Objection 8 and 9

Objection 8 to the Eight Virtue

I stated above that when Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu saw that the kuffar had come to the mouth of the cave, he was extremely grieved and worried that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam should not be harmed. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam consoled him:

لَا تَحْزَنْ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَنَا

Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us.

The word “مَعَنَا” has a first person plural pronoun thus including Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in Allah’s togetherness. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam included Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in this union. The Shia object to this in different ways.

Was Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu grief obedience or disobedience? If it is obedience, then Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam forbade obedience and if it is disobedience then Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu disobedience is established.
Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu had no conviction on the words of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He witnessed many signs of protection in the cave like the dove, spider, etc. but yet did not have conviction on Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala protection. He began crying aloud out of fear. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam tried to scold and warn him, but he continued crying and screaming.
The object of Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu crying and screaming was so that the kuffar could hear him and capture Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam continued explaining to him and forbidding him from crying but he was adamant and he wished to expose his evil and corrupt intentions in the guise of crying. In fact, some intellectuals have exaggerated it to this extent that when his crying did not work and the kuffar did not hear his voice, he put his foot out of the cave so that the kuffar can notice it and thus enter the cave. Immediately, the snake bit him with Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala command and he was forced to pull his foot back into the cave. When Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu aim was not met by putting out his foot i.e. the kuffar did not capture Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from the cave, he began harming Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in a different way. He began speaking about Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and exposed his grief over his loneliness. Hence, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam told him: “Do not grieve over ‘Ali’s loneliness. Allah is with me and ‘Ali.”
They take two meanings from “Allah is with us”. One is that “Allah is with me and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.” The second is that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam informed Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “Allah is with us i.e. Allah is aware of my piety and your wickedness. I will be rewarded for my piety while you will be punished for your evil.”

After hearing these points, every person is flabbergasted and flummoxed and cannot possible awaken from his astonishment. Are these objections or the rise of madmen; answers or the fall of crazy folk? In fact, those who possess intelligence will not believe that these words came out of the mouth of a scholar or mujtahid. Whoever doubts this should open up Ihqaq al Haq, Majalis al Mu’minin, etc., and see for himself with what vigour and force the third martyr wrote these arguments, how Mulla Mashhadi boasted over them and how proud was SayedMuhammad Qilli with the answer of the seal of the muhaddithin. In fact, he sternly criticised Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz rahimahu Llah since he did not quote the arguments of Qadi Nur Allah Shostari verbatim. He expresses his anger in these words:

ناصبی رامی بایست کہ ایں عبارت جناب قاضی را نقل می کرد تراشیدن تقریرے از طرف خود نسبت دادن بطرف شیعیان و بعد ازاں بجواب آں مشغول شدن از اعظم مکائد ایں ناصبی ست

It was appropriate for the nasibi (Sunni) to quote Qadi’s entire text and thereafter object to it. To fabricate a text and link it to the Shia and thereafter answer it himself is the greatest deception of that Sunni.

I have written the gist of those arguments. Nonetheless, I will quote the actual texts also. I humbly request the Shia to judge unbiasedly as to whether one should be proud of such arguments or feel ashamed of them. According to me, if such ludicrous arguments are related to any intelligent and modest person, he will feel ashamed and embarrassed. I am ignorant of the wisdom and pearls presented by Qadi and Mulla in these arguments which they and their followers are so proud of. I find nothing in them which is not laughable and ridiculous. There is no word therein which is not free from stupidity and foolishness.

زپاۓ تابسرش ہر کجا کہ می نگرم کرشمہ دامن دل می کشد کہ جا اینجاست

From head to toe wherever you look

It is evident that it is nothing but impurity

In my opinion, Shah rahimahu Llah has done a great favour to Qadi and Mulla by not quoting their words verbatim, thus saving them from disgrace and embarrassment. Since the Shia are hell-bent on humiliating them, I am forced to quote those texts. I deem that to answer such rubbish is a waste of time. Nonetheless, for the benefit of the foolish, I will pen something.

With regards to the first objection of whether Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu grief was obedience or disobedience. If it was obedience, then why did Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam forbid it and if it was disobedience then Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu being a sinner is established from the Qur’an.

A counter charge to the above would be that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala addressed Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam:

لَا تَخَفْ اِنَّكَ اَنْتَ الْاَعْلٰی

Fear not. Indeed, it is you who are superior.^{^[1]}

Allah also addressed Nabi Lut ‘alayh al Salam:

وَلَا تَحْزَنْ اِنَّا مُنَجُّوْكَ وَ اهْلَكَ

Grieve not. Indeed, we will save you and your family.^{^[2]}

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala even addressed Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

فَلَا یَحْزُنْكَ قَوْلُهُمْ

So let not their speech grieve you.^{^[3]}

It is learnt from here that Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam and Nabi Lut ‘alayh al Salam had fear and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was grieved over the statements of the kuffar. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala stated: “Do not fear,” and “Do not grieve,” to console and comfort them.

We ask the Shia. Was the fear of those prophets obedience or disobedience? If it was obedience then Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala prohibited such obedience. And if it was disobedience then the infallible prophets were sinners. Your answer to the above is our exact answer to your allegation.

Qadi Nur Allah Shostari wrote in Majalis al Mu’minin while mentioning some beneficial incidents of Sheikh al Mufid in answer to the argument of Abu al Hassan Khayyat — the leader of the mu’tazilah: “The infallibility of the prophets is proven by rational proof. Thus whatever is related to them; the apparent meaning is not meant while Abu Bakr’s infallibility is not proven hence the apparent meaning is applicable when referring to him.” This is his text:

مضمون آں آیات نہی ست لیکن انبیاء را زارتکاب قبیحی کہ فاعل آں مستحق ذم میشود بواسطۂ دلیل عقلی کہ بر عصمت انبیاء اجتناب ایشاں از گناہان قائم گشت موجب عدول از ظاہر شدہ از ظواہر آں آیات عدول می کنم و ہر گاہ اتفاق حاصل باشد در آنکہ ابو بکر معصوم نہ بود واجب است کہ اجرای نہی کہ درشان آں واقع شدہ بہ ظاہر آنکہ فتح حال ابو بکر ست بماند

The purport of these verses is prohibition. And for the prophets to perpetrate an evil action is impiety since the perpetrator of an evil action is worthy of reproach. A rational proof is available to prove the infallibility of the prophets and their restraint from sins. I thus turn away from the apparent meaning of these verses. There is unanimity that Abu Bakr was not infallible. The prohibition issued was to depict Abu Bakr’s condition which is intact on its place.

I say in response to this that to deem fear as disobedience is erroneous. Moreover, the prophetss fear and the subsequent consolation of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala; there is no need to shy away from the apparent meaning of this prohibition. In fact, to regard fear as disobedience is actually intentionally criticising the prophets and giving support to those who do not accept the infallibility of the prophets. Moreover, fear is an emotional state which no human is free from whether he be a nabi, an imam or a saint and for which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will not take a person to account. Thus, Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam and Nabi Harun ‘alayh al Salam were commanded to explain to Firoun and invite him to iman. They were fearful and said:

رَبَّنَآ اِنَّنَا نَخَافُ اَنْ یَّفْرُطَ عَلَیْنَآ اَوْ اَنْ یَّطْغٰی

Our Rabb, indeed we are afraid that he will hasten (punishment) against us or that he will transgress.^{^[4]}

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala comforted them declaring:

لَا تَخَافَآ اِنَّنِیْ مَعَكُمَآ

Fear not. Indeed, I am with you both.^{^[5]}

Ponder for a moment. When Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam and Nabi Harun ‘alayh al Salam feared notwithstanding being prophets and Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala does not reproach their fear and their nubuwwah is not affected in the least, then what sin did Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu commit by fearing whereas he is unanimously neither a Nabi nor infallible? Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam just comforted Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu by saying, “do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us.”

I puzzle at the understanding of the third martyr who has included the fear and grief of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the list of sins thereby levelling an accusation against all the prophets then turned away from the apparent meaning of fear without any need whereas the word fear in relation to the prophets appears many times in the Qur’an and the mufassirin have taken the apparent meaning and none have regarded fear as a sin, disobedience or a defect. Nothing happens by the ridiculous statement of the third martyr. Thus ‘Allamah al Tabarsi — a great Shiaresearcher — has written under the commentary of

فَاَوْجَسَ مِنْهُمْ خِیْفَةً

He perceived fear from them.^{^[6]}

فلما امتنعوا عن الاكل خاف منهم و ظن انهم يريدون سوءا فقالوا اى قالت الملائكة لا تخف يا ابراهيم

When the angels did not partake of the food, Nabi Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam developed fear for them and thought that they intended evil. They i.e. the angels thus said: “Do not fear, O Ibrahim!”

To understand the words of comfort and consolation used to remove fear which appears in the Qur’an and ahadith as prohibition is a grave mistake. Otherwise, if it is understood that wherever the word لَا — a word of negative command — appears, prohibition from the forbidden is meant or wherever a thing is mentioned then to think its existence as necessary then thousands of objections will be levelled against the Imams which the Shia will not be able to answer besides presenting the misleading argument of infallibility. For instance, it is recorded in ‘Ilal al Shara’i’ that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam addressed Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

يا على لا تتكلم عند الجماع و لا تنظر الى فرج امراتك و لا تجامع امراتك بشهوة امراة غيرك

O ‘Ali! Do not speak during intercourse, do not look at your wife’s genitalia and do not cohabit with your wife with the passion for another woman.

If someone asks: “Would Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu do these actions or not?” If not, then the rule: the prohibition of something shows its existence, is disproved. And if he used to do it, then was this action permissible or not. If it was obedience, why did Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam forbid it? And if it was disobedience, then the infallible Imam being sinful is proven.

If someone says that the Imam was infallible so we turn away from the apparent meaning although this prohibition is prohibition from disobedience, then we are forced to say that Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was protected hence we turn away from the apparent meaning.

Friends! Why do you corrupt such an obvious thing with obstinacy and hatred? Think unbiasedly for a moment. If a friend is grieved over the harm of his friend and the latter consoles him by saying, “Do not fear. Allah is our helper,” then is this comforting and consoling or reprimanding and reproaching? If it is comforting, then understand “Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us,” to be the same. Do not manipulate the verses of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and do not think that the usage of the word لَا is for prohibition and reproach. In fact, it sometimes comes for mercy and compassion. If someone deeply studies the words of the Qur’an, he will realise that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has used لَا out of compassion and love. Accordingly, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala commanded Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

لَا تُحَرِّكْ بِهٖ لِسَانَكَ لِتَعْجَلَ بِهٖ

Move not your tongue with it, (O Muhammad), to hasten with recitation of the Qur’an.^{^[7]}

فَلَا تَذْهَبْ نَفْسُكَ عَلَیْهِمْ حَسَرٰتٍ

So do not let yourself perish over them in regret.^{^[8]}

Will Qadi regard these words as reproach and censure and the actions of movement of the tongue and regretting as disobedience and thereafter turn away from the apparent meaning due to the infallibility of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? If he regards that these words are used for compassion and love, he will realise the absurdity of his above stance.

The second objection was that Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu had no conviction in Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and thus began wailing and screaming notwithstanding witnessing the many signs of protection. The answer to this is that firstly the wailing and screaming of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is not proven. The Qur’an mentions huzn (grief) and the meaning of grief does not include screaming and wailing. If the Shia have a special dictionary in which they define the words used for the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum differently, then I am unaware of it. Huzn means to grieve and not to wail and scream as Nur Allah Shostari defines it in Ihqaq al Haq:

حتى غلبته بكائه و ترايد قلقه و انزعاجه

Until he starting weeping uncontrollably and his dread and panic increased.

Besides this, have a look at the commentaries of the Shia themselves and see how they defined huzn. Mufassir al Kashani has translated it in Khulasat al Manhaj as:

چوں گفت پیغمبر یار خود را اندوہ مخور

When Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam told his cave companion, “Do not grieve.”

‘Allamah al Tabarsi states:

لا تحزن اى لا تخف

Do not grieve i.e. do not fear.

I am utterly confused at how Qadi managed to pull out wailing and screaming from huzn.

I have already explained above that fear is an emotional state which affects everyone including the prophets and Imams and it is not disobedience. To reiterate it, Sayyidina Musa ‘alayh al Salam told Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala:

اَخَافُ اَنْ یَّقْتُلُوْنِ

I fear they will kill me.^{^[9]}^{^[10]}

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala replied:

لَا تَخَفْ اِنَّكَ مِنَ الْاٰمِنِیْنَ

Fear not. Indeed, you are of the secure.^{^[11]}

The Shiascholars have accepted the fear of Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam at such an instance which they cannot reject. Accordingly, to prove the superiority of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu over Sayyidina Musa ‘alayh al Salam they say that when Sayyidina Musa ‘alayh al Salam emigrated from Egypt to Madyan, he was fearful.

فَخَرَجَ مِنْهَا خَآئِفًا یَّتَرَقَّبُ

So he left it, fearful and anticipating (apprehension).^{^[12]}

While Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu slept peacefully and worriless on Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bed on the night of hijrah. Had he been a little fearful, he would never have been able to sleep.

If the Shia are still not satisfied and do not resist from criticising Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu for being fearful, I will show that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself was also fearful in their books. The author of Taqlib al Maka’id writes in answer to scheme 87:

اگر خوف قتل و قتال نہ بود پیغمبر خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم چرا مخفی بیرون رفت و حال آنکہ سپ ہجرت فرمودن رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم محض خوف قتل بود

If Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not fear being killed, he would not have left secretly. The reality is that Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam emigration was only out of fear of being killed.

O Allah! I cannot understand how the Shia regard the fear and grief of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as disbelief whereas they acknowledge the fear and grief of the prophets and state that the emigration of the leader of the prophets was only due to fear (Allah forbid and forgive us for quoting such blasphemy). According to our belief, Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not superior to Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam that he would not fear, nor was he calmer than Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam such that he would not fear blood being spilt. It is the belief of Shia to say that Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam was fearful and they do not think that attributing fear of bloodshed to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as a defect; but they will never dare to even think of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu having such fear and will rather deem such fear to be Taqiyyah as SayedMuhammad Qilli writes:

تقیہ بجہت خوف ہلاکت جان خود نبود بلکہ بجہت خوف ہتک عرض و ناموسش بودہ الی قولہ کہ دانستی کہ خوف حضرت امیر المؤمنین نہ از ہلاکت جان بود بلکہ خوف ہتک و ناموس

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not observe Taqiyyah out of fear for death, rather he practiced it to protect the honour of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. As you know, Amir al Mu’minin did not fear his death but rather feared humiliation.

In conclusion, after studying all the above narrations it is clarified that the accusation of fear against Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is incorrect since if it is said that he feared being killed, then such fear was experienced by the prophets according to the Shiascholars and if it is said that he was not fearful of this but instead fearful of humiliation then such fear was felt by Amir al Mu’minin Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu who according to the Shia was superior to all the prophets and greater than all the Messengers.

The Qur’anic verses, the sayings of the Imams and the Shiascholars’ statements testify that Nabi Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam — the friend of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala — Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam — who would speak to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala — Sayyidina Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam — the special beloved of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala — and Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu — who was Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ‘wasi’, the lion of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and superior and greater than all the prophets — were not spared from fearing being killed and humiliation. Now if Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is not spared from fear and apprehension, then why the astonishment? On the other hand, I am puzzled at how the Shiascholars have blurted out such drivel due to Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu fear on one night and regarded his fear to be the product of his disbelief and hypocrisy notwithstanding the fact that it is their strong belief that all the A’immah lived in fear an apprehension from birth till death and all of them — from the first to the last — practiced Taqiyyah. None of the twelve Imams lived without fear. None of them passed a moment without apprehension. To such an extent that they considered Taqiyyah as the greatest component of iman which is based solely on fear and accepted this as a saying of Imamah:

التقية دينى و دين ابائى

Taqiyyah is my din and the din of my forefathers.

Thus, the Imams — in whose hands is life and death, who can live until they wish, who control the angels and can order them as they wish, whose sight has such a tremendous effect that if they glance at a mountain it will burst, who have such might in their arms that if they lift one arm eighty thousand jinn will be killed, who possess the knowledge of the past and future, who possess such miracles that if they throw the staff from their hands it will turn into a mighty serpent and if they point towards the disbelievers and hypocrites they all will melt — notwithstanding such might and power and miracles lived in such fear their entire lives such that they were unable to proclaim their Imamah. They never spoke the truth out of fear for their lives and honour. If they wished to whisper some secret to someone very close, they did it behind closed doors. They taught knowledge to their students in constant fear and if any Nasibi had to question them, they would reject it. They cursed and pronounced their exemption from their sincere friends. Yet the Shia do not criticise their fear at all and do not cast doubts on their Imamah and virtue. In fact, they regard such fear as the best worship and proclaim Taqiyyah as the din of the Imams. On the other hand, they ridicule Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu fear on one night so much that they take his fear and apprehension to be a sign of his disbelief and hypocrisy, whereas Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not have the choice of life and death, the angels were not under his control, he did not possess knowledge of the past and future and did not have the power to kill eighty thousand jinn. How the Shia differentiated between the Imams’s fears and Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu fear is unknown. Why is the fear of the Imams considered a virtue while the fear of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu a vice?

بہ بیں تفاوت راہ از کجاست تابہ کجا

What is the difference between the two?

Anyways, if the apparent meaning of the fear of the prophets and the Imams is not regarded as suggested by the Shia due to their infallibility, then too their object is not attained since the fear of the mu’minin is also established from the Qur’an:

اِنَّ الَّذِیْنَ قَالُوْا رَبُّنَا اللّٰهُ ثُمَّ اسْتَقَامُوْا تَتَنَزَّلُ عَلَیْهِمُ الْمَلٰٓئِكَةُ اَلَّا تَخَافُوْا وَ لَا تَحْزَنُوْا وَ اَبْشِرُوْا بِالْجَنَّةِ الَّتِیْ كُنْتُمْ تُوْعَدُوْنَ

Indeed, those who have said, “Our Rabb is Allah” and then remained on a right course — the angels will descend upon them, (saying), “Do not fear and do not grieve but receive good tidings of Jannat, which you were promised.”^{^[13]}

This proves that the mu’minin with strong iman also fear and grieve.

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala commands the mu’minin in another verse:

وَلَا تَحْزَنُوْا وَاَنْتُمُ الْاَعْلَوْنَ

And do not grieve, and you will be superior.^{^[14]}

I am unaware as to whether words like “لَا تَحْزَنُوْا” are for reprimanding the mu’minin or for comforting them? So why then is the same address to Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarded as a reprimand? It is amazing how these words appear copious of times to comfort and console but appears once to reproach. Yes, if the context suggests this then we will accept. But this is not the case. Just as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala followed “لَا تَحْزَنُوْا” by some glad tidings like “اَبْشِرُوْا بِالْجَنَّةِ” (receive good tidings of Paradise) and “وَاَنْتُمُ الْاَعْلَوْنَ” (and you will be superior), in the same way Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam told Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “لَا تَحْزَنْ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَنَا” (Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us.) There is no apparent difference between the two. If “لَا تَحْزَنُوْا” is used to comfort in the former then the same applies in the latter and if it is used to reprimand in the former then the same applies in the latter. Yet notwithstanding the coherence in word and context, to suggest comfort in the former and reproach in the latter is shocking and bewildering.

Nevertheless, I understand that the Shia are in a tight situation. If they take the apparent meaning of the verses of the Qur’an, then the loyalty and faith of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu will have to be acknowledged and if they acknowledge this then there whole creed will fall apart. So they have no other option but to manipulate the meanings of the Qur’an and fabricate new meanings.

دست بے چارہ چوں بجاں نہ رسد چارہ جز پیرہن دریدن نیست

If the poor hands cannot reach the buttons

Then there is no other option but to tear the shirt

If still someone is not fully satisfied and an intelligent person says, “I have accepted that fear is not a sin and “لَا تَحْزَنْ” is used to console, however, it is proven that Abu Bakr did not have conviction on the promise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the protection of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, otherwise he would not have feared.”

The answer to this is that the Shia themselves claim that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was getting annoyed at Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu telling him to keep silent and not to disclose the secret but he refused to obey. So just like the Shia, every heretic can say that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not have conviction on the promise and protection of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, otherwise he would not fear the secret being disclosed and he would not get annoyed at Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu for disclosing the secret. (Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbid!) Whatever the Shia answer to this heretics should be considered as our answer to them.^{^[15]}

If someone ponders deeply, he will realise that it is not correct to attribute fear and grief to Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu according to Shiaprinciples and beliefs since if they accede that Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was really fearful then we will ask them as to whether he was afraid for his own life and fearful of him being harmed or was he afraid of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam being harmed? He could not be afraid of his own life since he had already teamed up with the kuffar and wanted to disclose the secret. So if the kuffar caught him, what fear would he have? If he was afraid of being harmed by the kuffar then two things are deduced from here. Firstly, the kuffar hated Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and were prepared to kill him due to his iman and companionship of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This proves our very first claim. Secondly, Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not intend to disclose the secret because he would not risk his life and disclose it to those who he himself was afraid of. If he feared Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam being harmed then such fear is better than years of ease and may thousand comforts be sacrificed for such a fear. Do the Shia regard such fear as a defect or disbelief? We regard such fear as rewardable, nay superior to thousand faiths. It was this very fear of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu that displays his complete conviction on the life and protection of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. But when he saw that the king of all other dini and worldly kings is shining in a narrow dark cave. The moon of nubuwwah is concealed in the cave just as the moon is concealed by the clouds sometimes. The one whose status is recognised by the Owner of the Thrown and Kursi is sitting in a constrained place. This condition of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was breaking the heart of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu to pieces and making him restless. Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu going into the cave first, cleaning it, covering all the holes by tearing pieces of his shawl, then calling Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and making him sleep on his lap all bear witness to this. In such a frightening situation, when he saw the kuffar at the mouth of the cave then the fear that passed through his heart out of concern for the well-being of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam only he is aware of. Or the lover whose beloved is afflicted with harm in his presence and the enemy is attacking him, let someone see the condition of that poor lover. Is he restless or calm? Yes, but the one who is oblivious of the reality of love can do nothing but criticise the fear and worry of a true lover.

Brothers! Create some love for Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in your hearts and then see if you will accuse those who were his die hearts. But how can you understand the reality when you have not an iota of love.

تو نازنین جہانے و ناز پروردہ تراز سوز دردن نیاز ماچہ خبر

و دل بہ مہر نگارے نہ بستہ ای مہ تراز حالت عشاق بے نواچہ خبر

O you brought up in the lap of luxury

What do you know about those who burn in love?

O beloved! When you have not given your heart to any lover

What will you know about the condition of an intense lover?

O Shia! Have a little mercy and contemplate over the astuteness of what your third martyr says about the grief and sorrow of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

و قد ظهر من جزعه و بكائه ما يكون من مثله فساد الحال

Corrupt intentions are apparent from his anxiety and wailing.

He wrote this trying to disgrace Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu but his writing was humiliated and his whole argument was demolished. At the end, he pondered over these things and then rejected it being genuine fear and grief and deemed it as fake.

It is hoped from the sound explanation that they will pay attention to this with their hearts and congratulate the Shia for their sorcerous words but pay no attention to it. Why do you abandon one claim and claim something else? Why do you acknowledge something only to reject it later on? This matter does only pertain to this discussion but it applies to every big and small matter. Just wait until the discussions on khilafah and Imamah come, how these people will change their approach and how they will beautify their arguments with new decorations.

شاہد دلربائی من میکنداز برای من نقش و نگار و رنگ و بو تازہ بتازہ نوبہ نو

Our charming beloved is making for us various new colours, smells and designs.

When the Shia realised that Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu grief and fear proves that he possessed love for Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, they abandoned this and claimed that he had no fear at all but made a tantrum just to disclose the secret as it appears in Risalah Hussainiyyah:

غو غایش از جزع و فزع و فریاد براۓ آں بود کہ مشرکاں را اطلاع گرداند و آنہا بداںد کہ دریں غار ست

His wailing and screaming hysterically was only to let the polytheist know that they were in the cave.

Khadir Mashhadi writes:

و ايضا مما اشتهر من لدغ الحية اياه انما كان يمد رجله يريد اظهار امره

The famous incident of the snake-bite was actually because he exposed his foot from the cave in order to reveal the secret.

When Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu purpose was not fulfilled by his wailing and screaming, he exposed his foot so that the kuffar might see it and enter the cave. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala commanded the snake to bite his foot. He thus was forced to desist from revealing Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam secret.

I am unable to answer such an absurd claim and incapable of debunking such a ‘wise’ explanation. Even if all the humans and jinn from East to West gather, they cannot untie such a knot. In reality, the anger displayed by SayedMuhammad Qilli on Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz for not quoting the texts of his seniors verbatim is totally correct. Had he quoted those texts verbatim, what doubt would remain about the reality of the Shia and how would anyone prove the virtue of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu?

Friends! Deal justly and look at the ‘depth of knowledge’ of the Shiamujtahidin and their ‘wise’ and ‘researched’ statements.

Objection 9 on the Ninth Virtue

I mentioned previously that when Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was worried and anxious, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sent His tranquillity upon him which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala describes in the verse:

فَاَنْزَلَ اللّٰهُ سَکِیْنَتَهعَلَیْهِ

And Allah sent down His tranquillity upon him.^{^[16]}

The Shia object to this is many ways.

Firstly, the pronoun in “عَلَیْهِ” (upon him) refers to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and not to Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. So this means that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sent down His tranquillity upon Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

The answer to this is that Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu experienced fear and anxiety, not Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. If the pronoun refers to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the meaning of the verse would be: “When Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu grew fearful and anxious, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam consoled him saying, ‘Do not grieve for Allah is with us.’ Thus Allah sent down His tranquillity upon Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.” Who would not laugh and be puzzled at such incoherence and disjointedness that Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu fears, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam consoles him and Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sends His tranquillity upon Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

If the Shia claim that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was also fearful, hence Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sent His tranquillity upon him, we will say that when the Shia criticise Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu of cowardice due to his fear, then how will they judge this fear of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? Nonetheless, if we accept that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was fearful and Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sent down His tranquillity upon him, then the text of the verse should be different. Instead of

اِذْ یَقُوْلُ لِصَاحِبِهٖ لَا تَحْزَنْ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَنَاۚ فَاَنْزَلَ اللّٰهُ سَکِیْنَتَهعَلَیْهِ

When he said to his companion, “Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us.” And Allah sent down his tranquillity upon him.

It should read:

فَاَنْزَلَ اللّٰهُ سَکِیْنَتَهعَلَیْهِ فَقَالَ لِصَاحِبِهٖ لَا تَحْزَنْ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَنَا

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala revealed His tranquillity upon Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam (and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was fully composed), he then told his companion, “Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us.”

Otherwise, the meaning which the Shia are claiming does not fit. This is due to the fact that from the first sentence this meaning is quite clear that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saw Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu sad so he said, “Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us.” Thus, due to this consolation of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sent his tranquillity upon Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu so that his grief disappears.

Thus, O friends, think! Does our explanation conform to the verse or your explanation?

Secondly (the Shia assert), if Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala intended to send down tranquillity upon Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, He would have mentioned him with Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This is due to the fact that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala never ever mentioned sending down His tranquillity in exclusion of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Thus, Qadi Nur Allah Shostari writes in the beneficial incidents of Sheikh al Mufid with much fervour thinking his answer to be the essential answer:

چوں ایں سخن راگوش ناصباں شنید باعث حیرت ایشاں گردید و در حیلہ خلاصی ازاں جان ایشاں بلب رسیدہ

When these facts reached the ears of the Sunni, they were amazed and their souls came to their throats in an effort to save themselves from them.

SayedMuhammad Qilli has quoted it verbatim in his book and boasts about it. We thus quote the text verbatim and plead to the sound minded to look at how Qadi extracted a fake pearl from his shell and gifted it to his followers displaying it to be a priceless and precious pearl of the crown. No one evaluates whether his pearl is genuine or fake.

آنچہ کاشف صحت بیان مذکور تواند بود آنست کہ مقدمان مشائخ ما رضوان اللہ علیہم افادہ فرمودہ اند کہ خداۓ تعالی ہر گز در ہیچ جای کہ یکے از اہل ایماں با حضرت پیغمبر بودہ اند انزال سکینہ نہ نمود الا آنکہ نزول آں را شامل جمیع ایشاں داشتہ چنانچہ در بعضے آیات فرمودہ وَّیَوْمَ حُنَیْنٍۙ اِذْ اَعْجَبَتْکمْ کَثْرَتُکمْ فَلَمْ تُغْنِ عَنْکُمْ شَیْئًا وَّضَاقَتْ عَلَیْکمُ الْاَرْضُ بِمَا رَحُبَتْ ثُمَّ وَلَّیْتُمْ مُّدْبِرِیْنَ ثُمَّ اَنْزَلَ اللّٰهُ سَکِیْنَتَ عَلٰی رَسُوْلِهٖ وَعَلَی الْمُؤْمِنِیْنَ و در آیۃ دیگر گفتہ فَاَنْزَلَ اللّٰهُ سَکِیْنَتَهعَلٰی رَسُوْلِهٖ وَ عَلَی الْمُؤْمِنِیْنَ و چوں بآنحضرت غیر از ابو بکر در غار نبود لا جرم خدای تعالی آنحضرت را در نزول سکینہ منفرد ساخت و اور بآں مخصوص گردانید و ابو بکر را باو شرکت نداد و گفت فَاَنْزَلَ اللّٰهُ سَکِیْنَتَهعَلَیْهِ وَاَیَّدَهبِجُنُوْدٍ لَّمْ تَرَوْهَا پس اگر ابو بکر مومن می بود بایستے کہ خدای تعالی دریں آیۃ اورا جاری مجری مومناں می نمود و در عموم سکینہ داخل می فرمود الی قولہ بنابر ایں نزول سکینہ مخصوص او شدہ باشد و ابو بکر بواسطۂ ایماں از فضیلت سکینہ محروم ماندہ باشد و ایضا بہ نص قرآنی بادارد ازاں کہ در آیۃ غار سکینہ بر غیر رسول باشد

The proof for our above mentioned claim is that our early elders have stated regarding these verses that whenever Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was accompanied by other believers then Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sent down a general tranquillity upon everyone and not only upon Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as it is stated is some verses: “Allah has already given you victory in many regions and (even) on the Day of Hunayn, when your great number pleased you, but it did not avail you at all, and the earth was confining for you with its vastness; then you turned back, fleeing. Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Rasul and upon the believers.”^{^[17]} and in another verse, “Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Rasul and upon the believers.”^{^[18]} Since there was no one besides Abu Bakr in the cave with Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, hence Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala specially sent tranquillity on Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and consoled him and did not include Abu Bakr in this tranquillity and peace declaring, “And Allah sent down his tranquillity upon him and supported him with angels you did not see.”^{^[19]} Had Abu Bakr been a believer, Allah would have included him in the tranquillity just as He had included other believers. The gist is that tranquillity was sent specially on Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Abu Bakr remained deprived of this tranquillity and peace due to him being a non-believer. The descent of tranquillity upon someone other than Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the cave is in contrast to Qur’anic principles.

The crux of the above is that whenever Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sent down tranquillity upon the believers, He first sent down tranquillity upon Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and then the believers. There is no mention of Him sending down tranquillity upon the believers only. So how can it be possible that in the cave, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was excluded and tranquillity was sent down upon Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu alone? Thus the disbelief of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is certain because had he been a believer, he would have been included with Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the tranquillity.

However, Qadi and his elders’ claim that this is against categorical Qur’anic statements is erroneous. This is neither found explicitly nor implicitly in any verse that Allah does not send down His tranquillity individually on anyone except Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. If there is mention of sending down tranquillity upon the believers with the inclusion of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam at a few places, this does not necessitate the rejection of descent of tranquillity upon the believers without including Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. If for argument’s sake it is accepted that the Qur’an does not mention anything about descent of tranquillity upon the believers alone without inclusion of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then too this objection is incorrect. And by the grace of Allah, descent of tranquillity upon the believers without including Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam appears in the glorious Qur’an. But unfortunately the Shia never produced a hafiz of Qur’an and maybe Qadi and his elders did not have the opportunity of looking at the entire Qur’an from cover to cover even once in their lifetime, otherwise they would not have rejected this with such conviction and would not have brazenly claimed:

خدای تعالی ہر گز در ہیچ جائیکہ یکے از اہل ایماں با حضرت بودہ اندر انزال سکینہ نہ نمود

Whenever Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was accompanied by other believers then Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sent down a general tranquillity upon everyone and not only upon Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

I will now show the Shia two places is Surah al Fath where mention is made of tranquillity being sent down upon the believers without inclusion of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. If you are in doubt, open this surah of the Qur’an and have a look at it for yourselves. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala states in the first ruku’:

هُوَ الَّذِیْٓ اَنْزَلَ السَّکِیْنَةَ فِیْ قُلُوْبِ الْمُؤْمِنِیْنَ لِیَزْدَادُوْٓا اِیْمَانًا مَّعَ اِیْمَانِهِمْ

It is He who sent down tranquillity into the hearts of the believers that they would increase in faith along with their (present) faith.^{^[20]}

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala states in the third ruku’:

اِذْ یُبَایِعُوْنَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ فَعَلِمَ مَا فِیْ قُلُوْبِهِمْ فَاَنْزَلَ السَّکِیْنَةَ عَلَیْهِمْ

When they pledged allegiance to you, [O Muhammad], under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquillity upon them.^{^[21]}

O believers! Read carefully over these verses. Evaluate twenty copies of the Qur’an and see whether Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has been mentioned. If from India to Iran you find one Qur’an which mentions Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in these verses, then you and Qadi are truthful. And if it is not found and all the copies of the Qur’ans in Iran and Kufah have what we have stated then you can judge for yourselves whether you, Qadi and all his elders are truthful or untruthful.

It is of great remorse that this discussion has been carrying on for centuries yet until today no one opened Surah al Fath and pondered over those verses and they continue boasting upon Qadi’s false claim and its virtue and acceptance. What is of greater remorse is that there are only a handful of Shia who know the names of the surahs and they are very few who have memorised portions of the Qur’an besides Surah al Qadr and Surah al Ikhlas; otherwise the majority of them are ignorant of the Qur’an, by the grace of Allah. Notwithstanding their ignorance they have the audacity to present the Qur’an as proof in front of the Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah who have memorised the entire Qur’an and have it on their fingertips. This grave error of Qadi and his elders is due to their ignorance of the Qur’an. But we understand them as excused and overlook their grave error.

Thirdly (the Shia assert), if the pronoun of “عَلَیْهِ” in “فَاَنْزَلَ اللّٰهُ سَکِیْنَتَه عَلَیْهِ” refers to Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu then there would be disagreement in the pronouns since all the pronouns preceding it (e.g. اَخْرَجَهُ and لِصَاحِبِهٖ) and after it (e.g. اَیَّدَه) refer to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam so how can the pronoun in the middle refer to Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu?

The answer to this is that a pronoun should refer to the nearest thing mentioned which is Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in this situation, since لِصَاحِبِهٖ refers to him. Secondly, there will only be disagreement in the pronouns if اَیَّدَه is attached to فَاَنْزَلَ الله whereas it is joint with فَقَدْ نَصَرَهُ الله. Hence, there is no disagreement in the pronouns.

Thirdly, disagreement in pronouns appears copiously in the Qur’an as in

اِنَّ الْاِنْسَانَ لِرَبِّهٖ لَکَنُوْدٌۚ وَ اِنَّهعَلٰی ذٰلِكَ لَشَهِیْدٌۚ

Indeed mankind, to his Rabb, is ungrateful. And indeed, He (their Rabb) is to that a witness.^{^[22]}

Thus, the objection against Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarding descent of tranquillity has been answered and it has been established that peace was sent down upon him and all of the rubbish that Qadi, Mulla and their elders and followers have written and read has been debunked and the stupidity and ludicrousness has been exposed to all. It is not only us — the Ahlus Sunnah — who deem these objections as ludicrous but sometimes the Shia acknowledge it themselves as al Tabarsi, the author of Majma’ al Bayan has written in his tafsir:

و قد ذكرت الشيعة فى تخصيص النبى فى هذه الاية بالسكينة كلاما راينا الاضراب عن ذكره اخرى لئلا ينسبنا ناسب الى شىء

The Shia have written such drivel regarding the descent of tranquillity upon Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam alone as stated in this verse which we find appropriate to ignore so that we are not the object of anyone’s criticism.

From the words of this ‘Allamah it is evident that what the Shia mention is so ludicrous and laughable that he is ashamed to even mention it.

In short, the virtues of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in this verse which we have enumerated above have been thoroughly proven and all the objections of the Shia have been refuted. The context of the verse is testimony to this since if the object was not to mention the companionship and help of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu then it was not appropriate to expose his hypocrisy at such a place. The Shia know this and understand this properly but due to stubbornness and doggedness upon their creed they reject such a categorical and clear verse and refuse to acknowledge the virtue of the most virtuous Sahabi radiya Llahu ‘anhu after the truth has been made manifest. Instead they prefer to burn in the Fire of Hell by rejecting these verses. May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala protect us from their evil intentions and actions!

NEXT⇒ The Testimonies of the Imams Regarding the Virtues of the Sahabah – First Testimony

^{^[1]} Surah Taha: 68

^{^[2]} Surah al ‘Ankabut: 32,33

^{^[3]} Surah Yasin: 76

^{^[4]} Surah Taha: 45

^{^[5]} Surah Taha: 46

^{^[6]} Surah al Dhariyat: 28

^{^[7]} Surah al Qiyamah: 16

^{^[8]} Surah al Fatir: 8

^{^[9]} Surah al Qasas: 33

^{^[10]} It should be noted that Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam did not fear on only one occasion but on many occasions.

Firstly, when he heard a voice from the unseen, “Indeed, I am Allah,” he grew fearful. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala comforted him:

اِنِّیْ لَا یَخَافُ لَدَیَّ الْمُرْسَلُوْنَ

Indeed, in My presence the messengers do not fear. (Surah al Naml: 10)

Secondly, when he challenged Firoun’s magicians and they displayed their ropes as snakes, Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam feared. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala informs us:

فَاَوْجَسَ فِیْ نَفْسِهٖ خِیْفَةً

And he sensed within himself apprehension. (Surah Taha: 67)

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala stated to remove his fear:

قُلْنَا لَا تَخَفْ اِنَّكَ اَنْتَ الْاَعْلٰی

Fear not. Indeed, it is you who are superior. (Surah Taha 20:68)

Whereas Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had already promised Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam:

اَنْتُمَا وَ مَنِ اتَّبَعَكُمَا الْغٰلِبُوْنَ

You and those who follow you will be the predominant. (Surah al Qasas: 35)

Thirdly, when Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam feared that Firoun and his army will kill him saying:

فَاَخَافُ اَنْ یَّقْتُلُوْنِ

And I fear they will kill me. (Surah al Qasas: 33)

Allah consoled him saying, “Do not fear.” There was no need for Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam to fear in front of all these divine promises. Thus, if fear shows unhappiness with Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala promise, then Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam is more reproachable than Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and just like the Shia criticise Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, those who deny nubuwwah can criticise the prophets to a greater extent. (Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbid!)

^{^[11]} Surah al Qasas: 31

^{^[12]} Surah al Qasas: 21

^{^[13]} Surah Ha Mim Sajdah: 30

^{^[14]} Surah Al ‘Imran: 139

^{^[15]} Gohar Murad whose author is a reputable Shiahas written that five disbelievers told Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, “We give you respite till the afternoon to leave otherwise we will kill you.” Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam came to his home and locked the door and sat in a forlorn condition. Jibril ‘alayh al Salam descended and consoled him, “Declare openly what you are ordered and turn away from the polytheists.” Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “O Jibril! I am not concerned about this but they said they will scoff at me.” Jibril said, “We will suffice you with regards to the scoffers.” Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam requested, “Who will be close to me now.” Jibril ‘alayh al Salam replied, “I will be and I will be sufficient for you.” The Shia should have a look at this narration and judge soundly that when Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam out of fear for his life closed the door and remained in his house with sorrow and is not satisfied even after the consolation of Jibril ‘alayh al Salam, then notwithstanding accepting such narrations they criticise the fear of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

^{^[16]} Surah al Towbah: 40

^{^[17]} Surah al Towbah: 26, 27

^{^[18]} Surah al Fath: 26

^{^[19]} Surah al Towbah: 40

^{^[20]} Surah al Fath: 4

^{^[21]} Surah al Fath: 18

^{^[22]} Surah al ‘Adiyat: 6,7

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

Objection 8 to the Eight Virtue

I stated above that when Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu saw that the kuffar had come to the mouth of the cave, he was extremely grieved and worried that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam should not be harmed. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam consoled him:

لَا تَحْزَنْ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَنَا

Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us.

The word “مَعَنَا” has a first person plural pronoun thus including Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in Allah’s togetherness. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam included Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in this union. The Shia object to this in different ways.

Was Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu grief obedience or disobedience? If it is obedience, then Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam forbade obedience and if it is disobedience then Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu disobedience is established.
Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu had no conviction on the words of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He witnessed many signs of protection in the cave like the dove, spider, etc. but yet did not have conviction on Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala protection. He began crying aloud out of fear. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam tried to scold and warn him, but he continued crying and screaming.
The object of Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu crying and screaming was so that the kuffar could hear him and capture Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam continued explaining to him and forbidding him from crying but he was adamant and he wished to expose his evil and corrupt intentions in the guise of crying. In fact, some intellectuals have exaggerated it to this extent that when his crying did not work and the kuffar did not hear his voice, he put his foot out of the cave so that the kuffar can notice it and thus enter the cave. Immediately, the snake bit him with Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala command and he was forced to pull his foot back into the cave. When Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu aim was not met by putting out his foot i.e. the kuffar did not capture Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from the cave, he began harming Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in a different way. He began speaking about Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and exposed his grief over his loneliness. Hence, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam told him: “Do not grieve over ‘Ali’s loneliness. Allah is with me and ‘Ali.”
They take two meanings from “Allah is with us”. One is that “Allah is with me and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.” The second is that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam informed Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “Allah is with us i.e. Allah is aware of my piety and your wickedness. I will be rewarded for my piety while you will be punished for your evil.”