Eighth Testimony

Ninth Testimony – First view
April 22, 2016
Seventh Testimony
April 22, 2016

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Eighth Testimony

 

‘Ali ibn ‘Isa al Arbili[1] — a Shia imam — has recorded in his book Kashf al Ghummah fi Ma’rifat al A’immah:

 

انه سئل الامام ابو جعفر عليه السلام عن حلية السيف هل يجوز فقال نعم قد حلى ابو بكر الصديق سيفه بالفضة فقال الراوى تقول هكذا فوثب الامام عن مكانه فقال نعم الصديق نعم الصديق نعم الصديق فمن لم له الصديق فلا صدق الله قوله فى الدنيا و الاخرة

 

Imam Abu Jafar rahimahu Llah was asked whether beautifying the sword with jewellery was permissible to which he replied, “Yes. Abu Bakr al Siddiq beautified his sword with silver.” The narrator said, “You say this (i.e. al Siddiq)?” The Imam sprung from his place and said, “Yes. Al Siddiq. Yes. Al Siddiq. Yes. Al Siddiq. Whoever does not regard him as al Siddiq, may Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala not confirm his statement in this world and the hereafter.”

 

Few points deduced from this narration:

 

Point One

The Imam’s rahimahu Llah acknowledgement that Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is al Siddiq which follows that he is the most superior of the ummah since the principles laid down in the Qur’an is that the status of al Siddiq is next to the status of the Rusul and superior to the entire ummah as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has stated:

 

فَاُولٰٓئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِیْنَ اَنْعَمَ اللّٰهُ عَلَیْهِمْ مِّنَ النَّبِیّنَ وَالصِّدِّیْقِیْنَ وَالشُّهَدَآءِ وَالصّٰلِحِیْنَۚ وَحَسُنَ اُولٰٓئِكَ رَفِیْقًا

Those will be with the ones upon whom Allah has bestowed favour of the prophets, the steadfast affirmers of truth, the martyrs and the righteous. And excellent are those as companions.[2]

 

Point Two

The questioner asked regarding one aspect. It was sufficient to answer by saying “Yes” or “No”. However, the Imam rahimahu Llah did not stop there but mentioned Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu action as substantiation. This proves that the Sahabah’s radiya Llahu ‘anhum actions are the basis of dini actions. This is the share of the Ahlus Sunnah which the Shia are deprived of. They do not use any Sahabi’s action or statement as substantiation for any of their rulings. Therefore, the Ahlus Sunnah are the true followers of the Imams, not the Shia.

 

Point Three

When the Imam rahimahu Llah answered and mentioned Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu name, it was not necessary to say al Siddiq. He could have just mentioned his name, period. However, the Imam had so much of love for him that his heart could not tolerate taking his name without mentioning al Siddiq. This is a clear proof of the A’immah’s love for the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Disgrace upon the Shia’s understanding who regard the Imams as enemies of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

 

Point Four

This narration suggests that the Imam was angered at the amazement of the questioner and was so enraged when he asked, “You also call him al Siddiq.” that he jumped up from his place and repeated thrice. “Yes. Al Siddiq. Yes. Al Siddiq. Yes. Al Siddiq.” He did not stop here but stated further, “Whoever does not regard him as al Siddiq, may Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala not confirm his statement in this world and the hereafter.” It devolves upon the Shia to look at this narration with a clear unbiased look and then regard themselves as liars according to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala on the strength of the Imam’s testimony because they have not accepted Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as al Siddiq.

 

Point Five

This narration also shows that the questioner was a Shia and an enemy of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, hence he was amazed at the Imam referring to Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as al Siddiq. Had he been a Sunni, he would not have been amazed. So when the questioner was a Shia, there was no reason to practice Taqiyyah. Yes, had the questioner been a Sunni, nasibi or khariji, there would be scope for Taqiyyah.

 

I will now mention the Shia’s statements regarding this narration followed by their rebuttal

Qadi Nur Allah Shostari has rejected this narration in Ihqaq al Haqq and spoke a whole lot of drivel. He claims that there is no sign of this narration in Kashf al Ghummah. In fact, it contradicts logic to be recorded therein since it supposed to have narrations about Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the twelve Imams, not about Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. So why will the author record this narration? The words of Qadi’s text are:

 

و كذا الحال فى ما نقله عن راس التعصب و الحيف من حديث حلية السيف ليس ذلك فى الكتاب عنه خبر و لا عين و لا اثر و ايضا لا مناسبة لذكر ذلك فى هذا الكتاب المقصود على ذكر النبى صلى الله عليه و اله و سلم و الائمة الاثنا عشر و ذكر اسماءهم و كناهم و اسماء اباءهم و امهاتهم و مواليدهم و وفياتهم و معجزاتهم كما لا يخفى على من طالع هذا الكتاب

 

This is the condition of the narration narrated out of prejudice and oppression, i.e. the narration of jewellery on a sword. There is no trace at all of this narration in this book. Furthermore, there is no connection of mentioning such a narration in this book whose object is to mention Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the twelve Imams; their names, titles, father’s names, mother’s names, places of birth and death and their miracles as it is evident for those who studied this book.

 

Which Shia who sees this statement will not have conviction that this narration is not present and the Sunni are lying? However, all praise belongs to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala that the book Kashf al Ghummah is found in the thousands in India. Whoever is in doubt should take a book and have a look whether it is present or not and test Qadi’s truthfulness. If someone thinks that some Sunni has added this text later on and is not satisfied by its presence in Kashf al Ghummah, I will present mujtahid’s book to appease him since he has acknowledged the presence of this narration in this book with the grace of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. He interpreted it by saying that the author has narrated it from Ibn al Jowzi who was a Sunni scholar. Nevertheless, I will discuss this further. For now, I wish to prove the dishonesty of Qadi Nur Allah Shostari who rejected the presence of this narration. I will quote the text of Mujtahid’s[3] book Ta’n al Rimah where he acknowledges the presence of this narration.

 

قال المجتہد القمقام فی طعن الرماح روایت الصدیق راسناد بکتب شیعیان نمودہ از کتاب کشف الغمۃ نقل کردہ چوں اتفاق مراجعت بآن کتاب شد مصنف آں کہ مولانا الوزیر علی بن عیسی اردبیلی ست ابن جوزی کہ از مشاہیر علماۓ اہل سنت ست روایت مذکورہ را نقل کردہ

 

Mujtahid al Qamqam has written in Ta’n al Rimah that the isnad of this narration is from Shia books and he narrated it from Kashf al Ghummah. After studying this book, it was learnt that this book’s author is Molana Wazir ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa Arbili and that he took the narration from Ibn al Jowzi — a Sunni scholar.

 

Qadi Nur Allah Shostari’s deceit has been established clearer than daylight from this text and his fabrication is evident from the very book who Mujtahid remembers as his leader and superior in his books. The Shia scholars’ practice is startling. When any narration is presented from their books, they openly reject it and label the narrator a liar and fabricator and when its authenticity and isnad is presented, they make lengthy nonsensical interpretations. Qadi Nur Allah Shostari found this narration to be in conflict to his religion, so he rejected it. However, when this narration was established from that book, Mujtahid was forced to acknowledge it but made a nonsensical interpretation trying to falsify it. I will now debunk this nonsensical interpretation.

The gist of Mujtahid’s interpretation is that although this narration is found in Kashf al Ghummah, the author narrated it from ‘Allamah Ibn al Jowzi who is one of the renowned scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah. Hence, this narration is a Sunni narration; not a Shia one. The answer to this is probably Mujtahid did not study Kashf al Ghummah from cover to cover, otherwise he would not have claimed this. Whatever the author has written is accepted by both sects and all the Shia scholars have agreed to it. Accordingly, ‘Allamah Mu’izz al Din Sadarr writes in Imamat:

 

کتاب کشف الغمہ از تصنیفات وزیر سعید اردبیلی ست و آنچہ در کتاب مستطاب مذکور ست مقبول طبائع موافق و مخالف ست

Kashf al Ghummah is the work of Wazir Sa’id Arbili. Whatever is written therein is accepted by people of both sects.

 

Even though the author narrated this narration from Ibn al Jowzi, but since he has made it his principle to only narrate that which is accepted by both sects, hence this narration is the same. And when it is accepted by both sects, it can be used against the Shia who have to give an answer to it.

The author of Istiqsa’ al Afham[4] — about whose book all Shia are very proud — has used his beautiful nature and answered with his deep understanding. This is his original text:

 

اول آنکہ ازیں کلام زر دستانی نہایت آنچہ مستفاد بیشود ایں ست کہ آنچہ در کشف الغمہ مذکور ست آنرا اہل حق ہم قبول میسازند و برو انکار آں نمی پردازند و ایں امر آخر ست و بودن روایات کشف الغمہ از اجماعیات و اتفاقیات اہل حق و اہل خلاف کہ مخاطب مدعی آنست امر آخر زیراکہ مفہوم ثانی آنست کہ اہل حق در روایت ایں روایات شریک اند و از قبول کردن آں روایات ایں معنی مستفاد نمیشود چہ قبول روایت بایں وجہ ہم متصور ست کہ اہل خلاف روایت آں کردہ باشند و اہل حق قبول آں نمودہ باشند و قبول گاہی بایں معنی ست کہ ایں روایت را صحیح میدانیم و آنچہ دراں مذکور ست آنرا حجت میگیریم و گاہے بایں معنی کہ چوں بآں بر بعض مطالب خود احتجاج میکنیم پس برای ایں امر قبولش کردہ یم نہ بایں معنی کہ خصم بآں بر ما احتجاج نماید دوم آنکہ کلام زر دستانی محمول بر اصول و مقاصد آں کتاب ست یعنی آنچہ دراں کتاب براۓ احتجاج و استدلال از اہل خلاف نقل فرمودہ و مقصود بالذات ست مقبول اہل حق ہم ست نہ اینکہ آنچہ مقصود بالذات نیست محض استطرادا و تبعا نقل شدہ آنہم مقبول ست و لیاقت حجیت نزد اہل حق وارد حاشا و کلا

 

The first thing proven from Zardastani’s words is that Kashf al Ghummah is accepted and agreed upon by both sects and no one rejects it. The Sunni understand from this that the Shia accepted those narrations. However, the truth is that those narrations presented by the Sunni are not simply accepted by the Shia. The reason for this is that acceptance and agreeing means that one accepts the narration as authentic and its contents as proof while it also means to accept a narration’s authenticity and use it against others. This does not mean that the opposition can use it as proof against us. Considering the second meaning, we do not accept all the narrations of Kashf al Ghummah. Secondly, considering the principles and objectives of Kashf al Ghummah, the meaning of Zardastani’s words is that whatever is an objective per se and is proof against the Sunni, we the Shia accept it. This does not mean that that which is not an objective and is written secondary is also accepted by the Shia. Never! The Shia do not accept that which is not an object.

 

The purport of this text is unknown. It does not solve the problem which is at hand. Our stance is that the Shia scholars have agreed upon whatever narration appears in Kashf al Ghummah — whether the author took it from his sources or from the Sunni. So the outcome will be that the narration under discussion is also accepted by the Shia scholars whether the author extracted it from one of his scholar’s books or Ibn al Jowzi’s book. This means that Mujtahid’s interpretation is false. So what is the purport and meaning of the text of the author of Istiqsa’? The truth is that the poor fellow was so caught up, he could not say anything or respond in any way. He was startled at the disagreement and confusion of his mujtahids and scholars and tried his utmost best to make sense of what they saying. And because you cannot present falsehood as the truth except by making ridiculous and deceptive statements, he gratified himself by speaking drivel. It is even shocking for a child to speak such rubbish. He acknowledges that whatever is in Kashf al Ghummah is accepted by both sects and interprets those narrations which are detrimental to his creed by saying that the Shia only accept those narrations which they use against the Sunni, not those narrations which the Sunni use against them or they accept those narrations which are objectives per se, not the others. He does not think, which adversary will listen to and accept such drivel? We thus debunk his text on strong grounds.

 

1. The author of Istiqsa’ has acknowledged:

 

کہ آنچہ در کشف الغمہ مذکور ست آنرا اہل حق ہم قبول میسازند و برو انکار آں نمی پردازند

Whatever is in Kashf al Ghummah is accepted and agreed upon by both sects and no one rejects it.

 

So on this premise, we say:

 

روایت نعم الصدیق در کشف الغمہ مذکور ست و آنچہ در کشف الغمہ مذکور ست آنرا اہل حق ہم قبول میسازند و برو انکار آں نمی پردازند و قاضی نور اللہ شوستری آنرا قبول نمی سازند و جناب مجتہد صاحب قبلہ بر دو انکار آں می پردازند پس ہر در قاضی و مجتہد از اہل حق ہستند و مر کہ از اہل حق باشند آنر الازم ست کہ ایں روایت قبول ساز دو بر دو انکار آں نپر دازد

The narration “Yes. Al Siddiq” is found in Kashf al Ghummah — which is accepted by the Shia and no one rejects. Nonetheless, Qadi Nur Allah Shostari does not accept it and Mujtahid rejects it. And both Qadi and Mujtahid are Shia. Hence, it is binding upon them to accept this narration and not reject it.

 

2. The author of Istiqsa’ has fabricated two meanings of acceptance:

 

قبول گاہی بایں معنی ست کہ ایں روایت را صحیح میدانیم و آنچہ دراں مذکور ست آنرا حجت میگیریم و گاہے بایں معنی کہ چوں بآں بر بعض مطالب خود احتجاج میکنیم پس برای ایں امر قبولش کردہ یم نہ بایں معنی کہ خصم بآں بر ما احتجاج نماید

The reason for this is that acceptance means that one accepts the narration as authentic and its contents as proof while it also means to accept a narration’s authenticity and use it against others. This does not mean that the opposition can use it as proof against us.

 

The following couplet aptly applies to his conjured meanings:

 

الشعر فى بطن الشاعر

The poetry is in the poet’s stomach.

 

I have mentioned earlier that the Shia Mu’izz al Din has stated:

 

و آنچہ در کتاب مستطاب مذکور ست مقبول طبائع موافق و مخالف ست

Whatever is written therein is accepted by people of both sects.

 

So when it is accepted by both sects, then to say that we only accepted it so we can use it as proof not so that it is used against us is stupidity. The example of this is like a man who accepts the correctness of a document and agrees that he accepts whatever is written therein — whether by him or someone else. Then when the opposition uses a text therein against him, he complains, “I only accepted it so that I can use it as proof, not so that it can be used as proof against me.” What will a just person decide and what verdict will he pass? Since seeing that the author is just and his father is a Mufti, he should for himself pass a verdict for Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sake.

3. If it is accepted that acceptance of a narration is to use it as a proof, not so that others may use it as a proof, then all arguments will end and no sect will be able to bring any narration against the other and everyone will say what the author of Istiqsa’ has said:

 

چوں بآں بر بعض مطالب خود احتجاج میکنیم پس برای ایں امر قبولش کردہ یم نہ بایں معنی کہ خصم بآں بر ما احتجاج نماید

Because we use the narration as proof for us, we accept it. We do not accept it because the enemy can use it as proof against us.

 

4. An accepted principle is when the authenticity of a narration of any sect is accepted, it is binding upon the one who accepts its authenticity to respond to it just as it is binding upon the one who narrated it. Let us leave worldly matters aside and deal with religious matters. Many aspects of the Torah and Injil are found in our books and we accept them. Now when we have accepted the authenticity of those narrations, we are responsible to respond to them just as the Jews and Christians are responsible. If anyone objects to any narration which we have accepted, can we answer as the author of Istiqsa’ has answered i.e. because we use the narration as proof for us, we accept it. We do not accept it because the enemy can use it as proof against us? We cannot answer like that and if we do, no one will accept it.

5. If we narrate any text of the opposition sect and have a motive behind accepting it but do not accept a portion of it, then it is compulsory for us to take only that amount of the text which is beneficial to us and leave the rest or clearly state that we accept this portion of the narration and reject the rest. However, if we do not do this and accept the narration without questions, then later on we cannot reject it. Similarly, if the author accepts the book Kashf al Ghummah for some reason, it was binding upon him to mention his objective or to write the narration and point out the unaccepted portion. When he has not done this, then the interpretation of this author after few years will not benefit him.

 

6. The author of Istiqsa’ stated:

 

کلام زر دستانی محمول بر اصول و مقاصد آں کتاب ست نہ اینکہ آنچہ مقصود بالذات نیست آنہم مقبول ست

The meaning of Zardastani’s words is that whatever is an objective per se is accepted by the Shia. This does not mean that that which is not an objective is also accepted.

 

This is only a claim. It has no proof or verification. It is not worth hearing such an unverified claim. Had the author said that whatever is an objective per se in this book is accepted as well as that which is not objective per se, we would have understood. When he has not made this condition and left his statement unqualified, we will understand the fard kamil (perfect character) i.e. whatever is in the book whether objective per se or not is accepted.

O Shia! I ask you by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala to look without prejudice at how your scholars have drowned in this discussion. They have no proof whatsoever and are just kicking up dust but cannot get to the point. Some of them reject its presence. Some accept it but say it’s from Sunni sources. Some openly reject it. Some make their own definitions of acceptance. But none of them make any sense and get to any point.

 

مثل الغريق ينشبث بكل حشيش

Like a drowning man will clutch at a straw.

 

The Second Opinion

Qadi Nur Allah Shostari writes in Ihqaq al Haqq:

 

اقول ذكر الصديق لاجل التخصيص و التمييز للمخاطب من غير تصديق بمضمونه

I say that mentioning al Siddiq was to single out and identify the addressee without attesting to his object.

 

This response is fallacious. If the Imam rahimahu Llah had kept quiet after mentioning the title of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu al Siddiq, the Shia would have had scope to make this interpretation. However, identifying the addressee without attesting to his object is falsified by the next sentence because when the questioner asked astonishingly, “Do you also call him al Siddiq?” the Imam jumped up from his place and said, “Yes. Al Siddiq. Yes. Al Siddiq. Yes. Al Siddiq.” He did not stop there but declared, “Whoever does not regard him as al Siddiq, may Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala not confirm his statement in this world and the hereafter.” It is only appropriate for the Shia to say that the Imam said this only to address the addressee and he did not attest to his object.

 

The Third Opinion

The Shia realised that this interpretation does not work because of the sentence, “Whoever does not regard him as al Siddiq, May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala not confirm his statement in this world and the hereafter.” They made a third interpretation that what the Imam mentioned concerning Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was done mockingly as it appears in Ihqaq al Haq:

 

و الاستهزاء كما فى قوله ذُقْ اِنَّكَ اَنْتَ الْعَزِیْزُ الْکَرِیْمُ

This is out of jest as is in His subhanahu wa ta ‘ala statement, “Taste! Indeed, you are the honoured, the noble!”

 

However, this interpretation is false since there has to be some reason to turn away from the original meaning of a word. It is not proper to turn away from the original meaning without a reason or due to context. The context is found in the verse. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is speaking about the tree of Zaqqum and the punishment of Jahannam. And the addressees are inmates of Jahannam. Since these people were remembered with honourable titles in this world, that is why Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala addresses them:

 

اِنَّ شَجَرَتَ الزَّقُّوْمِ ﴿4ۛ3ۙ﴾ طَعَامُ الْاَثِیْمِ ﴿44ۚۖ﴾ کَالْمُهْلِۚ ۛ یَغْلِیْ فِی الْبُطُوْنِ ﴿45ۙ﴾ کَغَلْیِ الْحَمِیْمِ ﴿46﴾ خُذُوْهُ فَاعْتِلُوْهُ اِلٰی سَوَآءِ الْجَحِیْمِ ﴿4ۗۖ7﴾ ثُمَّ صُبُّوْا فَوْقَ رَاْسِهٖ مِنْ عَذَابِ الْحَمِیْمِ ﴿48ؕ﴾ ذُقْۚ ۙ اِنَّكَ اَنْتَ الْعَزِیْزُ الْکَرِیْمُ

Indeed, the tree of Zaqqum is food for the sinful. Like murky oil, it boils within bellies like the boiling of scalding water. (It will be commanded), “Seize him and drag him into the midst of the Hellfire. Then pour over his head from the torment of scalding water.” (It will be said), “Taste! Indeed, you are the honoured, the noble!”[5]

 

There is no such context in the narration which suggests that the Imam said it in jest. Firstly, the questioner was a Shia, so what was the need to tell him mockingly? Secondly, a question was not asked regarding Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu at first but rather regarding an aspect of fiqh, i.e. whether decorating the sword with jewellery is permissible. The Imam said it is permissible and provided the action of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as proof. When the questioner was amazed at his response, the Imam repeated, “Yes. Al Siddiq.” to remove his amazement. This cannot be out of jest. Moreover, what the Imam declared thereafter cannot be regarded as jest at all. If such clear and pure words can be regarded as jesting without any reason, then every heretic will say the same thing regarding every verse and hadith.

 

The Fourth Opinion

When the Shia realised that this interpretation is not working, they took shelter in their useless fort which protects them from every Sunni attack and used their hopeless shield which safeguards them from the blows of the Nasibis, i.e. Taqiyyah. It appears in Ihqaq al Haqq:

 

او للتقية عن السائل

Or out of Taqiyyah.

 

Mujtahid has stated the same at the end in Ta’n al Rimah:

 

ولو نزلنا عن ذلک پس محمول بر تقیہ خواہد بود

If we accept it, then it is out of Taqiyyah.

 

However, there is no scope for this interpretation since it is apparent from the text that the questioner was amongst the Shia and lovers, otherwise he would not have been surprised when the Imam called Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, al Siddiq. The Imam’s answering the person in rage shows clearly that the questioner was not a Sunni from whom he should make Taqiyyah. Had the questioner been a Sunni, then too it is against the status of Imamah to practice Taqiyyah and praise the oppressive khulafa’ out of fear for a Sunni. Imam al Baqir rahimahu Llah and Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah were forbidden from practicing Taqiyyah and they were commanded to spread the knowledge which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sent to them in the scripture without having any fear. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala guaranteed them:

 

فانك فى حرز و امان

Indeed you are under protection and in safety.

 

So for the Imam to fear a Sunni and call a usurper and a disbeliever al Siddiq notwithstanding the guarantee of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is startling.

Besides this, the actions and lifestyle of the Imam should be studied. Was he always afraid of the Sunni and would he praise the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum out of fear for the Nasibis or would he assume the honour of Imamah and reveal his grandeur of truthfulness? If it is established that Imam rahimahu Llah did not expose his beliefs in front of any Sunni and practiced Taqiyyah in front of them all, then we will accept Taqiyyah as a justification for this narration. On the other hand, if it is learnt that the Imam spoke the truth in front of great Sunnis and revealed what was in his heart without fear, then why should we accept the Taqiyyah excuse in this narration? I will prove this point from Shia books. Mulla Baqir Majlisi writes in Haqq al Yaqin:

 

در زمان حضرت امام محمد باقر و امام جعفر صادق علیہما السلام کہ اواخر زمان بنی امیہ و اوائل دولت بنی عباس بود ازاں دو بزرگوارآں قدر از مسائل حلال و حرام و علم تفسیر و کلام و قصص انبیاء و سیر و تواریخ ملوک عرب و عجم و غیر آنہا از غرائب علوم منتشر گردید کہ عالم رافرا گرفت و محدثان شیعہ در اطراف عالم منتشر گردید و پیوستہ در مناظرات و مباحثات علماء بر جمیع فرق غالب بودند و چہار ہزار کس از علماء مشہور از حضرت صادق روایت کردہ اند و چہار صد اصل درمیان شیعہ بہمر سید کہ اصحاب باقر و صادق و کاظم علیہم السلام روایت کردہ بودند الی قولہ و بطریق معتبرہ منقولست کہ قتادہ بصری کہ از مفسرین مشہورہ عامہ ست بخدمت حضرت امام محمد باقر علیہ السلام آمد حضرت فرمود توئی فقیہ اہل بصرہ گفت بلے حضرت فرمود و ای برتوی قتادہ حق تعالی خلق آفریدہ است کہ ایشاں راحجتہای خود گردانیدہ ست بر خلق خود پس ایشاں میخہای زمیں اند و خازنان علم الہی اند پس قتادہ مدتے ساکن شد کہ یا رای سخن گفتن نداشت پس گفت بخدا سوگند کہ در پیش فقہای و خلفاء و پادشاہاں و ابن عباس رضی اللہ عنہ نشستہ ام و دل من نزد ایشاں مضطرب نشد چنانچہ نزد تو مضطرب شدہ است حضرت فرمود می دانی کہ کجائی در پیش خانہ نشستہ کہ حق تعالی در شان ایشاں فرمودہ است کہ فی بیوت اذن اللہ ان ترفع و یذکر فیہا اسمہ قتادہ گفت راست گفتی

 

Imam Muhammad al Baqir and Imam Jafar al Sadiq lived towards the end of the reign of the Banu Umayyah and the beginning of the Banu ‘Abbas. Both of these luminaries spread the knowledge of halal and haram, tafsir, ‘aqa’id, stories of the Rusul, sirah, history of the Arab and non-Arab kings, and other rare knowledge and filled the world with its fragrance. Shia muhaddithin spread in the entire world and dominated the scholars of other sects in debates and discussions. Four thousand renowned ‘ulama’ narrated from Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah and four hundred Shia narrated from Imam al Baqir, Imam al Sadiq and Imam al Kazim rahimahu Llah. It is narrated from a reliable source that the famous commentator Qatadah Basri came to Imam Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah who asked him, “Are you the only faqih of Basrah?” He replied in the affirmative. The Imam then said, “Shame O Qatadah! Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala created the creation and made the Imams His proof. Thus, these Imams are the pegs of the earth and the trustees of divine knowledge.” Qatadah remained silent for a little while and did not have the ability to speak. He then declared, “By Allah! I have sat by the jurists, ‘ulama’, khulafa’ and by Ibn ‘Abbas but my heart was never as restless as it is when I sit by you.” The Imam responded, “Do you know where you are? You are sitting in front of the house concerning which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala stated, “In Masjids which Allah has ordered to be raised and that His name be mentioned therein.” Hearing this, Qatadah exclaimed, “You are speaking the truth.”[6]

 

So when the Imam rahimahu Llah does not practice Taqiyyah in front of great commentators, renowned jurists and popular scholars, speaks the truth and does not waste time in using words of reproach and when his students debate the Sunni in front of large crowds and defeat them and thousands of scholars and jurists gain knowledge from him; then why should we believe that he feared one Sunni due to which he praised the oppressive khulafa’ in such glowing terms whereas great scholars trembled when they came to his gathering and their hearts shuddered when they saw his face. Was the questioner greater than Qatadah Basri or did he come with a huge force to ask the question that he does not fear Qatadah and rebukes him but fears the questioner and repeats calling Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu al Siddiq? According to us, even if a king or affluent person had to come, the Imam would not waiver in speaking the truth and would speak nothing but what is in his heart. This is not only my opinion, it is verified in Shia books. Mulla Baqir Majlisi writes in Haqq al Yaqin:

 

در روایت دیگر معتبر وارد شدہ است کہ درسالیکہ ہشام بن عبد الملک بحج رفتہ بود در مسجد الحرام دید کہ مردم نزد حضرت امام محمد باقر ہجوم آوردہ اند و از امور دین خود سوال کںد عکرمہ شاگرد ابن عباس از ہشام پر سید کہ کیست اینکہ نور علم از جبین اورا ساطع ست میروم کہ او را حجل کنم چوں نزدیک حضرت آمد و ایستاد لرزہ بر اندام اورافتاد و مضطرب شد و گفت یا بن رسول اللہ من در مجالس بسیار نزد ابن عباس و دیگر آں نشستہ ام ایں حالت مرا عارض نشدہ حضرت ہماں جواب را فرمود پس معلوم شد کہ از معجزات امام و شواہد امامت آں ست کہ حق تعالی محبت ایشاں را در دل دوستاں و مہابت ایشاں را درد لہای دشمناں می افگند

 

It appears in a reliable narration that the year Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik went for hajj, he saw a crowd around Imam Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah in Masjid haram who were asking him regarding religious aspects. ‘Ikrimah — a student of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma — asked Hisham, “Who is this person on whose forehead is the brilliance of knowledge. Let me go and shame him.” However, as ‘Ikrimah approached the Imam rahimahu Llah, he began trembling and was restless. He submitted, “O son of Rasul! I have sat in great gatherings by Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu, etc., but this was never my condition.” Imam rahimahu Llah told him the same thing (he told Qatadah). From this we learn that from among the miracles of the Imam and the proofs of Imamah is that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala creates love in the hearts of their lovers and puts awe in the hearts of their enemies.

 

So when the Imam’s awe strikes on the enemy in the presence of a tyrant like Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik which causes him to tremble, it is startling for the Imam to have fear for an insignificant figure.

I ponder deeply and reflect, but I cannot understand the statements of these Shia. The reality of Imamah was not understood by the angels and the prophets, so how will I ever understand it. But its clear signs are uncomprehendable to me. The Shia sometimes make the Imams so brave and awe inspiring that kings and tyrants do not have the audacity to speak in front of them and scholars and jurists do not have the courage to say a word. They reprimand everyone while all listen silently. No word but the truth is spoken in front of the Imams. And sometimes the Shia make them so scared and cowardly (May Allah forbid!) that they fear a puny fellow and if any Sunni comes to their gathering, they remain silent and are struck with so much of awe that they do not speak a word contrary to the beliefs of that Sunni. The reality is that these are allegations of the Shia against the Imams. They are the descendants of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his heart and liver. Their every veins pumps with their forefather’s habits and character. Their grandfather’s speech glows from their every word. Just as their external beauty is a reflection of Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam beauty, similarly their internal characteristics are the reflection of his. Their hearts and tongues are like that of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Hypocrisy, deceit, lying and Taqiyyah are defects in their lofty traits. Why would Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala not protect those who are lanterns of brilliance from such darkness? Why will He not keep those pure Imams who are embodiments of purity away from such filth?

O Shia! Those regarding whom the verse of Tathir was revealed, upon whose purity cleanliness took an oath, truthfulness is proud about their honesty, whose external and internal features are like Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, whose cradle swing is Jibril ‘alayh al Salam, to meet whom the angels of the lofty Thrown come, on whose statements and actions lies the edifice of din; do you cast allegations on such pure Imams and slander them with fear, lying and deceit? Is this the meaning of love which you possess? If this is the splendour of Imamah, then forget the Muslims, every person will hate it and will seek protection from it. If you have doubt that your scholars and muhaddithin have written such things and a group of jurists had narrated them, then this doubt can be removed with slight contemplation. Contemplate over the life of those who narrate these things and who are the basis of your creed’s ahadith. All of them were liars. The Imams would curse them. I will prove this at its place from your sources further on, Allah willing. Then you will realise that the A’immah’s external and internal was the same and they would speak what was in their hearts. If you think what I am saying is false, then study the statements of your own scholars who have written the very same thing regarding the Imams and have established this on the strength of the A’immah’s ahadith. Accordingly, the Shia muhaddithin write regarding Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah that he announced:

 

لا تذكروا سرنا بخلاف علانيتنا و لا علانيتها بخلاف سرنا حسبكم ان تقولوا ما نقول و تصمتوا عما نصمت الخ

(Our external and internal are the same.) Do not consider our external contrary to our internal and vice versa. It is sufficient that you say what we say and keep silent where we have kept silent.

 

O Shia! If you really practice upon the Imam’s command and follow in his footsteps then listen to what he says and practice accordingly. He called Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, al Siddiq; so you even listen quietly and call him the same. And remain silent on that which the Imam remained silent.

 

The Fifth Opinion

Some Shia argue that how can the Imam rahimahu Llah call Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, al Siddiq; whereas this title is exclusive for Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu declared:

 

انا الصديق الاكبر لا يقول بعدى الا كذاب

I am the greatest Siddiq. No one will say this after me except a great liar.

 

However, this is not beneficial for them due to some reasons.

 
 

First Proof

The answer if apparent from Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu statement, “No one will say this after me except a great liar.” This shows that a Siddiq passed before Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu which is none other than Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu al Siddiq.

 
Back to top  

Second Proof

If the Shia say that there was no Siddiq before Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, I will answer this from their books. It appears in hadith books such as ‘Uyun Akhbar al Rida, etc.:

 

ابو ذر صديق هذه الامة

Abu Dhar is the Siddiq of this ummah.

 

When the word Siddiq is used for Sayyidina Abu Dhar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, it cannot be exclusive to Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

 
Back to top  

Third Proof

Let us confirm whether Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was known as al Siddiq before Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu amongst the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Would people refer to him as al Siddiq in front of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, in fact in front of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or not? This is proven in Shia books. One Shia scholar relates from Fudayl in Manhaj al Maqal:

 

قال سمعت ابا داود يقول حدثنى بريدة الاسلمى قال سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول ان الجنة مشتاق الى ثلاثة فجاء ابو بكر فقيل له يا ابا بكر انت الصديق و انت ثانى اثنين اذ هما فى الغار فلو سالت رسول الله من هؤلاء الثلاث

I heard Abu Dawood saying, “Buraydah al Aslami narrated to me that he heard Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying, ‘Certainly, Jannat desires three persons.’ Abu Bakr came and it was told to him, ‘O Abu Bakr! You are al Siddiq and you are the second of the two when they were in the cave. Could you please ask Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who these three men are?’”

 

This narration is sufficient proof that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum would regard Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as al Siddiq in the time of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and would address him by it. Al Siddiq and second of the two (in the cave) had become his titles.

If any Shia is not satisfied with these narrations and requires another statement of the Imam to substantiate the narration and asks whether any Imam called Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, al Siddiq in another narration, I can present proof for that also. As long as the Shia are not fully satisfied, I will not abandon quoting narrations from their sources for their gratification and solace. There is another narration of Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah in the same book, Kashf al Ghummah, where the Imam mentioned al Siddiq with Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu name. The narration goes as follows:

 

ولدنى ابو بكر الصديق مرتين

Abu Bakr al Siddiq gave birth to me twice.

 

The irony of it is that although Qadi Nur Allah Shostari rejected the presence of the first narration in Kashf al Ghummah, he kept silent with regards to the presence of this one. Until when is he going to lie and until when is he going to throw sand at the sun? He got tired of rejecting and just kept quiet.

If there is still some reservations, then the Shia should have a look at Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu statements and hear the title al Siddiq for Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu from his tongue. ‘Allamah al Tabarsi — a reliable Shia scholar — writes in Ihtijaj that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu reports:

 

كنا معه اى مع النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم على جبل حراء اذ تحرك الجبل فقال له قر فانه ليس عليك الا نبى و صديق و شهيد

We were with Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam on mount hira’ when it began to shake. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam commanded it, “Remain still for there is only a Nabi, a Siddiq and a martyr on you.”

 

It becomes manifest after studying Shia books that Sayyidina Abu Bakr and Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma were with Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam at that time. Thus, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said Nabi for himself, Siddiq for Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and martyr for Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. If a hard bent Shia says that although the Imam’s statement uses Siddiq for Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu but there is a possibility of jest, Taqiyyah, etc., hence they are not fully satisfied. If this address is proven from Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala book, then no doubt will remain. We do not wish to break the heart of such a hell bent Shia as well and will verify it from the Qur’an with the acknowledgement of Shia commentators. It should be noted that it is recorded in Majma’ al Bayan of al Tabarsi[7] — considered an extremely reliable tafsir by the Shia:

 

قال الله تبارك و تعالى وَالَّذِیْ جَآءَ بِالصِّدْقِ وَ صَدَّقَ بِهٖٓ اُولٰٓئِكَ هُمُ الْمُتَّقُوْنَ

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declares: “And the one who has brought the truth and (he who) believed in it — those are the righteous.”[8]

 

قيل الذى جاء بالصدق رسول الله و صدق ابو بكر عن ابى العالية و الكلبى

It is said that the one who has brought the truth is Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Abu Bakr believed in it, narrated from Abu al ‘Aliyah and al Kalbi.

 

The one who believed with the most sincere heart in Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is titled al Siddiq. Thus, with the grace of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu being al Siddiq is proven from the Qur’an. And all praise belongs to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala for this.

Now if the Shia do not believe and acknowledge Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as al Siddiq notwithstanding Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala book, Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam declaration and the Imam’s statements and turn away from these, I have no option but to declare what the Imam declared regarding them. Firstly, I would humble appeal to the Shia to accept Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as al Siddiq, Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam friend, the second of the two in the cave and remember him with the title the Imams remembered him. If they still do not listen and are adamant, I will sound the warning of the Imam and caution them of humiliation in this world and the hereafter. The Imam said a thousand years ago:

 

فمن لم له الصديق فلا صدق الله قوله فى الدنيا و الاخرة

Whoever does not regard him as al Siddiq, may Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala not confirm his statement in this world and the hereafter.

 
 

NEXT⇒ Ninth Testimony – First view


[1]  His full name is Baha’ al Din Abu al Hassan ‘Ali ibn Hussain Fakhr al Din ‘Isa ibn Abi al Fath al Arbili. He was born the beginning of the seventh hijri century in Arbal a town near Mosul. The Shia are unanimous that ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa al Arbili is one of their great scholars. Al Qummi writes regarding him:

He was a scholar, poet, linguist, wonderful artist, proficient muhaddith, reliable and the possessor of excellent qualities and traits. He is the author of Kashf al Ghummah fi Ma’rifat al A’immah. He completed it in 687 A.H. He has sung many poems in praise of the Imams some of which are recorded in Kashf al Ghummah fi Ma’rifat al A’immah. His book Kashf al Ghummah is a wonderful book. He passed away in Baghdad in the year 693 A.H. (al Kuna wa l-Alqab vol. 3 pg. 14, 15, Qumm Iran)

(Sheikh Muhammad Firasat)

[2]  Surah al Nisa’: 69.

[3]  Mujtahid refers to Sultan al ‘Ulama’ Sayed Muhammad Lucknowi. He was the eldest son and successor of Molana Dildar ‘Ali Nasirabadi. He was born on the 17th of Safar 1199 A.H (1794) in Lucknow. His father tutored him and gave him all certificates of qualification at the age of 19 in 1218 A.H. Shah Awadh Amjad ‘Ali Shah (d. 1258 A.H) gave him the title Sultan al ‘Ulama’ and presented to him the position of chairman. His command was considered most lofty. The amount of power and authority he received by the kings of Awadh (especially Amjad ‘Ali Shah and Wajid ‘Ali Shah) was not even enjoyed by his father. All the Shia of the thirteenth century accepted him as their greatest leader. In the time of the kings of Awadh, he was given that rank which was given to the Sheikh al Islam in some Sunni countries. The work of administration and advancement of the Shia religion which his father started in West India was taken to completion by him. He has authored many books. Darbat Haydariyyah bijawab Showkat ‘Umariyyah (2 volumes), Ta’n al Rimah, Bariqah Dughaymiyyah dar bahth Mut’ah – in refutation to Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Dehlawi – Bawariq Mubiqah dar bahth Imamat, Radd Tuhfah, etc. are well-known books. He was just over 50 years when he passed away in Lucknow on Thursday night the 22nd of Rabi’ al Awwal 1284 A.H (1867). He is buried in Imam Bara Ghufran Ma’ab.

[4]  His name is Mir Hamid Hussain ibn Muhammad Qilli ibn Muhammad Hussain ibn Hamid Hussain ibn Sayed Zayn al ‘Abidin al Musawi Nayshapuri. He was born on the 5th of Muharram 1246 A.H (1830) in Meerut, UP. In those days, his father was the mayor of Meerut. His journey of knowledge began on the 17th of Rabi’ al Awwal 1252 A.H. Primary and secondary sciences were taught to him by his father. He was only fifteen years of age when his father’s shadow was lifted (9 Muharram 1260 A.H). He was in Lucknow at that time. He learnt linguistics from Molana Barkat ‘Ali Hanafi and Mufti Muhammad ‘Abbas, rational sciences from Sayed Murtada ibn Sayed Muhammad and fiqh and usul from Sayed Muhammad and Sayed Hussain (Miran) and attained certificates from them.

After completing his studies, he spent his efforts on organising and printing his father’s books like Futuhat Haydariyyah, Risalah Taqiyyah, Tash’id al Mata’in, etc. Istiqsa’ al Afham, Afham Ahl al Mayn Radd Izalat al Ghayn and ‘Abaqat al Anwar are among his famous books. He passed away in his library in Khajwa (Shastrinagar, Lucknow) on the 18th of Safar 1306 A.H corresponding to the 25th of October 1888. After his death, his corpse was brought to his house and he was buried in Imam Bara Ghufran Ma’ab. (Matla’ al Anwar) Sheikh Muhammad Firasat

[5]  Surah al Dukhan: 43-49.

[6]  This narration is also found in the translation of Hayat al Qulub vol. 3 pg. 187.

[7]  His full name is Abu ‘Ali al Fadl ibn al Hassan Tabarsi. He is reckoned among the renowned scholars of the sixth century. His tafsir is found in 5 volumes and 10 parts. (Sheikh Muhammad Firasat)

[8]  Surah al Zumar: 33.

Back to top