu al ‘azm only became such due to love for them.
After presenting numerous narrations of this, ‘Allamah al Majlisi writes with reference to ‘Aqa’id Saduq:
اعلم ان ما ذكره رحمة الله من فضل نبينا و ائمتنا صلوات الله عليهم على جميع المخلوقات و كون ائمتنا عليهم السلام افضل من سائر الانبياء و هو الذى لا يرتاب فيه من تتبع اخبارهم عليهم السلام على وجه الاذعان و اليقين و الاخبار فى ذلك اكثر من ان يحصى
Know that what al Saduq has mentioned regarding the superiority of our Nabi and Imams over the entire creation and our Imams being superior to all the Prophets is something that no one will doubt who studies their narrations with obedience and conviction. Narrations of this kind are countless.
One of the chapters of Usul al Kafi is:
ان الائمة عليهم السلام محدثون مفهومون
The Imams are muhaddathun mafhumun (inspired).
A narration from Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah appears in this chapter:
عن محمد بن مسلم قال سمعت ابا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول الائمة بمنزلة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم الا انهم ليسوا بانبياء و لا يحل لهم من النساء ما يحل للنبى صلى الله عليه و سلم فاما ما خلا ذلك فهم فيه بمنزلة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم
Muhammad ibn Muslim says that he heard Abu ‘Abdullah rahimahu Llah saying, “The Imams enjoy the rank of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam except that they are not Prophets. What women are permissible for Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam are not permissible for them. Besides this, they enjoy the rank of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”
Mulla Baqir al Majlisi writes while commenting on Imam Jafar al Sadiq’s rahimahu Llah statement:
بيان يدل ظاهرا على اشتراكهم مع النبى صلى الله عليه و اله فى سائر الخصائص سوا ما ذكر
This clearly shows that they are partners to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in all specialities except what was mentioned, i.e. more than four wives are not permitted for them.
Mulla Baqir al Majlisi reports the various narrations of the Imams in Kitab al Imamah, the chapter that they are muhaddathun mafhumun. He then writes under narration 45:
بيان استنباط الفرق بين النبى و الامام من تلك الاخبار لا يخلو من اشكال و كذا الجمع بينهما مشكل جدا و بالجملة لا بد لنا من الاذعان بعدم كونهم عليهم السلام انبياء و بانهم اشرف و افضل من غير نبينا صلى الله عليه و سلم من الانبياء و الاوصياء و لا نعرف جهة اتصافهم بالنبوة الا رعاية جلالة خاتم الانبياء و لا يصل عقولنا الى فرق بين بين النبوة و الامامة و ما دلت عليه الاخبار فقد عرفته
Deducing a difference between the Nabi and the Imam from these narrations is objectionable. Similarly, combining both of them is very difficult. On the whole, it is necessary to believe that they are not Prophets and that they are more noble and superior to all the Prophets and Awsiya’ besides our Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. We do not know why they are not Prophets except out of consideration for the honour of the seal of Prophets. Our minds cannot fathom a distinctive difference between nubuwwah and Imamah. And you have realised what the narrations mention.
It is quite surprising that al Baqir cannot understand a simple thing that when Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has given them a higher rank to nubuwwah, i.e. the rank of Imamah and wilayah, then why should they be given nubuwwah. Does any high ranking officer need to be called a policeman?
Due to such Shia narrations, Mulla Baqir al Majlisi has given the following verdict:
امامت بالا تر از رتبہ پیغمبر است
The station of Imamah is higher than the station of nubuwwah.
The greatest Shia leader of the 20th century Ayatollah Ruh Allah Khomeini has articulated the same message in his book al Hukumah al Islamiyyah in the following words:
و ان من ضروريات مذهبنا ان لائمتنا مقاما لا يبلغه ملك مقرب و لا نبى مرسل
One of the fundamental beliefs of our religion is that the Imams enjoy a rank which cannot be reached by a close angel or Messneger.
We can reproduce tens of narrations (countless narrations according to al Majlisi) which clearly mention that the rank of Imamah is higher than that of nubuwwah. However, taking into consideration the lack of time we will settle on a few narrations.
In light of the above, it would not be incorrect to say that the station of nubuwwah, which is a divine station lower than Imamah, has continued in a new advanced form of Imamah. In this way, the value of the risalah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam does not remain, neither is it maqsud bi al dhat (a primary objective). In fact, is it an introduction to the Imams’ Imamah making it maqsud bi al ‘ard (a secondary objective). This is not our viewpoint only, non-Muslim scholars have deduced the exact same purport of Imamah. The researcher W. Ivonow has written, “The brilliant light of Imamah shining in the world gives nubuwwah the status of a shadow.”
Phillip K. Hitti writes of Imamah: “The founder of Islam has made revelation, i.e. the Qur’an a medium between Allah and man. But the Shia have given this medium the form of a human, i.e. the Imam. ‘I believe in Allah and I believe in the Qur’an which is not created.’ The Shia have made the addition, ‘I believe in the Imam whom Allah has appointed who is partner in divine attributes and the saviour.’”
Readers, you have seen what consequences the non-Muslims have written of the belief of Imamah. These are not the only two examples. Whenever a person studies Islam and ponders properly over the rank and abilities of the Imam, he will arrive at the same conclusion. Although the Shia outwardly believe in Khatm al Nubuwwah (Finality of Prophethood), they have invented a new divinely appointed station, i.e. Imamah, thus making the belief in Khatm al Nubuwwah meaningless.
Imamah and Qur’an
We have mentioned previously that the Shia include Imamah among the fundamentals of din like tawhid, risalah, and Akhirah. Hence, they believe that just belief in tawhid, risalah, and Akhirah are not sufficient for salvation in the Hereafter. The principled question which arises is that just as there are copious emphatic verses of the Qur’an which establish the belief in tawhid, risalah, and Akhirah and the command to obey Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has appeared extensively in the Qur’an and just as there are categorical verses like “Say He Allah is one” and “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” have been revealed which cannot have any other meaning, similarly mention of the status of the Imams, their Imamah, and their obedience ought to have appeared in the Qur’an in clear unambiguous terms. It is said about them that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala created the world due to them, the Prophets’s ranks were raised due to loving them and doubting their status landed the Imams into problems, the supplications of the Prophets are accepted due to their blessings, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala handed over the guidance of the ummah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to them. Moreover, their rank and status has been spoken about in the previous divine books. Thus, intellect demands that these Imams whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has commanded with the guidance of the ummah, then the pure book which Allah has revealed for their guidance ought to mention belief in them in more clear terms and more emphatically and categorically.
The word Imam appears in the Qur’an not once or twice but 12 times, but not once in the invented meaning of the Shia. The word Imam comes in the meaning of leader in the glorious Qur’an whether good or bad. It has been used to describe the Prophets as well as the evil infidels. We will quote five categorical verses due to time constraints.
The first verse:
فَقَاتِلُوْا أَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ إِنَّهُمْ لَا أَيْمَانَ لَهُمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَنتَهُوْنَ
Then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.
In this verse, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has referred to the leaders of the kuffar as Imams for they are their leaders; the kuffar follow them.
The second verse:
وَمِنْ قَبْلِهِ كِتَابُ مُوسىٰ إِمَامًا وَرَحْمَةً
And before it was the Scripture of Musa to lead and as mercy.
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has referred to a book as an Imam for it leads people and people follow it.
وَجَعَلْنَاهُمْ أَئِمَّةً يَدْعُوْنَ إِلَى النَّارِ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ لَا يُنْصَرُوْنَ
And We made them leaders inviting to the Fire.
Look in what a bad light the word Imam has been used in this verse. The people of Fir’awn are referred to as Imams.
The fourth verse:
وَجَعَلْنَا مِنْهُمْ أَئِمَّةً يَهْدُوْنَ بِأَمْرِنَا لَمَّا صَبَرُوْا وَكَانُوْا بِآيَاتِنَا يُوْقِنُوْنَ
And We made from among them leaders guiding by Our command when they were patient and [when] they were certain of Our signs.
This verse speaks about the Banu Isra’il. Imam here refers to the Nabi because guidance through Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala command is their duty and descent of revelation has also been mentioned. This shows that Imamah means nubuwwah here.
The fifth verse:
يَوْمَ نَدْعُو كُلَّ أُنَاسٍ بِإِمَامِهِمْ
[Mention, O Muhammad], the Day We will call forth every people with their Imam. 
Imam here refers to the Messenger since every ummah will be summoned with their Messenger as stated in another verse:
وَلِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَّسُوْلٌ فَإِذَا جَاءَ رَسُوْلُهُمْ قُضِيَ بَيْنَهُمْ بِالْقِسْطِ وَهُمْ لَا يُظْلَمُوْنَ
And for every nation is a messenger. So when their messenger comes, it will be judged between them in justice, and they will not be wronged.
In the above verses, there is no clear picture of the Shia invented Imamah. In fact, there is no trace of it. With regards to the obedience of the Imams being compulsory, there are plenty verses in the glorious Qur’an commanding obedience to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam but only two verses are coupled with obedience to the ulu al amr (those in authority).
The first verse:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.
We learn from this verse that obedience to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is mandatory in every occasion. To argue in this regard is forbidden. In fact, obedience to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is the very same thing. The words are two but reference is one. Accordingly, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala states a little further in this very Surah:
مَّنْ يُطِعِ الرَّسُوْلَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ
He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.
The reason for these obediences being one is that the Rasul is infallible. He cannot command anything contradictory to Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala command and wish.
The second thing learnt from this verse is that obedience to the ulu al amr is not mandatory in every occasion. If any command of theirs conflicts to the Qur’an and Sunnah, it will not be followed and obeyed.
The Shia attribute ulu al amr in this verse to their Imams which is wholly incorrect. This is because when there arises any difference with the ulu al amr, the Mu’minin have been commanded to refer to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It is apparent that the Shia believe their Imams to be infallible and any difference with them as haram. Hence, they cannot be referred to here. The reality is that all those who are obeyed among the Muslims are included in ulu al amr. The khalifah of the time, army generals, ‘Ulama’, and Fuqaha’ are all included. There is another verse wherein referral to the ulu al amr has been commanded which appears after the above verse in the same Surah.
وَإِذَا جَاءَهُمْ أَمْرٌ مِّنَ الْأَمْنِ أَوِ الْخَوْفِ أَذَاعُوْا بِهِ وَلَوْ رَدُّوْهُ إِلَى الرَّسُوْلِ وَإِلىٰ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْهُمْ لَعَلِمَهُ الَّذِيْنَ يَسْتَنبِطُوْنَهُ مِنْهُمْ وَلَوْلَا فَضْلُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُ لَاتَّبَعْتُمُ الشَّيْطَانَ إِلَّا قَلِيْلًا
And when there comes to them information about [public] security or fear, they spread it around. But if they had referred it back to the Messenger or to those of authority among them, then the ones who [can] draw correct conclusions from it would have known about it. And if not for the favour of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have followed Satan, except for a few.
In this verse, there is no command to refer to the ulu al amr in any shar’i matter. Rather, the command is restricted to conditions of fear or peace. The command to refer shar’i matters is only to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam especially in times of conflict. There is not the slightest inclination found in the Qur’an in this matter as propagated by the Shia. And how can there be, when according to the Shia scholars, there exists Tahrif in the Qur’an. Accordingly, it appears in al Safi quoted from Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi that Imam Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah has said:
لولا انه زيد فى القران و نقص ما خفى حقنا على ذى حجى
Had there been no additions and subtractions in the Qur’an, our right would not have been concealed to the intelligent.
The gist of the Imam’s statement is that Tahrif has taken place in the Qur’an. Hence, Imamah and Wilayah cannot be established through it.
Imamah in the First Era
After studying the Qur’an, we will now study the lives of that group of people of the first era who are blessed with the companionship of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and whose purification and reformation took place at the hands of that guide which the Qur’an speaks about in glowing terms:
لَقَدْ مَنَّ اللَّهُ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ إِذْ بَعَثَ فِيْهِمْ رَسُوْلًا مِّنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ يَتْلُوْ عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيْهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِنْ كَانُوْا مِنْ قَبْلُ لَفِيْ ضَلَالٍ مُّبِيْنٍ
Certainly did Allah confer [great] favour upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from themselves, reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom, although they had been before in manifest error.
From this noble group of students of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, there are approximately 7500 blessed souls who contributed to the legacy and abundance of ahadith. However, not one of them has narrated about the supposed Imamah of the Shia. Abu al Imams Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu neither presented himself as an infallible Imam whose obedience is mandatory nor claimed this status which is higher than all the Prophets and equal to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in any definite terms. On the contrary, he presented himself as one of the sincere students and ardent followers of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. When proposing for Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, he submitted to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
و ان الله هدانى بك و على يديك و استنقذنى مما كان عليه ابائى و اعمامى من الحيرة و الشرك
Allah has guided me through you and at your hands and extricated me from misguidance and shirk which my forefathers and uncles were involved in.
What about the Ahlul Bayt radiya Llahu ‘anhum? You have read the incident of Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah. When Abu Jafar al Ahwal spoke to him about Imamah, he belied him and rejected this belief in what a forceful tone. Similarly, Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu mother were unaware of this belief. Moreover, the offspring of Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu would establish the baselessness of this belief through their actions.
Surprising indeed is that Abu Jafar al Ahwal discusses intricate matters of Imamah with the Imam’s child yet he himself does not know who the Imam is after Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah. Therefore, he, Hisham ibn Salim, etc., intended to join the Murjiyah, Qadariyyah, Mu’tazilah, or Khawa’rij after the death of Sayyidina Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah. This clearly illustrates that the founders of Imamah had not yet made the rules of Imamah, the narrations of the emerald slate was not yet fabricated nor were those narrations invented wherein Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam lists all the names of the Imams.
Readers, finally it would be appropriate to investigate this belief in the incidents of those Ahlul Bayt members whom the Shia regard as Imams and regarding whom they belief that there status is equal to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and higher than the other Prophets and who have been given the responsibility of guiding the ummah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
When we study the lives of these noble souls from Shia books, we find that they donned the garb of Taqiyyah their entire lives and did not have the courage to proclaim this belief publicly. Besides disclosing this secret to a few close and chosen individuals, they hid it away from the entire ummah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Not only did they hide such an important fundamental of din – whose propagation is mandatory – they convinced their disciples to do the same. If anyone asked regarding their Imamah, they would fervently reject it.
There is a narration from Sa’id on page 142 in Kitab al Hujjah of Usul al Kafi:
عن سعيد السمان قال كنت عند ابى عبد الله عليه السلام اذ دخل عليه رجلان من الزيدية فقالا له افيكم امام مفترض الطاعة قال فقال لا قال فقالا له قد اخبرنا عنك الثقات انك تفتى و تقر و تقول به و نسميهم لك فلان و فلان و هم اصحاب ورع و تشمير و هم ممن لا يكذب فغضب ابو عبد الله عليه السلام فقال ما امرتهم بهذا فلما رأيا الغضب فى وجهه خرجا فقال لى اتعرف هذين؟ قلت نعم هما من اهل سوقنا و هما من الزيدية و هما يزعمان ان سيف رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم عند عبد الله بن الحسن فقال كذبا لعنهما الله و الله ما رأه عبد الله بن الحسن بعينيه و لا بواحدة من عينيه و لا رأه ابوه
Sa’id al Samman says, “I was sitting by Abu ‘Abdullah rahimahu Llah when two men of the Zaidiyyah entered and asked, ‘Is there any Imam whose obedience is mandatory among you?’
He answered in the negative.
They then said, ‘We have been informed by reliable men regarding you that you pass this verdict, acknowledge it, and propagate it and we will name these men for you viz. so and so men of piety and action and who do not lie.’
Abu ‘Abdullah became angry and announced, ‘I did not command them with this.’
When they saw his anger, they left. He rahimahu Llah asked me, ‘Do you know these two men?’
‘Yes,’ I replied, ‘They are from our market and they are from the Zaidiyyah and they believe that Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sword is by ‘Abdullah ibn al Hassan.’
He rahimahu Llah stated, ‘They have lied, may Allah curse them. By Allah, ‘Abdullah ibn al Hassan did not see it with even one of his two eyes, nor did his father see it.’”
The rest of the narration has that Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah then began announcing his Imamah and claimed that Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sword, armour, helmet, flag, Sayyidina Musa’s ‘alayh al Salam staff, and Sayyidina Sulaiman’s rahimahu Llah ring, etc. – these signs of Imamah – are with him.
According to this narration, Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah rejected him being an Imam and told the questioners that he did not command anyone to say this. What kind of Imam is this if he lies? Did Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ever reject his nubuwwah or did he ever praise the idols out of fear for the mushrikin?
This attitude of Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah does not in any way resemble that of his grandfather who in the early stages of Islam cared not for his life and proclaimed the truth in the streets and in the market places. Can there be any disparagement worse for a guide than saying he conceals the truth and reveals falsehood?
O beloved readers! It has been proven in Shia literature that the Imams would reject their Imamah. They would also command their disciples to do the same. Some narrations in this regard are mentioned hereunder:
عن سليمان بن خالد قال قال ابو عبد الله عليه السلام يا سليمان انكم على دين من كتمه اعزه الله و من اذاعه اذله الله
Sulaiman ibn Khalid narrates that Abu ‘Abdullah rahimahu Llah said, “O Sulaiman! You are following such a religion; the one who conceals it will be honoured by Allah while the one who propagates it will be disgraced by Allah.”
عن عبد الاعلى قال سمعت ابا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول ليس من احتمال امرنا التصديق له و القبول فقط انه من احتماب امرنا ستره و صيانته من غير اهله … فاذا عرفتم من عبد اذاعة فامشوا اليه و ردوه عنها فان قبل منكم و الا فتحملوه عليه بمن يثقل عليه و يسمع منه فان الرجل منكم يطلب الحاجة فيلطف فيها حتى تقضى له فالطفوا فى حاجتى كما تلطفون فى حوائجكم فان هو قبل منكم و الا فادفنوا كلامه تحت اقدامكم و لا تقولوا انه يقوله فان ذلك يحمل على و عليكم
‘Abdul A’la says that he heard from Abu ‘Abdullah, “The meaning of choosing our Imamah is not only acknowledging and accepting it. It also entails keeping it secret from the unworthy (enemy) and not narrating our narrations to them. When you learn of someone who spreads this matter, then go to him and prevent him. If he accepts, it is better. Otherwise, take someone to him whose words are weighty in his eyes and who he listens to attentively. Some of you have a need and exercise leniency until it is fulfilled. So exercise leniency in my need like how you exercise leniency in your needs. If he listens to you, then well and good. Otherwise, trample his speech under your feet, i.e. do not mention what he says. This will be the cause of ease for me and you.
عن عبد الله بن سليمان عن ابى عبد الله عليه السلام قال قال لى ما زال سرنا مكتوما حتى صار فى يد (ى) ولد كيسان فتحدثوا به فى الطريق و قرى السواد
‘Abdullah ibn Sulaiman relates from Abu ‘Abdullah rahimahu Llah who said to him, “Our matter remained secret until it landed up in the hands of the offspring of Kaysan who publicised it in the streets and the villages.” [Some people say that the offspring of Kaysan refers to the offspring of Mukhtar who publicised Shiasm.]
قال ابو عبد الله عليه السلام يا معلى اكتم امرنا و لا تذعه فانه من كتم امرنا و لم يذعه اعزه الله به فى الدنيا و جعله نورا بين عينيه فى الاخرة يقوده الى الجنة يا معلى من اذاع امرنا و لم يكتمه اذله الله به فى الدنيا و نزع النور من بين عينيه فى الدنيا و نزع النور من بين عينيه فى الاخرة و جعله ظلمة تقوده الى النار
Abu ‘Abdullah rahimahu Llah stated, “O Mu’alla! Keep our matter secret and do not disclose it. Whoever does this, Allah will honour him in this world and make it a light for him in the Hereafter which will lead him to Jannat. O Mu’alla! Whoever discloses our matter and does not keep it secret, Allah will disgrace him in this world and remove light from in front of him in this world and in the Hereafter turning it into darkness which will lead him to Jahannam.”
This clearly shows that the Imams strictly emphasised the concealing of the belief of Imamah and it remained secret. However, when the Kaysan people accepted it, they publicised it which was disturbing to the Imams.
The crucial question is: A belief which forms part of the Shia fundamentals of din; upon which rests salvation in the Hereafter, whose accepter is a believer and whose rejecter is an infidel and without which belief in tawhid, risalah, and Akhirah has no value; why is there the stern command to conceal it?
کوئی معشوق ہے اس پردۂ نگار میں
Is there a beloved behind the veil?
The answer is simple. A belief which is not found in the Qur’an and Sunnah, is unknown by the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum; regarding which the Ahlul Bayt are ignorant and which is rejected by those very Imams from whom there are tons of narrations; such an un-Islamic belief ought to be concealed. It is a different matter altogether that the din brought by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam can never be concealed. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala emphatically declares:
هُوَ الَّذِيْ أَرْسَلَ رَسُوْلَهُ بِالْهُدىٰ وَدِيْنِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّيْنِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُوْنَ
It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.
It is clear as daylight from this verse that a religion which should be concealed and the one who publicises it is disgraced by Allah, can never be the din of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
O readers! We have very briefly scrutinised the qualities of the Imam, his status and rank, his powers and capabilities from the most reliable Shia books and the statements of their most renowned scholars and also from non-Muslim scholars which sufficiently prove that the founders of Shiasm have invented a divine station above that of nubuwwah which will remain till Qiyamah and which supersedes the risalah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The natural consequence of this – although not acknowledged verbally – is a rejection of the belief of Khatm al Nubuwwah. The detriments and evils of this belief can be seen practically from Shia ahadith, tafsir books, their actions, methodologies, statements, poetry, literature, and daily religious festivals. In short, at every juncture. However, a neutral mind and open eye is needed.
 Surah al Baqarah: 35.
 Surah al Baqarah: 36.
 Urdu translation of Hayat al Qulub vol. 1 pg. 92.
 Surah Taha: 115.
 Urdu translation of Hayat al Qulub vol. 1 pg. 92.
 Urdu translation of Hayat al Qulub vol. 1 pg. 94, 95, 96.
و بسند معتبر دیگر از آنحضرت منقول ست کہ حق تعالی خلق کرد روحہا پیش از بدنہا بد و ہزار سال پس گرانید بلند تر و شریف تر از ہمہ روحہا روح محمد صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم و علی و فاطمہ و حسن و حسین و اماماں بعد ازیں شاں صلوت اللہ علیہم اجمعین را پس عرض نمودارواح ایشاں را بر آسمانہا و زمینہا و کوہہا پس نور ایشاں ہمہ را فر و گرفت پس حق تعالی فرمود بآسمانہا و زمین و کوہہا کہ ایہاں دوستان و اولیا و حجتہا من اند بر خلق من و پیشوایان خلائق من اند فرید م مخلوقے را کہ دوست تردارم از ایشاں از براۓ ایشاں و ہر کہ ایشان را دوست دارد آفریدہ ام بہشت خود را براۓ او و ہر کہ مخالفت و دشمنی کند بایشاں آفریدہ ام آتش جہنم را براۓ او پس ہر کہ دعوی کند منزلتے را کہ ایشاں نزد من دارند و محلے کہ ایشاں از عظمت من دارند عذاب کنم اورا عذابے کہ عذاب نکردہ باشم بآں احدے از عالمیاں را و اورا بآنہا کہ شرک بمن آوردہ اند پائیں ترین درکہای جہنم جاہم و ہر کہ اقرار بولایت و امامت ایشاں بکند و ادعانکند منزلت ایشاں را نزد من و مکان ایشاں را از عظمت من جادہم اورا بایشاں در باغہای بہشت خود و از براۓ ایشاں باشد در بہشت آنچہ خواہند نزد من و مباح گردانم از براۓ ایشاں کرامت خودرا و در جوار خود ایشاں را جادہم و شفیع گردانیم ایشاں را در گناگکاراں از بندگان و کنیزان من پس ولایت ایشاں امانتی ست نزد خلق من پس کدام یک از شما برمی دارد ایں امانت را سنکینہاۓ آں و دعوی می کند آں مرتبہ را کہ ازوست و از بر گزید ہاۓ خلق من ست پس ابا کرند آسمانہا و زمینہا و کوہہا از اینکہ ایں امانت را بردارند و ترسیدند از عظمت پروردگار خود کہ چنیں منزلتے را بنا حق دعوی کںد و چنین حل بزرگی برای خود آرزو کںد پس چوں حق تعالی آدم و حوا را در بہشت ساکن گردانید گفت بخورید ازیں بہشت بسیار و گو از ہر جا کہ خواہید و نزدیک ایں درخت مروید یعنی درخت گندم پس خواہید بود از ستم گاراں پس نظر کردند بسوۓ منزلت محمد صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم و علی و فاطمہ و حسن و حسین و امامن بعد از ایشاں پس منزرتہاۓ ایشاں را در بہشت بہترین منزلتہا یافتند پس گفتند پروردگارا ایں منزلت از براۓ کیست حق تعالی فرمود کہ بلند کنید سرہای خودرا بسوۓ ساق عرش من پس سربالا کردند و دید ندنام محمد صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم و علی و فاطمہ و حسن و حسین و اماماں بعد ازیں شاں صلوت الہ علیہم را کہ بر ساق عرش نوشتہ بود بنوری از نوار خداوند جبار پس گفتند پروردگار راچہ بسیار گرامی اند اہل ایں منزلت بر تو وچہ بسیار محبوبند نزد تو و چہ بسیار شریف و بزرگ اند در درگاہ تو پس خدا فرمود کہ آکر ایشاں نمی بودند من شماہارا خلق نمی کردم ایشاں خزینہ داران علم مںد و امنیاں مںد بر رازہای من زنہار کہ نظر مکنید بسوی ایشاں بدیدہ حسد و آرزو مکنید منزلت ایشاں رانزو من و محل ایشاں از کرامت من پس بایں سپ داخل خواہید شد در نہی و نافرمانی من پس از ستم گاران خواہید بود گفتند پروردگار را کیستند ستم گاراں و ظالماں فرمود کہ آنہا کہ ادعاۓ منزلت ایشاں می کںد بنا حق گفتند پروردگار را پس بنما منزلتہاۓ ظالماں ایشاں را در آتش جہنم تا بہ بینم منزلتہاۓ آنہا را چنانچہ منزلہاۓ آں بزرگواراں را در بہشت دیدیم پس حق تعالی امر کرد آتش را کہ ظاہر گردانید جمیع آنچہ در آں بود از انواع شد تہاد و عذابہاد فرمود کہ جای ظالماں ایشاں کہ ادعای منزلت بنمایند در پائیں درکات ایں جہنم ست ہر چند ارادہ کںد کہ بریوں آیند از جہنم بر گرداںد ایشاں را بسوۓ آں و ہر چہ پختہ و سوختہ شود پوستہای ایشاں بدل کںد ایشاں را پوستہای غیر آنہا کہ تابچشند عذاب را اے آدم و اے حوا نظر نکنید بسوی نور ہنا و حجتہای من بدیدہ حسد پس شمارا پائیں می فرستم از جوار خود و بر شما می فرستم خواری خود را پس وسوسہ کرد ایشاں را شیطان تا ظاہر گرداند براۓ ایشاں آنچہ پوشیدہ بود از ایشاں از عورتہای ایشاں و گفت نہی نکردہ اشت شمارا پروردگار شما از ایں درخت مگر براۓ اینکہ نخواست کہ شما در ملک باشید یا ہمیشہ در بہشت باشید و سو گند یاد کرد کہ من از خیر خواہا نشمایم پس ایشان را فریب داد و بریں داشت کہ آرموے منزلت آنہا بکنید پس نظر کردند بسوۓ ایشاں بدیددئہ حسد پس بایں سپ خدا ایشاں را بخود گزاشت و یاری و توفیق خود را از ایشاں برداشت (حیات القلوب جلد اول صفحہ 49و 50)
 Urdu translation of Hayat al Qulub vol. 1 pg. 97.
 Surah Taha: 115.
 Usul al Kafi pg. 218; Shafi vol. 2 pg. 314 Urdu translation of Usul al Kafi.
 Sharh Usul al Kafi pg. 449, 450.
 Urdu translation of Majalis al Mu’minin pg. 470.
 Al Hujjah pg. 314.
 Firaq al Shia pg. 47.
 Firaq al Shia pg. 84.
 Firaq al Shia pg. 85.
 Al Shafi translation of Usul al Kafi vol. 3 pg. 165 – 167.
 Sayyidina Zaid rahimahu Llah revolted against the Umayyad khalifah Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik with an army 40000 strong notwithstanding the prevention of Imam Muhammad al Baqir and Jafar al Sadiq. 30000 of the Shia abandoned him at the twelfth hour because he loved Sheikhayn radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.
 Al Shafi translation of Usul al Kafi vol. 2, Kitab al Hujjah pg. 18, 19.
 Al Shafi translation of Usul al Kafi vol. 3, Kitab al Hujjah pg. 31, 32.
 Al Shafi translation of Usul al Kafi vol. 2 pg. 30.
 Bihar al Anwar vol. 27 pg. 50.
 Bihar al Anwar vol. 26 pg. 82.
 Hayat al Qulub vol. 3 pg. 10.
 Al Hukumah al Islamiyyah pg. 52.
 H.A.R Gibbs and J.H.K Ramer short or encyclopaedia of Islam Leiden 195 pg. 248.
 Phillip K. Hitti, History of the Arabs London 1973 pg. 248.
 Bihar al Anwar vol. 27 pg. 335.
 Bihar al Anwar vol. 26 pg. 293.
 Bihar al Anwar vol. 26 pg. 319.
 Surah al Tawbah: 12.
 Surah Hud: 17.
 Surah al Qasas: 41.
 Surah al Sajdah: 24.
 Surah Bani Isra’il: 71.
 Surah Yunus: 47.
 Surah al Nisa’: 59.
 Surah al Nisa’: 80.
 Surah al Nisa’: 83.
 The Shia have unsuccessfully tried to establish the belief of Imamah with support from Tahrif al Qur’an and the internal meanings of the Qur’an which depicts their incompetence and hopelessness.
 Surah Al ‘Imran: 164.
 Kashf al Ghummah vol. 1 pg. 480.
 For more details see Usul al Kafi pg. 220, 221; al Shafi translation of Usul al Kafi, Kitab al Hujjah vol. 2 pg. 321.
 Al Shafi Urdu translation of Usul al Kafi, Kitab al Hujjah vol. 2 pg. 115.
 Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah (d. 15 Shawwal 148 A.H.) was very pious and righteous man of knowledge. He has an outstanding rank among the ‘Ulama’ of the Ahlul Bayt. They would live in Madinah Munawwarah. The formers of Shi’ism would fabricate narrations in their name and propagate it among the innocent folk who would fall into their trap of ‘love for the Ahlul Bayt’. They would tell them that the Imam’s command is that these beliefs should not be mentioned in front of the enemy. Very soon, they would be in authority and would then proclaim it. When the Imam would find out of their doings, he would curse them and dissociate from them but these sly wretched souls would say to their people that this is the Imam’s Taqiyyah and that their salvation lies in this. The reality is that those who honoured, loved, and believed the Ahlul Bayt as righteous ‘Ulama’ were always in majority and number in the millions. However, due to underground plots and schemes, those who believed this corrupt ideology have only been a handful in the first era. It appears in Usul al Kafi on page 497:
عن حمران ابن اعين قال قلت لابى جعفر عليه السلام جعلت فداك ما اقلنا لو اجتمعنا على شاة ما افنيناه
Humran ibn A’yun says that he asked Abu Jafar rahimahu Llah, “May I be sacrificed for you. We are so few in number that if we have to eat a sheep, we will not finish it.” (Shafi translation of Usul al Kafi vol. 4 pg. 177)
قال و الله يا سدير لو كان لى شيعة بعدد هذه الجداء ما وسعنى القعود و نزلنا و صلينا فلما فرغنا من الصلوة عطفت على الجداء فعددتها فاذا هى سبعة عشر
Imam Jafar Sadiq rahimahu Llah said, “O Sadir, by Allah had we had followers equal in number to these goats, sitting would not be permissible for me i.e. I would have rebelled.”
Sadir says: “We alighted and performed salah. I then counted the goats and they numbered seventeen.” (Ibid pg. 176)
 Shafi translation of Usul al Kafi vol. 4 pg. 147.
 Shafi translation of Usul al Kafi vol. 4 pg. 148.
 Ibid pg. 149.
 Ibid pg. 150.
 Surah al Tawbah: 33.