THE BATTLE OF QADISIYYAH- HEROES OF QADISIYYAH
February 12, 2026The Followers of the Orientalists
February 24, 2026BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Letter 99
Rabi’ al Thani 5, 1330 A.H.
I. Their Preference of the Common Interest in Those Instances,
II. Requesting the Rest.
1) Anyone endowed with wisdom does not suspect their good intentions, and their preference of the common interest to all other considerations in their conduct regarding those instances. They always thought of what would be the best for this nation and the wisest for its faith, the best for its unity; so, they are not to be blamed for whatever they did, albeit if they followed certain texts or used their own judgment regarding them.
2) We had requested you to narrate all the instances, but you have narrated only a few, stating that there are texts regarding the Imam and his progeny (as) besides the ones pertaining to his caliphate which our ancestors did not honour. We wish you had stated them in detail and spared us requesting you again to do so, Wassalam.
Sincerely,
S
Letter 100
Rabi’ al Thani 8, 1330
I. The Debater Digresses from the Subject-Matter,
II. Responding to His Request.
1) You have admitted their conduct regarding those well-known instances, and you have believed what we had said first; so, all praise is due to Allah. As regarding their good intentions and their preference of the common interest, their seeking of what is best for the nation, its faith and unity, this is a departure from our main topic, as you yourself know.
2) In your latest letter, you have requested the details of the authentic ahadith regarding ‘Ali (as) in matters other than the imamate which they did not follow; nay, they did not even pay them any attention. You are the imam of traditions of our time; you are well acquainted with them; you have spent a great deal of effort in tackling the details of what we have summed up, and who else is more knowledgeable than you of the details of what we have referred to? Is there anyone else who equals you or is able to compete with you regarding the Sunnah? Certainly not; yet, the matter is just what the axiom says: “How often do people ask about things with which they are familiar?”
You know very well that there are quite a few companions who hated ‘Ali and were his enemies. They deserted him, hurt him, cursed and wronged him, opposed him, fought him, struck his face and the faces of his Ahlul Bayt as well as those of their followers with their swords, as is well-known by necessity from the history of the ancestors. The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, has said:
- “Whoever obeys me obeys Allah, and whoever disobeyes me disobeyes Allah; whoever obeys ‘Ali obeys me, and whoever disobeyes ‘Ali disobeys me too.”
- “Whoever deserts me deserts Allah, and whoever deserts you, O ‘Ali, deserts me, too.”
- “O ‘Ali! You are a leader in this life and a leader in the life hereafter; I love whoever loves you, and the one I love is loved by Allah; your enemy is my enemy, and my enemy is the enemy of Allah; woe unto whoever hates you after me.”
- “Whoever denounces ‘Ali denounces me, too, and whoever denounces me denounces Allah.”
- “Whoever hurts ‘Ali hurts me, too, and whoever hurts me hurts Allah.”
- “Whoever loves ‘Ali loves me, and whoever hates ‘Ali hates me.”
- “Nobody loves you, O ‘Ali, except a true believer, and nobody hates you except a hypocrite.”
- “O Allah! Befriend whoever befriends him, and be the enemy of whoever sets himself as his enemy; support whoever supports him, and forsake whoever forsakes him.”
- One day, he looked at ‘Ali, Fatima, al Hasan and al Hussain (as) and said: “I fight whoever fights you, and I am peaceful unto whoever is peaceful to you.”
- Having covered them with a blanket, he (pbuh) said, “I fight whoever fights you, and grant asylum to whoever seeks peace with you; I am an enemy of your enemy.”
There are many such traditions which quite a few companions did not implement; nay, the latter’s actions contradicted their injunctions in preference of their own desires since they sought their own self-interest. Those whose insight is keen know that all the very well-known traditions in honour of ‘Ali – which are several hundreds, such as the ones enjoining acceptance of his taking charge, forbidding everyone from becoming his enemy – are all proofs testifying to his great status and prestige, and to his lofty position in the eyes of Allah and His Messenger. We have narrated quite a few of them in these Letters, and what we have not narrated is many times more.
You are, by the Grace of God, among those who are very well familiar with traditions and their meanings. Have you found any tradition which enjoins opposition and enmity towards him, or any particular one indicative of harming him, hating him, or bearing animosity towards him, or anything like hurting him and wronging him, denouncing him from the Muslims’ pulpits, or making that a tradition followed by the preachers who preach during Fridays and eids? Certainly not. But those who did all of these things never paid any attention to such traditions in spite of their abundance and sequential narration. They did not hinder them from behaving in any way that would best serve their political interests. They knew that he was the brother and friend of the Prophet (pbuh), his heir and confidant, the chief of his progeny, his Aaron over his nation, his son-in-law in his own right, the father of his descendants, the foremost to accept Islam, the most sincere in faith, the most knowledgeable, the most diligent in doing good deeds, the most clement, the strongest in conviction, the hardest worker in the cause of God, the most courageous, the most virtuous, the one possessing the most feats, the most cautious about the interest of Islam, the nearest to the Messenger of Allah, the closest to him (pbuh) in guidance, manners, and loftiness, the most exemplary in his deed, speech, or silence… But personal interests were to them above any other argument or consideration; so, why then the amazement at their preference to follow their own personal views regarding the imamate to following the spirit of the Ghadir hadith, for example? Yet isn’t the Ghadir hadith but just one of several hundred others which they saw only through their own glasses, preferring their own views and considering their own interests? The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, has also said: “The similitude of my Ahlul Bayt among you is like that of Noah’s ark; whoever boards it is saved, and whoever lags behind it is drowned,” and “The similitude of my Ahlul Bayt among you is like the Gate of Salvation to the children of Isra’il: forgiven are the sins of whoever enters through it.” He, peace be upon him and his progeny, has also said: “The stars are the security of the inhabitants of the earth against drowning, and my Ahlul Bayt are the nation’s security against dissension; so, if any Arab tribe opposes them, they will all dispute with each other and become the party of Iblis (Eblis),” in addition to many such traditions all of which were ignored completely by them…, Wassalam.
Sincerely,
Sh
Discussions
Any sincere reader that has followed the trajectory of this work with due attention to this point would immediately recognise that the interlocuter presented as the Shaykh al Azhar plays no independent role in the argument whatsoever. What appears as a dialogue is nothing more than a sequence of ventriloquised concessions, carefully placed and just as carefully overridden. They exist only to facilitate the next turn in ‘Abdul Hussain’s monologue.
Having exhausted the utility of feigned moderation, ‘Abdul Hussain shifts register. Although, for all the change in tone, there is no corresponding advance in substance. He now proceeds to erode the standing of his ‘interlocutor’, portraying him as wanting in familiarity with the authentic Sunan.
From there, the insinuation hardens into a far graver claim. ‘Abdul Hussain advances the notion that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, in general, harboured hostility toward ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu; that they opposed him, harmed him, cursed him, and wronged both him and the Ahlul Bayt, physically and in practice. No longer is the discussion confined to juristic discretion or interpretive judgement as it now turns on an assertion of collective moral failure. Far from being passed off as marginal accusations directed at isolated individuals, this has emerged as an indictment of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum as a body. True to the method that characterises his work, these accusations are advanced without qualification or exception, and without a single piece of substantiating evidence.
The historical record, however; as preserved in both Hadith and early history literature, attests abundantly to the mutual regard, consultation, cooperation, intermarriage and ties of kinship between ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the rest of the Sahabah.[1] One cannot coherently maintain both this well-established reality and the claim of pervasive enmity. The two narratives are mutually exclusive. One must be false.
Throughout this work, ‘Abdul Hussain has demonstrated a consistent pattern: when evidence is cited, it is either fraught with weakness, or it is completely distorted. That pattern is sufficient to establish the lens through which his present claims must be read. Needless to say that the events that transpired at Jamal and Siffin cannot be entered into the record to substantiate the narrative advanced by ‘Abdul Hussain as this period is largely described as a period of fitnah, and the unfortunate events were never in direct opposition of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu person, nor his right to Caliphate. In addition to the fact that most of the Sahabah swore allegiance to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and he is considered the legitimate successor to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
It is against this backdrop that ‘Abdul Hussain now introduces twelve narrations to which he had earlier alluded, presenting them as “decisive proof” of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu pre-eminence and, by extension, as the very Prophetic texts which the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum are alleged to have disregarded.
Upon closer inspection, however, these narrations prove to be little more than a reprise of material already cited earlier in al Muraja’at: reports whose chains have been examined and whose inconsistencies and flaws have been exposed.
From all the narrations that he has cited here, there is only one narration that has not already been addressed and demonstrated why they suffer from weakness or are outright forgeries. Those narrations have already been dealt with in letters 8, 11, and 48.[2] It is therefore unnecessary to repeat what has already been discussed.
Let us now address the outstanding hadith. This is the ninth narration in his list, recorded in Jami’ al Tirmidhi by way of Sulaiman ibn ‘Abdul Jabbar al Baghdadi — ‘Ali ibn Qadim — Asbat ibn Nasr — al Suddi — Subayh — Zaid ibn Arqam radiya Llahu ‘anhu.[3] Interestingly, Imam al Tirmidhi points out that the narration is questionable and draws attention that it is a solitary report in that it converges upon a common narrator.
Appearing in the chain is Asbat ibn Nasr. His status has already been addressed, and he was not accepted by many critics as independently reliable.[4]
As for al Suddi, he is Ismail ibn ‘Abdur Rahman al Suddi al Kabir[5], his reliability is not beyond dispute. While some accepted him in principle, the critics noted weakness in his transmissions, in addition to his Shi’i tendencies. His narrations are known to contain irregularities, and he was not from those whose solitary reports are relied upon independently. In a chain already burdened by Asbat ibn Nasr, his presence does not strengthen the report.
The chain further depends upon Subayh Mawla Umm Salamah whose standing among the transmitters is obscure and whose reliability was never affirmed. He is described as majhul.[6]
Imam al Tirmidhi himself notes that he was not known, and after recording the report, characterises it as gharib, which is understood by anyone familiar with his usage to be a remark that discredits it.[7]
Whilst there are other versions of the report which al Muraja’at hasn’t traced, like the one in al Tabarani[8] and Ibn ‘Asakir,[9] they all converge upon Subayh as a common narrator. What we end up with is still a solitary narration transmitted through a narrator whose condition is unknown and which cannot sustain independent evidentiary weight.
The cumulative result is unmistakable. The only report in this collection not previously addressed proves, upon examination, to be unsound. Thus, after the escalation of tone and the multiplication of citations, we are brought back to where the discussion stood before the list was introduced. The reader is therefore left with a stark contrast. On the one hand, an inherited historical record attesting to consultation, allegiance, kinship, and cooperation between ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the leading Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. On the other, a narrative of pervasive hostility resting upon weak recycled reports. Between these two, the choice is not difficult.
[1] For further reading please consult Ruhama’ Baynahum .
[2] Please refer to Letter 8, 11, and 48 of Shattering the Mirage
[3] Jami’ al Tirmidhi, Hadith: 3870.
[4] Ikmal Tahdhib al Kamal, vol. 2 pg. 64; Tahdhib al Tahdhib, vol. 1 pg. 109.
[5] Al Kamil, vol. 1 pg. 274; Tahdhib al Kamal, vol. 3 pg. 132; Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 1 pg. 395.
[6] Al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, vol. 4 pg. 449; Tahdhib al Kamal, vol. 33 pg. 112.
[7] Jami’ al Tirmidhi, Hadith: 3870.
[8] Al Mu’jam al Kabir, vol. 3 pg. 40.
[9] Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 14, pg. 159.