Seventh Testimony
April 22, 2016Fifth Testimony
April 22, 2016BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Sixth Testimony
Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah has stated regarding Sayyidina Abu Bakr and Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma:
هما امامان عادلان قاسطان كانا على الحق و ماتا عليه فعليهما رحمة الله يوم القيامة
They both were just and fair rulers. They were upon the truth and passed away upon it. May Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mercy be upon them on the Day of Qiyamah.
Few important points from this narration:
- Sayyidina Abu Bakr and Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma were rightful leaders and khalifahs otherwise Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah would not have called them imams had they been usurpers.
- They practiced justice and fairness which falsifies all the allegations the Shia level against them. Had their justice and fairness been deficient, Imam rahimahu Llah would not have called them just and fair.
- They were upon the truth and remained steadfast upon it till death.
- They are deserving of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mercy on the Day of Qiyamah. A person who is not perfect in his iman and piety is not deserving of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mercy.
The unbiased should reflect as to what greater virtue can Sayyidina Abu Bakr and Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma enjoy than what Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah has stated which proves their leadership, khilafah, justice and worthiness of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mercy. When the Shia hear any of our muhaddithin narrating something in praise of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, they label it a lie and a fabrication and totally reject it. But what will they do with those narrations which their scholars have narrated and which their books have recorded either than misinterpreting and interpolating and adding a tale to it to change its meaning. Accordingly, they have perpetrated the same crime in this narration by adding a few more sentences which I will mention.
It is written regarding this narration in the article Adillah Taqiyyah dar Thubut Taqiyyah which has been signed by the leader of the scholars Sayed Muhammad Mujtahid and printed in Ludhiyana in 1282 A.H:
The Sunni scholars have committed treachery when narrating this narration and have only chosen those words which are outwardly in praise of Sheikhayn whereas they are inwardly filled with criticism and reproach. Accordingly, Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah has elucidated on the words of his statement in the very narration.
After a useless lengthy lecture, the original deceitful words of the narration have been recorded in that article:
The original narration is this that some enemies asked Imam rahimahu Llah regarding Sheikhayn. The Imam rahimahu Llah replied with Taqiyyah:
هما امامان عادلان الخ فلما انصرف الناس قال له من خاصته يا ابن رسول الله لقد تعجبت مما قلت فى حق ابى بكر و عمر فقال نعم هما اماما اهل النار كما قال الله تعالى وَ جَعَلْنٰهُمْ اَئِمَّةً یَّدْعُوْنَ اِلَی النَّارِ و اما العادلان فلعدولهم عن الحق كقوله تعالى ثُمَّ الَّذِیْنَ کَفَرُوْا بِرَبِّهِمْ یَعْدِلُوْنَ و اما القاسطان فقد قال الله تعالى وَ اَمَّا الْقٰسِطُوْنَ فَکَانُوْا لِجَهَنَّمَ حَطَبًا و المراد من الحق الذى كانا مستوليين عليه هو امير المؤمنين حيث اذيا و غصبا حقه و المراد من موتهما على الحق انهما ماتا على عداوته من غير ندامته عن ذلك و المراد من رحمة الله رسول الله فانه كان رحمة للعالمين و سيكون خصما لهما ساخطا عليهما منتقما عنهما يوم الدين
They both were just and fair rulers. They were upon the truth and passed away upon it. May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala have mercy be upon them on the Day of Qiyamah. When the people left, a person from his close associates said to him: “O son of Rasulullah! I am amazed at what you mentioned regarding Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.” The Imam said: “Yes. They are leaders… of the inmates of Hell as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has stated:
وَ جَعَلْنٰهُمْ اَئِمَّةً یَّدْعُوْنَ اِلَی النَّارِۚ
And We made them leaders inviting to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection they will not be helped.[1]
With regards to “العادلان” (just), they strayed away from the truth as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala states:
ثُمَّ الَّذِیْنَ کَفَرُوْا بِرَبِّهِمْ یَعْدِلُوْنَ
Then those who disbelieve equate (others) with their Rabb.[2]
And “القاسطان” (fair) as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declares:
وَ اَمَّا الْقٰسِطُوْنَ فَکَانُوْا لِجَهَنَّمَ حَطَبًا
But as for the unjust, they will be, for Hell, firewood.[3]
The meaning of the truth that they were upon is Amir al Mu’minin since they hurt him and usurped his right. The meaning of them dying upon the truth is that they died upon his hatred without regretting this. And the meaning of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mercy is Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam because he was a mercy for the universe and he will argue against them, be angry with them and take revenge from them on the Day of Retribution.
The gist of the above is that when the enemies left the gathering, one of the close companions of the Imam said: “I am amazed at the words you used regarding Sheikhayn.” The Imam rahimahu Llah replied, “I called them leaders for this reason that they will be the leaders of the inmates of Hell as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has called the disbelievers the leaders of the inmates of Hell: “And We made them leaders inviting to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection they will not be helped.”[4] I called them “العادلان” since they strayed away from the truth as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has labelled the disbelievers in the same meaning, “Then those who disbelieve equate (others) with their Rabb.”[5]
The translator writes that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has called Nowsherwan “العادل” in the ahadith books of the Ahlus Sunnah. Sa’di Shirazi has put in poetic form in his Gulistan:
|
کہ سید بدوران نوشیرواں |
در آوان عدلش بنازم چناں |
I am proud of the time of his justice for Nowsherwan was the leader of his time.
So just as praising the justice of Nowsherwan the infidel will not benefit him, likewise it will not benefit Sheikhayn. This is one of the seventy meanings.
He called them “القاسطان” as this means oppressors. It appears in the Qur’an: “But as for the unjust, they will be, for Hell, firewood.”[6] The Imam then goes on to say that he said that they were upon the truth. The meaning of this is that they overpowered the truth and the truth was overpowered. And the purport of that truth which they overpowered is Amir al Mu’minin. They harmed him and usurped his right. The translator writes:
The Imam rahimahu Llah connected the jar majrur “على الحق” in this sentence to the word “مستوليين” (usurpers) which is the specific khabar and is omitted in the text. The opinion of the majority of grammarians like Sibawayh, etc., is that when there is some evidence which points to a specific khabar, it is permissible to omit it. And since Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah is the most eloquent and most articulate Arab according to all the Muslims, his speech is reliable whether it is in conformity with the rules of the grammarians or not. And here due to the context, it conforms to the rules of the grammarians. Hence, they is no scope for objection. The evidence in the context is the word “على” which comes to show “استعلاء” (superiority). This comes in the meaning of overpowering and “استيلاء” (appropriation) in their vocabulary. If one studies the books of grammar, he will learn that the Arabs say:
علوت الرجل اى غلبته
I overpowered the man.
So the meaning of “They were on the truth,”:
كانا غالبين على الحق و الحق مغلوبا عنهم
They overpowered the truth and the truth was overpowered by them.
The Imam has said that “truth” refers to Amir al Mu’minin. This is totally correct and not far-fetched at all since the word truth can refer to Allah, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and the Imam. In fact to death, Qiyamah, word and speech also as is obvious. So if truth means the rightful khalifah, it makes perfect sense. There are two other reasons here which prove that truth referring to Amir al Mu’minin is correct.
The first reason is that “على” means above so the meaning of “كانا على الحق” will be that those who were inherently false overpowered the truth just as the infallible Imam has said in the supplication of the Quraysh’s idols. Thus, in compliance with joining both the narrations, it is correct for the Imam to mean this. Furthermore, this type of “استعلاء” (superiority) necessitates “استيلاء” (appropriation), hence to conceal the word “مستوليين” (usurpers) is correct as the infallible Imam has did. So ponder.
The second reason is that in Arabic grammar, the word “على” is used for opposition, harm and enmity as well. It is famous in Arabic grammar that in answer or in an objection they will say:
هذا لنا لا علينا
This is to our benefit, not to our harm.
It is also famous that when the army of Hurr met Sayed al Shuhada’ on the way, Sayed addressed Hurr:
ا علينا ام لنا
You came out of enmity or as our reinforcement?
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declares:
لَا یُکَلِّفُ اللّٰهُ نَفْسًا اِلَّا وُسْعَهَاؕ لَهَا مَا کَسَبَتْ وَعَلَیْهَا مَا اكْتَسَبَتْؕ
Allah does not charge a soul except (with that within) its capacity. It will have (the consequence of) what (good) it has gained, and it will bear (the consequence of) what (evil) it has earned.[7]
The author of al Kashaf explains: “What he earned of goodness will benefit him and what he earned of evil will harm him.”
So taking into consideration this usage, the meaning of “على” will be that both of them were opponents and enemies to the truth. This is the same meaning intended in the next statement of the Imam. So for the Imam to mean this in this context is perfectly correct. Understand!
Then the Imam goes on to explain that when I said, “ماتا على الحق” (They died on the truth.) the meaning is that they died hating the truth i.e. hatred for Amir al Mu’minin was in their hearts until they died. In this context, the Imam took “على” in the meaning of hatred and enmity as explained above under reason two.
The Imam further explains that when he said “فعليهما رحمة الله يوم القيامة” (May Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mercy be upon them on the Day of Qiyamah.) the meaning of the mercy of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam i.e. he will be their enemy on the Day of Qiyamah, he will be angry with them and he will take revenge from them.”
The Imam took “على” in the meaning of hatred. And being the mercy of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is not something to doubt. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala himself declares:
وَمَآ اَرْسَلْنٰكَ اِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِّلْعٰلَمِیْنَ
And We have not sent you, (O Muhammad), except as a mercy to the worlds.[8]
Anyways, the meanings of these words have been clarified in front of all. These words are not in praise of Sheikhayn radiya Llahu ‘anhuma but rather in for criticism and reproach.
I will prove the fallaciousness of this interpretation with few proofs.
First Proof for the Fallaciousness of This Interpretation
I feel ashamed to reproduce the drivel that the author of this article has written in the footsteps of his scholars. If such misinterpretations take place in the ahadith, no hadith will be in praise of anyone. In fact, every heretic will misinterpret the verses of the Qur’an to suite his fancy.
A Hindu says that he told a Muslim, “My Ram Lakshmana has been mentioned in your Qur’an.” The Muslim asked in surprise, “Where in the Qur’an does it appear?” He replied, “The huruf muqatta’at in the beginning of Surah Yusuf. Alif refers to Allah, Lam refers to Lakshman and Ra refers to Ram.” On hearing this, the Muslim laughed.
The misinterpretation the Shia have made of Imam Jafar al Sadiq’s rahimahu Llah statement is far worse than the Hindu’s misinterpretation according to me. He at least had some connection between the letters while on the other hand, what the Shia scholars have mentioned is totally disjointed. Every khariji and nasibi can make such weird misinterpretations of those narrations in praise of the Ahlul Bayt rahimahu Llah. Your answer to their misinterpretations is our answer to yours.
Second Proof for the Fallaciousness of This Interpretation
This statement in praise of Sayyidina Abu Bakr and Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma has been made by Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah who was prohibited from Taqiyyah. He was commanded to fear no one and spread the knowledge of the Ahlul Bayt without any fear. So why did he practice Taqiyyah? Why did he praise them in such glowing words out of fear for few nasibis and then explain the original purport to his special people after they left? What proves that the Imam rahimahu Llah was prohibited from practicing Taqiyyah is that Mulla Baqir Majlisi has written in Bihar al Anwar and Mulla Muhammad ibn Ya’qub al Kulayni has written in al Kafi that the sahifah of Imam Jafar Sadiq rahimahu Llah contained the following command for him:
حدث الناس و افتهم و لا تخافن الا الله و انشر علوم اهل بيتك و صدق ابائك الصالحين فانك فى حرز و امان
Narrate to the people and give them verdicts and do not fear anyone except Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Spread the knowledge of your Ahlul Bayt and verify your pious forefathers. Indeed, you are under protection and in safety.
Notwithstanding this assurance from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and the prohibition from practicing Taqiyyah, I cannot understand what he feared due to which he praises these Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and deceives those people. Shame on those who claim to be the Shia of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They have defamed their Imams in the guise of love for them and have slandered them so viciously.
Third Proof for the Fallaciousness of This Interpretation
If any Shia says that when the additional text is part of the original narration, then why do you accept the first portion of it and reject the second portion. It is necessary to accept the entire text and understand the interpretation of the Imam to be from the Imam. The answer to this is that the accepted principle is:
اقرار العقلاء حجة على انفسهم دون الادعاء لهم
The acknowledgement of the intelligent is a proof against them, not for what they claim.
Accordingly, the portion which acknowledges the virtue of Sheikhayn is a proof against them and the misinterpretations cannot be a proof against us. Besides this, it is the habit of the Shia muhaddithin to manipulate texts and make them conform to their ideologies. Mulla Baqir Majlisi has stated regarding Sheikh al Saduq in the narration which discusses fate and destiny:
انا فعل ذلك ليوافق مذهب اهل العدل
He only did this (interpolation) so that it can conform to the religion of the just (i.e. the Shia).
When they cannot be relied upon to not interpolate and change ahadith, then why should we accept their interpretations which are utterly ridiculous and absurd and why should we believe that these are from the Imams? The Imams themselves would complain and curse and reproach their ‘followers’ for misinterpreting their statements and narrations and transforming them. Abu ‘Umar Wakshi has narrated a statement of Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah is this regard:
ان الناس اولعوا بالكذب علينا ان الله اقترض عليهم لا يريد منهم غيره و انى احدث احدهم بالحديث فلا يخرج من عندى حتى يتأوله على غير تأويله ذلك انهم لا يطلبون بحديثنا و بحبنا ما عند الله و انما يطلبون الدنيا
People have overstepped the limits in fabricating things in our name. Certainly, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala wishes to punish them, nothing else. I narrate to one of them a hadith. He does not yet leave my gathering and has already misinterpreted it. This is because they do not desire what is by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala by my statements and my love. They only desire the world.
When the Imam attests to the fact that it is the habit of those who sit by him to misinterpret his words while sitting around him, then it is not far-fetched to believe that these people have misinterpreted this statement of his.
Fourth Proof for the Fallaciousness of This Interpretation
If one ponders and contemplates over the words of the interpretation of the narration, he will realise how absurd and contrary to application they are. The first interpretation is that the word “امامان” (leaders) means “اماما اهل النار” (leaders of the inmates of Hell). So the mudaf ilayh (possessor) has been omitted. However, according to the syntax rule, it is not correct to omit the mudaf ilayh except when it is tanwin, or on the strength of the mudaf (possessed) or due to a second idafah. If you are in doubt, check-up Radi. Secondly, when the word “امامان” has been left mutlaq (unqualified), its original meaning i.e. praise or a good quality will be meant since when a word is left mutlaq, its fard kamil (perfect character) is intended. So how can “اماما اهل النار” be intended. This is in contrast to the verse:
وَ جَعَلْنهُمْ اَئِمَّةً یَّدْعُوْنَ اِلَی النَّارِ ۚ
And We made them leaders inviting to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection they will not be helped.[9]
Since here, it is not mutlaq but muqayyad (qualified).
Secondly, the interpretation of the word “القاسطان” is erroneous since this word has been used in contrast to “مسلمون” (believers) in the Qur’an. To establish a meaning, there must be the precise appropriate context, which is found in the Qur’an and is not fond in this narration. In fact, it refers to the verse:
وَ اَقْسِطُوْاؕ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ یُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِیْنَ
And act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.[10]
Thirdly, for “الحق” (truth) to mean Sayyidina ‘Ali Murtada radiya Llahu ‘anhu is contrary to normal usage and its apparent meaning. To intend his name without previous mention of the same is converting the narration into a riddle. Furthermore, to take “على” in the meaning of “استيلاء” (appropriation) without any evidence and to make “استيلاء” (appropriation) synonymous to “استعلاء” (superiority) is forcing the meaning and speaking rubbish and using analogy in vocabulary whereas this is not correct. Think, when it is said:
زيد على الحق
Does it mean that Zaid is upon the truth or that he is upon falsehood?
Fourthly, someone mentioned something interesting about the interpretation of “رحمة الله” (the mercy of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala). When the Shia say “رحمة الله عليه” (May Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mercy be upon him) in favour of their leaders, we will understand that “على” means enmity and “رحمة الله” means Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam i.e. enemies of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. I seek Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forgiveness. The Shia have turned the ahadith into a game and have ruined their fate by slandering the Imams and making such nonsensical interpretations.
[1] Surah al Qasas: 41.
[2] Surah al An’am: 1.
[3] Surah al Jinn: 15.
[4] Surah al Qasas: 41.
[5] Surah al An’am: 1.
[6] Surah al Jinn: 15.
[7] Surah al Baqarah: 286.
[8] Surah al Ambiya’: 107.
[9] Surah al Qasas: 41.
[10] Surah al Hujurat: 9.