The Shia Answer to Verses Extolling the Virtues of the Sahaba

Proofs Establishing That the Sahaba Were Not Munafiqin
November 29, 2016
Chapter Two – Introduction
November 29, 2016

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

The Shia Answer to Verses Extolling the Virtues of the Sahaba

 

The general response the Shia give to those verse which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has revealed regarding the Muhajirin and their merits and declaring His happiness with them is that iman and sincerity of intention are a condition for the hijrah’s correctness and for one to be worthy of attaining reward for it. Accordingly, Molana Dildar ‘Ali in compliance with his elders states in Dhu al Fiqar at that juncture where Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz has mentioned the verse:

 

وَالسّٰبِقُوْنَ الْاَوَّلُوْنَ مِنَ الْمُهٰجِرِیْنَ وَالْاَنْصَارِ وَالَّذِیْنَ اتَّبَعُوْهُمْ بِاِحْسَانٍۙ   رَّضِیَ اللّٰهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوْا عَنْهُ وَ اَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنّٰتٍ تَجْرِیْ تَحْتَهَا الْاَنْهٰرُ خٰلِدِیْنَ فِیْهَآ اَبَدًاؕ   ذٰلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِیْمُ

And the first forerunners (in the faith) among the Muhajirin and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct — Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.[1]

 

بسس بیابد دانست کہ باتفاق اہل اسلام در صحت ہجرت و ترتب ثواب برآں ایمان شرط است و ازینجاست کہ دلیل پیمبر خدا کہ دریں ہجرت شریک ابو بکر بودہ مشرک بود چنانچہ در کتاب طبقات و اقدی تصریح بآں واقع شدہ مقبول الہجرت نخواہد بود زیرا کہ باتفاق ایمان بشرط صحت عبادت است و ہم چنیں باتفاق فریقین شرط ترتب ثواب بر ہجرت صحت نیت ست چنانچہ دلالت میکند برآں حدیث متواتر انما الاعمال بالنیات و لکل امرئ ما نوی و من کانت ہجرتہ الی اللہ و رسولہ الخ و ایں ہمہ در اوائل بخاری و غیرہ مسطورست پس مادا میکہ مارا علم بہ صحت نیت ابو بکر بہ ثبوت نہ رسد دخول او در مدلول ایں آیہ متیقن نمی شود و تا تیقن نہ شود احتجاج بایں آیہ بر علو مرتبہ او نمی تواند شد

It should be noted that it is the consensus of the Muslims that iman is a condition for the correctness of hijrah and attaining reward for it. Abu Bakr who accompanied Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the hijrah was a mushrik as Waqidi has clearly stated in Tabaqat that his hijrah was not accepted since it is unanimously agreed upon that iman is a condition for the correctness of any form of worship. Similarly, both groups (Shia and Sunni) unanimously agree that sincerity in intention is a condition for acquiring reward for hijrah. The following mutawatir hadith narrated in the beginning of al Bukhari, etc., is testimony to this:

انما الاعمال بالنيات

Actions are judged according to their intentions.

So until we are not given verification of Abu Bakr’s sincerity of intention, the verse, “And the first forerunners (in the faith) among the Muhajirin.” will not apply to him. And until there is no conviction of this, this verse cannot be a proof for his lofty status.[2]

 

Moreover, Mujtahid writes at another place, where Shah Sahib has mentioned the verse:

 

لِلْفُقَرَآءِ الْمُهٰجِرِیْنَ الَّذِیْنَ اُخْرِجُوْا مِنْ دِیَارِهِمْ

For the poor emigrants who were expelled from their homes and their properties.[3]

 

کہ بر فرض تسلیم فضیلت ہجرت و امثال آں از اعمال مشروط است بر ایماں باجماع و اتفاق اہل اسلام و درستی نیت چنانچہ بخاری در صحیح خود از لیث روایت نمودہ است کہ گفت شنیدم عمر خطاب را کہ بر منبر می گفت کہ شنیدم رسول خدا را کہ می فرمود انما الاعمال بالنیات و انما لکل امرئ ما نوی فمن کانت ہجرتہ الی اللہ و رسولہ فہجرتہ الی اللہ و رسولہ و من کانت ہجرتہ الی دنیا یصیبہا او الی امرأۃ ینکحہا فہجرتہ الی ما ہاجر الیہ و ایں ہر دو فیما نحن فیہ در معرض عدم تسلیم ست

If we accept the virtue of actions like hijrah, etc., then this is conditional upon iman and correct intention by the consensus of the Muslims. Al Bukhari has narrated from Layth in his Sahih who says that he heard ‘Umar ibn Khattab declaring on the minbar, “I heard Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying, ‘actions are based on intentions and every person will be rewarded according to his intention. He whose hijrah was to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, his hijrah will be accepted to be for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. And whoever’s hijrah was to attain some worldly benefit or to marry some woman, his hijrah would be for this purpose.’” And we do not accept the presence of these two aspects (i.e. iman and sincerity of intention).

 

He says at another place:

و ایضا احتجاج بایں آیت موقوف ست کہ بہ ثبوت رسد کہ ہجرت ابو بکر بہ اجازت حضرت نبی صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم واقع شدہ و شیعہ ایں را قبول ندارند

To use this verse as proof is dependent on it being proven that Abu Bakr’s hijrah took place with Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam permission, which the Shia deny.[4]

 

He writes at another place:

ہجرت و نصرت ممدوح امری ست کہ تعلق بہ صحت نیت دارد و آں امرے ست باطنی

Abu Bakr’s hijrah and assistance are such aspects which are connected to correctness of intention which is something internal.[5]

 

I will now debunk this view in a number of ways.

The hadith which Dildar ‘Ali related from al Bukhari has no other benefit but virtue since intention is a condition for every action. And all the sects of Islam in fact all the religions are unanimous that no action is accepted without intention. So what was the benefit of relating this hadith besides increasing the size of the book? Maybe Mujtahid’s intention was that some ignoramuses might hear this hadith and fall into doubt and have this satanic thought, “this hadith is regarding those who made hijrah with Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or emigrated from Makkah to Madinah a little after or before him and it was regarding them that those verses were revealed. If all of them were worthy of being rewarded, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would not have stated this hadith and would not have made it conditional upon correctness of intention. So it is apparent that some Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum did not have pure intentions for hijrah.” But unfortunately, no one can fall into this trap because everyone knows fully well that hijrah will never come to an end and Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam hadith will remain forever and that not all people will make hijrah for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as the first Muhajirin did. In fact, some will leave their homes for the world or for women as we see today with our own very eyes; some leave their countries for women while others accept Islam for worldly gain i.e. so that he might eat with the Muslims. So this hadith applies to such people. Furthermore, Dildar ‘Ali should have seen the reason which appears in his commentary books for this hadith. He should have asked, “who does this hadith apply to? Who was Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam referring to?” He should have kindly added this point so that we could have applauded him for his honesty and trustworthiness. But why would he write it? His object would have been lost had he done so. But since he has not written it, I will reproduce the text from Mishkat’s commentary by Sheikh ‘Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlawi:

It should be noted that a man came to Madinah for a woman by the name of Umm Qais. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam mentioned this hadith regarding him. Hence, he was known as Muhajir Umm Qais (migrator of Umm Qais) since he emigrated for a woman.

 

O Shia! Applaud the holiness and honesty of Dildar ‘Ali and ponder over his boasting. He has stated regarding Shah Sahib rahimahu Llah in Sawarim:

 

می باید ہرگاہ قابلیت آں بہم نرساند بالجملہ بامتحان رسیدہ کہ ناصب عداوت اہل بیت ہرگاہ مسئلہ علیہ کہ اندک وقتے داشتہ باشد در اثناء تحریر آں دست و پاگم میکند از انجملہ ست ایں کہ دراں کمال انتشار و برا گندگی بکار بردہ لیکن نہ فہمید کہ ہرگاہ آتش قہر الہی را مورد و مستوقد گردید بہمہ تر و خشک او خواہد رسید و پادفنا خواہد داد و ہیچ حیلہ و مکر دراں وقت مفید نخواہد افتاد انتہی بلفظہ ملخصا

If you have any sense then until you do not have the capability, you would not intend authoring anything. It is known from experience and experiment that the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt’s hands and feet bloat when writing trivial matters. One of those matters upon which their city went missing and they never understood that when the fire of divine wrath will rage, it will burn all their things and blow it into nothingness and then no scheme and plot will be successful.[6]

 

Now let some just mu’min judge with fairness as to how aptly this fits Dildar ‘Ali. He has written some obscure things and added a hadith in between to deceive people which has nothing to do with the Muhajirin. However, Dildar ‘Ali has spoken the truth:

 

ما دامیکہ انسان ہرگاہ شعور داشتہ باشد ارادۂ تصنیف و تالیف نہ نماید ما دامیکہ قابلیت آں بہم نہ رساند

Until a person does not have the capability, he should not intend authoring anything.

 

His other statement:

 

باتفاق اہل اسلام در صحت ہجرت و ترتب ثواب برآں ایمان شرط ست

It is the consensus of the Muslims that iman is a condition for the validity of hijrah and acquiring reward for it.[7]

 

This is totally correct. There is no need to bring a Qur’anic verse or hadith in support of this. As for his to claim:

 

پس ما دامیکہ مارا علم بہ صحت نیت ابو بکر بہ ثبوت نرسد دخول او در مدلول ایں آیت متیقن نمی شود

So until we are not given verification of Abu Bakr’s sincerity of intention, the verse, “And the first forerunners (in the faith) among the Muhajirin.” will not apply to him.

 

We will criticise this in many ways:

  1. The author of Tuhfah did not say that this verse applies exclusively to Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In fact, he quoted it in favour of all the Muhajirin. Dildar ‘Ali has forgotten about everyone else and only taken Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu name which is contrary to the principles of debating. Had Shah Sahib rahimahu Llah brought this verse exclusively in favour of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, then it would have been appropriate for him to answer accordingly. But since he did not, then this response is inaccurate.
  2. If Dildar ‘Ali mentioned his name thinking that since Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu has the loftiest status among the Muhajirin, so by denying this virtue in his favour, it will be denied in favour of the rest, then we will not discuss this. We will only concentrate on this intention part. Why and how will you find out the correctness of intention? If you feel that this is an internal matter which is known to no one but Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala then we accept and we hand over his affair to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. It is certain that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has informed you of his condition in the grave and the correctness of Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu intention is now clear to you. If you wish to assess his intention from the actions he carried out during the hijrah then find out from your scholars’ statements. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam going to his house, taking him as a companion to the cave, Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu carrying Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam on his shoulders en route, preparing food from home for Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam — all these are found in your own books which we have reproduced in much detail in the commentary of the verse of the cave. One only needs to flip back a few pages and have a look. If someone does not wish to take the trouble of flipping back few pages to see the entire discussion which the following aptly applies to:

دریں جز و زمان چشم روزگار نظیر ایں بحث یعنی فضیلت صدیق اکبر از آیۂ غار ندیدہ باشد و گوش چرخ بریں نشنیدہ

Sayyidina Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu virtue which is apparent from verse of the cave has not been seen by the eyes of the generations and has not been heard by the ears of the skies.

Then I will reproduce a narration here which Shah Sahib rahimahu Llah has quoted from Mulla ‘Abdullah’s Izhar al Haqq who also labels his brethren’s rejection as useless and baseless:

جواب گفتن ایں سخن بہ ارتکاب آں کہ در سبق ہجرت و نصرت ایمان شرط است و آں شخص یعنی ابو بکر معاذ اللہ ہیچ وقت ایمان نداشتہ چنیں فعل از سنوح ناخوشی با امیر المومنین از انصاف دوست

It is compulsory to declare while answering this matter that the claim that iman is a condition for hijrah and nusrah and Abu Bakr did not accept iman at any time is a blatant lie which is the cause of Amir al Mu’minin’s anger and is far from fairness.

 

Mujtahid writes regarding this narration in Dhu al Fiqar:

کہ پس معلوم است کہ یا ملا عبد اللہ از امامیہ نبودہ و یا اینکہ جامع کلمات ایں مزخرفات را از پیش خود داخل نمودہ و یا مراد او از ایمان دریں مقام اسلام ست و معلوم ست کہ خلیفۂ اول از اول امر از ایمان بہرہ نداشت باتفاق من علماء امامیہ

It is apparent that either Mulla ‘Abdullah is not a Shia or that the gatherer of all this rubbish has added it from his side or that here iman refers to Islam. It is the consensus of the Shia scholars that Abu Bakr did not bring iman from the very beginning.[8]

 

Mujtahid has written three things here:

Denying Mulla ‘Abdullah as being a Shia. I will not delve into this aspect. If Mujtahid rejects all of his ‘ulama’ being Shia, it will not affect us in the least. Although, all the scholars have cited proofs that Mulla ‘Abdullah was a Shia, but I will accept Dildar ‘Ali’s view and understand it futile to give proofs for it. However, it is remorseful that he only rejected him being a Shia because he accepts the iman of the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum. However, this is also established from the statements of those Shia scholars who are the leaders of Dildar ‘Ali and whose statements he regards as “revelation from the skies”. Accordingly, Qadi Nur Allah Shostari writes in Majalis al Mu’minin:

 

اما آنکہ تکفیر ابو بکر و عمر بہ شیعہ نسبت نمودہ است مخنی ست بے اصل کہ در کتب اصول ایشاں ازاں اثرے نیست و مذہب ایشاں ہمین ست کہ مخالفان علی فاسق اند و محاربان او را کافر اند

To say that the Shia declare Abu Bakr and ‘Umar as kafir is something which has absolutely no substantiation from Shia books. Nonetheless, the Shia believe that Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu opponents are transgressors and those who waged war against him are kuffar.

 

When Mujtahid found no answer to this and understood it to be contrary to iman to reject Qadi Nur Allah Shostari being a Shia, he opted to falsify it via another channel. He answers it thus in Dhu al Fiqar:

 

پوشیدہ نماند کہ ایں کلام بر تقدیر صحت و صدور آں از فاضل قادح مقصود ما و مفید مطلوب او نمی شود زیرا کہ سابق گزشتہ کہ فاسق در مقابلہ مومن اطلاق شدہ

It should not be hidden that if this statement is accepted as true and the scholar (Shostari) has mentioned it then this is not against our objective and is not of benefit to him since it has been explained earlier that the word fasiq comes in polarity of mu’min.[9]

 

Look at the deception that he says, “If this statement is accepted as true and the scholar (Shostari) has mentioned it,” regarding an author like Qadi Nur Allah Shostari and a famous book like Majalis al Mu’minin. In actuality, he has rejected the statement by using such words. However, he could not do so emphatically out of respect for his holiness. If he had any honesty as he claims, he ought not to deceive and ought to quote the original text of Majalis al Mu’minin — which has not been distorted in the least. Shah Sahib rahimahu Llah was forced to quote:

 

کہ نسبت تکفیر بہ جناب شیخین کہ اہل سنت و جماعت بہ شیعہ نمودہ اند سخنی ست پی اصل کہ در کتب اصول ایشاں ازاں اثری نیست

To say that the Shia declare Abu Bakr and ‘Umar as kafir is something which has absolutely no substantiation from Shia books.

 

The exact text of Majalis al Mu’minin is what I have quoted above. If anyone is in doubt, he should have a look at Majalis al Mu’minin and admire Mujtahid’s deceptive statement,

 

بر تقدیر صحت و صدور آں از فاضل

“If this statement is accepted as true and the scholar (Shostari) has mentioned it.”

 

The thing which puzzles me the most is why did a scholar like Dildar ‘Ali say, “if this statement is accepted as true?” Qadi Nur Allah Shostari has vehemently denied Abu Bakr and ‘Umar being kafir in Majalis al Mu’minin. He has not mentioned his rejection in few words, but wrote an essay of it. He writes in the third majlis:

 

کہ از ایراد ایں مقدمہ دفع تو ہمی ست کہ در اوہام عامہ استقرار یافتہ کہ شیعۂ امامیہ تکفیر جمیع یا اکثر صحابہ می نمایندو ایں معنی را مستبعد یافتہ عوام مذہب خود را تبقریر آں از مذہب حق متنفر نمودہ از راہ بردہ اند و چگونہ چنیں باشد و حالانکہ افضل المحققین خواجہ نصیر الدین طوسی در کتاب تجرید فرمودہ کہ محاربوا علی کفرۃ و مخالفوہ فسقۃ و ظاہر است کہ اگر صحابہ بآں حضرت محاربہ نہ کردہ اند بلکہ بقوت کثرت خیل و حشم بے نیت استعمال سیف و علم مقام مخالفت در آمدہ باستقلال غصب منصب عترت رسول متعال نمودہ ند

The object of this introduction is to remove those misconceptions which are plaguing peoples’ minds that the Shia label all the Sahaba or majority of them as kuffar. It is due to this reason that many laymen begin detesting this true religion and stray away from the straight path whereas the Sahaba cannot be kuffar. Khwajah Nasir al Din Tusi has written in his book Tajrid that those who fought Sayyidina ‘Ali were kafir and those who opposed him were transgressors. And it is manifest that majority of the Sahaba did not fight with him but on the contrary assisted him with their strength and might and conveyances. Yes, they usurped the position of being the representative of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam without a fight.

 

It is clear from this text that Qadi Nur Allah Shostari has with a categorical proof rejected labelling those Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum as kuffar who did not fight Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu but only opposed him. He himself writes that the reason he wrote this introduction is to remove this misconception that “the Shia regard all the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum as kuffar and due to this the masses are thrown into deception and hatred for the Shia creed is put in their hearts and they begin detesting it”. How can this be possible that the Shia call all the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum kuffar whereas the best Muhaqqiq, Khwajah Nasir al Din Tusi, has written in his book Tajrid that, those who fought Sayyidina ‘Ali were kafir and those who opposed him were transgressors. Qadi Nur Allah Shostari does not stop here. He continues to prove his claim of not labelling the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum as kuffar by saying, “it is manifest that majority of the Sahaba did not fight with him but usurped the Caliphate without a fight.” Notwithstanding this verified stance of Qadi Nur Allah Shostari, Mujtahid first says, “If this statement is accepted as true” in order to put the masses into the delusion that this is not found in Majalis al Mu’minin and then states further:

 

قادح مقصود ما و مفید مطلوب او نمی شود زیرا کہ سابق گزشتہ کہ فاسق در مقابلۂ مومن اطلاق شدہ

This is not against our objective and is not of benefit to him since it has been explained earlier that the word fasiq comes in polarity of mu’min i.e. it means kafir.

 

Glorified is Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is pure.

بریں عقل و دانش پاید گریست

What sublime intelligence and wit.

 

What understanding and intelligence Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala gave Mujtahid! He puts his claim of labelling the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum as kuffar with Qadi Nur Allah Shostari’s claim of not labelling them as kuffar and audaciously and boldly declares, “Our object is the same.” In fact, to understand existence and non-existence; Islam and kufr as the same is not far-fetched for him. We contemplate over his intellect and say that no doubt what you say is true, Shah Sahib rahimahu Llah is ignorant who understood that Qadi Nur Allah Shostari’s text means not labelling as kafir.

O Shia! This is the level of your scholars’ intelligence and expertise. Nonetheless, it is established that Qadi Nur Allah Shostari and Muhaqqiq Nasir al Din Tusi believe that the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum were not kuffar and they only regard those who fought him as kuffar. Now listen to what Mujtahid has to say. He states in his book Dhu al Fiqar:

 

استنتاج نتیجہ مسطورہ موقوفست بریں کہ بنا بر اصول شیعہ باثبات رسانی کہ اصحاب تو از اول امر مومن اند و ایں از جملہ ممتنعات و محالات است چہ علماء ایشاں بدلائل بسیار و اخبار بے شمار کفر و پیشوایان شمارا در کتب خود باثبات رسانیدہ و ہرگاہ حقیقت حال چنیں باشد پس کلام تو از محل اعتبار ساقط باشد

To arrive at the above conclusion is subject to the Sahaba being believers from the beginning according to Shia books. And this is among the impossibilities. Our scholars have labelled your Sahaba and leaders as kuffar and munafiqin through countless proofs and evidences from your own books. And when this is the reality, then your view is worthless.

 

O Shia! I take an oath on your iman and din and I take an oath on the holiness and ijtihad of your ‘Fountain of Elucidation’. Evaluate this text of Qadi Nur Allah Shostari:

 

اما تکفیر ابو بکر و عمر بشیعہ نسبت نمودہ است سخنے ست بے اصل کہ در کتب اصول ایشاں اثرے نیست

To say that the Shia declare Abu Bakr and ‘Umar as kafir is something which has absolutely no substantiation from Shia books. Nonetheless, the Shia believe that Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu opponents are transgressors and those who waged war against him are kuffar.

 

with this text of Mujtahid:

 

علماء ایشاں بدلائل بسیار و اخبار بے شمار کفر و نفاق پیشوایان شمارا در کتب خود باثبات رسانیدہ اند

Our scholars have labelled your Sahaba and leaders as kuffar and munafiqin through countless proofs and evidences from your own books.

 

Evaluate the two! Speak the truth! Tell us which one of them is truthful and which one is a liar. Should we ‘naïve’ Sunnis believe Qadi Nur Allah Shostari who declares vehemently that this is so baseless that there is no sign of it in his canonical books or listen to Dildar ‘Ali who pronounces firmly that his scholars have labelled them as kuffar through countless proofs and narrations?

This is the condition of your scholars. They cannot remain on one point. They oppose each other. The reason for this is that they speak according to the situation and practice on the couplet:

 

ہر سخنے موقع اور ہر نکتہ مقامی دارد

Every situation has an expression and every juncture has a point.

 

Where they see an opportunity to label the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum as kuffar, they vehemently label them and prove their kufr on the tongues of all the Imams — from number one to number twelve. And when they see that the principles of din are being destroyed and Islam is leaving their hands, they flatly deny with much hue and cry that it is the slander and fabrication of the Sunni and say that their scholars are exempt from it. Amazing is their situation. The mind is flabbergasted at their statements, narrations and responses.

Dildar ‘Ali is not satisfied by labelling Sheikhayn radiya Llahu ‘anhuma as kafir. He does not stop here. He is hell-bent on their kufr to the extent that he says clearly at one place:

 

قال عليه السلام من شك فى كفر اعدائنا فهو كافر

Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu has stated, “the person who doubts the kufr of our enemies is a kafir.”

 

O Shia! Look at this text of Dildar ‘Ali and listen to what he is saying. Pronounce your exemption from poor Nasir al Din Tusi and Qadi Nur Allah Shostari, etc., — great scholars of your creed — and label them as kafir since they doubt the kufr of Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu enemies, “the person who doubts the kufr of our enemies is a kafir.”

It is disappointing that when Dildar ‘Ali wrote this book and played the drum of his ijtihad and wrote this hadith of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu then both these poor souls Nasir al Din and Qadi had passed on, otherwise they would have heard this statement of Dildar ‘Ali and definitely labelled him as kafir and joined our ranks.

 

ہر کہ ایشاں را کافر گوید کافرست

The one who labels those (Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum) as kuffar is a kafir.

 

I will at this juncture further establish Dildar ‘Ali ‘honesty’ and display his ‘deep knowledge’ and ‘piety’. Mujtahid has not only belied Qadi Nur Allah Shostari in this narration but at other places. He unintentionally displayed him as a dunce with his emphatic terms. The author of Tuhfah states in chapter twelve:

 

قاضی نور اللہ شوستری در مجالس المومنین خود آوردہ کہ مفہوم تشیع آنست کہ خلیفہ بلا فصل بعد از حضرت رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم مرتضی علی ست و لعن و سب در و معتبر نیستمیگنجد کہ نام حضرات خلفای ثلاثہ بر زبان شیعہ جاری شود و اگر جاہلان شیعہ حکم بہ وجوب لعن کردند سخن ایشاں معتبر نیست و آنچہ خبث و فحش در بارۂ ام المومنین عائشہ نسبت بہ شیعہ میکںد حاشا ثم حاشا کہ واقع باشد چہ نسبت فحش بکافۂ آدمیاں حرام ست چہ جاۓ حرم حضرت پیغمبر خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم و بعد ازاں متصل ہمیں کلام گفتہ است کہ ایں ضعیف حدیثے در کتاب حدیث از کتب شیعہ دیدہ بایں مضمون کہ عائشہ در خدمت امیر از حرب توبہ کردہ ہر چند قصۂ حرب متواتر است و حکایت توبہ خبر واحد و اما بنا بریں طعن کردن در حق وے جائز نیست

Qadi Nur Allah Shostari has written in Majalis al Mu’minin, “the meaning of Shi’ism is that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the undisputed khalifah after Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and it is incorrect to curse or criticise in this matter. It is possible that the three khalifass names will come on Shia tongues in this matter. If an ignorant Shia regards cursing as necessary, then his view is unreliable. It is related that the Shia speak obscene about Umm al Mu’minin Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha. Allah forbid! Allah forbid! No evil can be spoken about her. When it is forbidden to swear at others, then how can the wife of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam be sworn at?” Immediately thereafter, he brings a weak hadith from Shia hadith books that Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha repented from the battle in front of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. “Although the incident of the battle is mutawatir and the repentance incident is a khabar wahid, nonetheless it is not permissible to curse and criticise Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha for this.”

 

Now listen attentively to the response of Dildar ‘Ali as mentioned in Dhu al Fiqar:

 

اما آنچہ از سید نور اللہ شوستری نوشتہ پس البتہ در نقل تدلیس و تلبیس نمودہ بالجملہ سب و شتم البتہ نزدیک امامیہ در حق ہیچکس از کفار و مسلم جائز نیست اما تبرا و بیزاری از اعدای دین واجب و لازم گو بحسب اتفاق اگر از زبان نگوید قباحت نباشد لیکن اگر گناہ دانستہ نگوید البتہ گنہگار بلکہ بہ نسبت ناکثین و مارقین و قاسطین اگر گناہ دانستہ نگوید از ایمان بیروں می شود چہ اور دریں صورت منکر ضروری مذہب امامیہ شدہ

Something was written with reference to Qadi Nur Allah Shostari. Dishonesty and fraud has been practiced in quoting it. According to the Shia sect, it is not permissible to swear, curse or utter profanity at any kafir or Muslim. Although, it is compulsory to declare exemption from the enemies of din. If exemption is not declared verbally, then there is no evil in this. However, if one knows a criminal to be a sinner and does not express exemption from him then this person himself will be a sinner, breaker of his pledge, oppressor and out of the fold of din. If he does not declare a sin as a sin intentionally, he has left his iman since in this situation he has rejected the necessities of din.

 

Those with sound disposition should decide whether the author of Tuhfah is hoodwinking people or whether Dildar ‘Ali is guilty of this. The former quotes Qadi Nur Allah Shostari’s text verbatim while the latter does not open Majalis al Mu’minin to verify but just slanders Shah Sahib of being deceptive thus displaying his own deceptiveness and dishonesty.

O Shia! Are you still not convinced of your scholar’s dishonesty and treachery and will you still not doubt his ijtihad notwithstanding such open crimes? Majalis al Mu’minin is neither the Izhar al Haqq of Mulla ‘Abdullah which is inaccessible or can just be rejected to save face nor is it so rare that Dildar ‘Ali’s library did not have a copy of it. If Shah Sahib rahimahu Llah fabricated it and slandered Qadi by referencing it to him whereas Qadi did not say or write it then it was not difficult for Dildar ‘Ali to take a copy of Majalis al Mu’minin and quote the original text. This is an amazing type of dishonesty and deception that a blind eye is turned to the book intentionally and Shah Sahib instead is slandered. No doubt, Shah Sahib rahimahu Llah committed the grave error of quoting such a narration which is contrary to Shia beliefs from such a scholar’s book — who is a fundamental pillar of the Shia and who sacrificed his life for his religion. The reason Dildar ‘Ali opted for the slander is that he had no other option. He either would have to quote the original text and point out the changes or additions made by Shah Sahib rahimahu Llah or acknowledge that what Shah rahimahu Llah quoted was correct; but then what answer could he possible give? He thus followed in the footsteps of Shaitan al Taq[10] and neither acknowledged nor denied in order to save himself. Unfortunately, few words were written by his pen thereafter which shows the correctness of Qadi’s text. He writes:

 

مراد سید نور اللہ ہر جاکہ گفتہ باشد اگر گفتہ باشد ہمین ست و عبارت ایشاں ہر گز آنچہ فقیر گفتہ مخالفت ندارد

Wherever (Qadi) Nur Allah wrote this if he did, then his meaning and my meaning are the same. There is no polarity between his text and my statement.

 

Looking at this text, the heart automatically desires to write something about Dildar ‘Ali. But I will only write:

 

ایں گل و دیگر شگفت

This is a flower and the others are thorns.

 

I will ask his followers, according to my feeble understanding, I find that both are poles apart. May someone kindly explain to me how this text of Qadi’s:

The meaning of Shi’ism is that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the undisputed khalifah after Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and it is incorrect to curse or criticise in this matter.

is same to this text of Dildar ‘Ali’s:

It is compulsory to declare exemption from the enemies of din.

And how this sentence of Qadi Nur Allah Shostari’s:

If an ignorant Shia regards cursing as necessary, then his view is unreliable.

is in conformity with Dildar ‘Ali’s sentence:

If exemption is not declared verbally, then there is no evil in this. However, if one knows a criminal to be a sinner and does not express exemption from him then this person himself will be a sinner, breaker of his pledge, oppressor and out of the fold of din. If he does not declare a sin as a sin intentionally, he has left his iman.

I understand from Qadi’s text that swearing and cursing is not necessary, nor a fundamental tenet of Shi’ism and to understand it as necessary is the view of the ignorant. Whereas on the other hand, Dildar ‘Ali’s text is absolute that according to him cursing and swearing is necessary for Shi’ism. In fact, the one who does not express exemption does not remain a believer. Notwithstanding the polarity between the two, he audaciously claims:

There is no polarity between his text and my statement.

 

Now what more can be said? The pride and vanity he displayed regarding his book Dhu al Fiqar would have been more excusable had he not praised it himself, but as the poet Sa’ib said:

 

ثنای خود بخود کردی نمی زیبد ترا صائب             چوں زن پستان خود مالد حظوظ نفس کے یابد

It is not befitting for you to praise yourself, Sa’ib!

Like when women rub their own breasts for pleasure

 

It was necessary to abstain from self-praise when the book itself praised its author. But now, by Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala grace, his self-praise has been attested to and all the wonders of his book has been established. The Shia should have a look at the book Dhu al Fiqar which is filled with wise quotes. Dildar ‘Ali has said regarding it in Sawarim, “When we saw the twelfth chapter of Tuhfah, I thought to myself that confronting an ignorant layman is below my dignity, hence I was disinclined to answer it. But then with the thought that the noble Prophets and honourable Awsiya’ answered the kuffar, transgressors and wretched of their eras, I responded to it.” He then says:

 

چنانچہ بحمد اللہ تعالی در ہمان او ان سعادت تو امان در عرصہ دہ بست روز بصرف قلیلے از اوقات بہ نقض آں پر دا ختم و بیہودہ گوئی اورا بہ بیان واضح بر ہر کس و ناکس ظاہر و لائح ساختم در رسالہ مذکورہ باسم ذو الفقار اختصاص دادہ مع جلد کتاب عماد الاسلام پیش آں ناصب مولف کتاب تحفہ اثنا عشریہ مرسل داشتم تا شاید از خواب غفلت بیدار شود و از سر مستئ جہل مرکب ہوشیار گردد و للہ الحجۃ البالغۃ کہ مدت پنج شش سال منقضی گشتہ کہ آں رسالہ در اطراف بلاد شائع و منتشر گردیدہ و از نظر بسیارے از فضلاء سنیاں گزشتہ بمتانت و استحکام کلام کہ در اثنا نقض شبہات و کشف عیوب ممہومات او بلا ارتکاب تکلفات و تعسفات مذکور ساختہ ام ہیچکس چہ آں ناصب عداوت اہل بیت مصنف کتاب مذبور چہ غیر او از فضلاۓ مذہب مسطور مجال ایں نیافتہ اند کہ بہ نقض آں پردازند و در جواب آں چیزے برنگارند و بمقتضای اینکہ الحق یعلوا و لا یعلی انتہی بلفظہ ملخصا

Therefore, with all thanks to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, I have criticised this book and exposed its falsehood in a short span of 20 days. I have made it into a treatise and named it Dhu al Fiqar. I sent it with the book ‘Imad al Islam to the author of Tuhfah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah so that he may wake up from his negligence and emerge from the depths of compound ignorance. All praises are only for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. It has been six years since the publication of that treatise. Many Sunni scholars have read it. It was written to remove misconceptions and to expose its flaws with strictness and firmness without prejudice and unpretentious. The author of the book (Tuhfah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah) — the nasibi and enemy of the Ahlul Bayt — and the scholars of the Sunni creed were unable to debunk it and write a response to it. Truth always remains at the top. Falsehood cannot overpower it.

 

The truth is that whatever Mujtahid has written regarding Dhu al Fiqar is correct. The book is filled with eloquence and articulacy. His proofs are filled with wisdom; honesty and trust is apparent from every line; and there is no mention of prejudice or unpretentious. Whatever he has written is clear and true. He has displayed his deep knowledge and expertise. The only error committed was that he wrote it too fast and completed it in a short span of only twenty days whereas he ought to have written it after deep and prolonged thinking and he ought to have thought of not being disgraced and humiliated. Had he taken five or six years to write it like Sawarim and given it to some Iranian for proofreading then maybe his text would have been correct and there would be less garbage in his discussions. Just as some Multani wrote an answer to Sawarim and proved that Mujtahid’s intelligence is synonymous to stupidity and named his book Tanbih al Safih, a student should have written a response to Dhu al Fiqar and should have sent Tuhfah to his servants.

Mujtahid was hasty in writing this book and did not consider this couplet of Sheikh Sa’di which young boys are also aware of:

 

تعجیل کار شیاطین بود

Hasty works are the products of the Shayateen

 

When I study Dhu al Fiqar and Sawarim and see his expletives, obscenity and self-praise, I think to myself, “if only he could have used his valuable time which he wasted in writing expletives and obscenity to ponder and contemplate over his answers.” At the end, I found an answer to this in his words which he wrote in Sawarim, “no one should object to my vulgarity, criticism and censure. Shah Sahib has triggered it. At the end, I am Shia”:

اگر از ایں جانب نظر باینکہ شیوۂ شیعیان تبرا نمودن است از اعدای دین زیاد از انچہ نوشتہ اند بہ عمل آید مستبعد نباشد

If you consider that expressing exemption is the salient feature of the Shia, then it is not far-fetched to write more than what the enemies of din have written.[11]

 

I will now quote Dildar ‘Ali’s response to Qadi Nur Allah Shostari’s exposition:

 

اما آنچہ از سید نور اللہ نقل نمودہ کہ ایں ضعیف حدیثے در کتاب حدیث از کتب شیعہ دیدہ بایں مضمون کہ عائشہ در خدمت امیر علیہ السلام از حرب توبہ کردہ الخ اقول ہر چند ازیں قبیل سخنان ہر گز بہ مسلک جناب سید نور اللہ شوستری نمی زیبد کہ آنچہ ایشاں در تصرف حدیث امامیہ بدل جہد نمودہ اند و جہاد سنان و قلم و سیف زباں کہ افضل از جہاد سیف و سنان باشد کردہ اند اظہر من الشمس ست و اگر بہ حسب اتفاق روایتے بایں مضمون بنظر ایشاں رسیدہ باشد ہر گاہ در مذہب اہل اسلام روایات متضمن جسم بودن خدا و مکانی بودن او تعالی شانہ مروی شدہ باشد لاکن چوں تخالف ضروری دین ست محل اعتبار نباشد پس چنیں روایات ہم بشیعیان ضرر نخواہد رسانیدہ زیراکہ اگر روایت توبہ او صحیح می بود جناب ائمہ از و تبرا نمی نمودند و معلوم ست کہ جناب صادق علیہ السلام بعد ہر نماز عبادت دانستہ از و واز غیر او کہ اعداۓ دین می بودند تبرا می فرمودند

What has been quoted in reference to Sayed Nur Allah Shostari that there is a weak hadith in the Shia hadith books that Aisha came to Sayyidina Amir radiya Llahu ‘anhu and repented from participating in the battle etc. The answer to this is that it is not befitting for Sayed Nur Allah Shostari to say such things. He has sacrificed his heart and soul for Shia ahadith. The jihad with the spear of the pen and the sword of the tongue is superior to the jihad on the battlefield which he has practiced. It is manifest and according to the consensus of narrations that this topic has passed his eyes that for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala to have a physical body and to be in a specific place or abode has been written in Islam, but to turn away from this belief was necessary for din. Therefore, such narrations are unreliable according to the Shia and are not detrimental to them. Had the repentance narration been authentic, the Imams would not have expressed exemption from her. And this fact is known that Sayyidina al Sadiq rahimahu Llah would express Tabarra’[12] from her and other enemies of din after every salah as a form of ‘ibadah.

 

Here too, Dildar ‘Ali has displayed his honesty and denied that Sayed Nur Allah Shostari has written this exposition just due to the thought that the man was a great warrior who was martyred due to his Shi’ism. He has not clearly accepted this narration and, all praise is due to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, has not rejected it. Nor has he quoted it from Majalis al Mu’minin and proved Shah’s interpolation. We deem his thought to be nothing but satanic whispers and he has only being deceptive by mentioning those narrations which establish a physical body or place for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala (glory belongs to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala). He claims that there are such narrations in Islam, but unfortunately we Sunni’s are deprived of them. This is the share of the early Shia scholars. Hence, it was preferable for him to write ‘in Shi’ism’ instead of ‘in Islam’ so that people are not deceived. People should also understand that such narrations regarding Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala are found in the Shia creed and those who held such beliefs and attribute them to the Imams were their own Shia scholars — leave alone being scholars, they were representatives of the Imams and the souls of the Imams which I will prove in another discussion. Thereafter, the latter Shia rejected such narrations. So it is not improbable that the former Shia accepted the repentance narration of Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha while the latter Shia reject it. Furthermore, it is important to take note of Dildar ‘Ali’s slander against Sayyidina Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah that he practiced Tabarra’, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbid! He claims that Sayyidina al Sadiq rahimahu Llah would express exemption from Sayyidah Aisha and the khalifas radiya Llahu ‘anhum after every salah believing it to be ‘ibadah whereas on the other hand Qadi Nur Allah Shostari declares this practice to be that of the ignorant and does not regard it as part of Shi’ism, yet Dildar ‘Ali attributes the same thing to the Imam. Qadi Nur Allah Shostari considered his iman and said:

نسبت فحش بہ کافہ آدمیاں حرام ست چہ جاۓ حرم حضرت پیغمبر خدا

When it is forbidden to swear at laymen, then how can the wife of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam be sworn at?

 

The reality is that Dildar ‘Ali belies Qadi Nur Allah in disguise. He is angered at a word which shows that Tabarra’ is not necessary. However, possibilities cannot erase fate. Whatever those people wrote is written, the pens have written and the ink has dried. To make up things now or cry and wail has no benefit. Munshi Subhan ‘Ali Khan has written the truth in his letter to Molana Nur al Din:

 

البتہ مشکل ست کہ علماء ما وقت تحریر کار بہ دور اندیشی و جفظ از اعتراض حریف بہ بعض جاہانکردہ اند

The difficulty is that our scholars while writing did not have far-sightedness and did not safeguard themselves from the opponents’ objections at many places.

 

In another letter, Munshi expresses his grief in the following words:

 

غرض   کہ   متعصبین جفا پیشہ را حق ذائقہ عدل خود چشاند کہ مازیں تعصبات میدان مناظرہ بسیار تنگ شدہ و تناقض اخبار رگ جاں را می خراشد

In short, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will make the oppressive prejudiced taste His justice and fairness. Due to their prejudices, the field of debating has becoming very constrained and contradictory narrations and ahadith have become a problematic obstacle for us.

 

He further writes:

 

حقیقۃ الحال اینکہ بندہ پیشتر ہا بوادید اختلاف مضامین احادیث و قصور فہم امثال ما ہیچ مدانا از اسرار تفسیر اکثر آیات مصحف مجید مروی بطریق فرقۂ حقۂ اثنا عشریہ بر خود می لرزید کہ اگر مخالف دست تشبث بذیل ایں مرویات می زند تفصے مشکل خواہد بود ہما پیش آمد

The reality is that I have seen the contradiction of narrations in majority of places and the incomprehension of subtleties in the commentary of Qur’anic verses which have been narrated from the true sect, the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah. I was terrified. If these narrations get into the hands of the opposition, it will be nearly impossible to save ourselves. Sadly, we are faced with this exact fear.

 

The gist of what we have written above is that it is firmly clarified that according to Qadi Nur Allah Shostari, the enemies of Sayyidina ‘Ali Murtada radiya Llahu ‘anhu are not kafir, but fasiq (transgressors). He brings Muhaqqiq Nasir al Din’s statement as substantiation which he has written in Tajrid:

His opponents are transgressors and those who fought him are kuffar.

 

I will now quote Dildar ‘Ali’s response to this which is recorded in Dhu al Fiqar. He has displayed the fineness of his temperament. He says:

 

بر تقدیر مطلب عبارت محقق طوسی علیہ الرحمۃ کہ چیزے باشد کہ بذہن قاصر او رسیدہ وجہ استحقاق لعن ایشاں منحصر در محاربہ امیر المومنین نیست چہ بر تو سابق بریں ظاہر گشتہ و ہم عنقریب واضح خواہد شد کہ ہر کہ منکر یکے از ضروریات دین یا مذہب باشد ملعون ست گو محاریب نباشد و محقق طوسی علیہ الرحمۃ نگفتہ کہ کل من یا یکون محاربا لا یکون ملعونا کافرا لجواز ان یکون المحمول … الخ

It seems as though the meaning of Muhaqqiq Tusi’s text has been misunderstood by Shah’s limited mind. The reason for cursing and censuring him is not because he fought against Sayyidah Amir al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The reason is what was told to you before and which will be explained later that the one who rejects any one of the fundamentals of din is accursed although he has not fought Amir. Muhaqqiq Tusi has not stated that the one who did not fight him is not accursed and is not kafir. In fact, it is possible that this also applies to him.

 

The words “as though” in the beginning of this exposition ‘filled with wisdom’ should be contemplated upon. It means that the meaning Shah understood from, “his opponents are transgressors and those who fought him are kuffar.” is almost incorrect. The meaning is not that his opponents are transgressors and those who fought him are kuffar. It is not known what it means. What other meanings do these words have then?

If Shah Sahib has erred in understanding it and no one besides Mujtahid can understand it without looking up dictionaries like Qamus Sihah and Jowhari — such as in the words of Khutbah Shaqshaqiyah — then the meaning understood by Qadi Nur Allah Shostari and his translation in Persian is the exact same. I have quoted it above verbatim. So I do not know why Dildar ‘Ali wrote “as though” when the words are so simple and the meanings are so unambiguous. Now listening to the meaning Dildar ‘Ali understands:

 

اما قوله ان مخالفوه فسقة فمعناه انه لا بد من ان يكون مخالفنا فاسقا لا انه لا يكون الا فاسقا فانه من ضروريات مذهبنا ان بعض انواع مخالفة ينجر الى الكفر و الكفر مستلزم للفسق

Regarding Muhaqqiq Tusi’s statement, “his opponents are transgressors,” does not mean that they are only transgressors, nothing else. It is one of the fundamentals of our din that some opposition leads to kufr. And fisq (transgression) is a necessary attribute of kufr.

 

He says thereafter:

 

ہم میتو اند شد کہ مراد محقق ایں باشد کہ مخالف علی بن ابی طالب علیہ السلام ما دامے کہ منکر یکے از ضروریات دین نباشد مسلم فاسق است چنانچہ سائر مخالفین اعنی دردار دنیا احکام اسلام بر آنہا جاری می شوند مگر دردار آخرت مخلد بہ نار خواہد بود

It is also possible that Muhaqqiq Tusi means that the opponent of Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu until he does not reject the fundamentals of din is a Muslim fasiq just like the rest of the opponents, i.e. Islamic laws apply to them in this world but they will remain forever in the Fire in the Hereafter.

 

This couplet applies to it:

 

المعنى فى بطن الشاعر

The meaning is in the poet’s stomach.

 

In fact, this couplet is more apt:

 

توجيه القول بما لا يرضى به قائله

Interpreting a sentence with what the speaker is not happy.

 

Dildar ‘Ali further states:

 

اکثر اوقات استعمال فسق در خصوص معنی خروج عن طاعۃ اللہ مع الایمان میشود و ازیں لازم منی آید کہ ہر جا کہ لفظ فاسق مستعمل شود ہمی معنی مراد باشد کیف و جناب حق سبحانہ و تعالی میفر ماید وَلَقَدْ اَنۡزَلْنَاۤ اِلَیۡکَ اٰیٰتٍۭ بَیِّنٰتٍ ۚ وَمَا یَکفُرُ بِہَاۤ اِلَّا الْفٰسِقُوۡنَ ؛ فَاُولٰٓئِکَ ہُمُ الْفٰسِقُوۡنَ و ظاہر ست کہ او سبحانہ تقدس و تعالی درینجا لفظ فاسق بر مرتد اطلاق کردہ و امثال ایں آیات در کلام مجید بسیارست و ازیں مبرہن می شود کہ ایں متعصب کلام محقق علیہ الرحمۃ را دریں مقام محض بر سبیل تدلیس و مغالطہ ذکر نمودہ و بر کلام سفاہت نظام خود آنرا دلیل شمردہ و حالانکہ کلام محقق علیہ الرحمۃ در غایت جودت و متانت ست

Majority of the time, fisq is used in its own distinctive meaning i.e. to have iman but to disobey Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. But this does not necessitate that wherever the words fasiq appears it means this. How can this be? Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has stated:

وَمَا یَكْفُرُ بِهَآ اِلَّا الْفٰسِقُوْنَ

And no one would deny them except the defiantly disobedient.[13]

 

فَاُولٰٓئِكَ هُمُ الْفٰسِقُوْنَ

They were the defiantly disobedient.[14]

 

It is apparent from here that the word fasiq here refers to a murtad (renegade). Such verses are copious in the glorious Qur’an. From this it becomes apparent that this prejudiced man has misused Muhaqqiq Tusi’s statement and presented his own drivel as proof, whereas Muhaqqiq Tusi’s exposition is immaculate.

 

The gist of this entire text which Dildar ‘Ali has written quoting one or verses as well is that the word fasiq is used in the meaning of murtad and kafir. We accept this. However, the context is pivotal. And the context is present in those Qur’anic verses but lacking in Muhaqqiq Tusi’s sentence. In fact, there is no way that fasiq can be taken to mean kafir in his text otherwise the entire meaning will be disrupted. Had he only declared, “His opponents are transgressors,” without saying, “those who fought him are kuffar.” Then there would be scope for fasiq to mean kafir. However, when he has mentioned both sects separately and mentioned separate rulings for both, then how can you take the meaning applicable to the first object as applicable to the second object? When he has spoken about two different sects, viz. 1. Those who opposed Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. 2. Those that fought him, and mentioned two different rulings for them, viz. declaring the opponents as fasiq and the fighters as kafir, then if fasiq is taken to mean kafir here, the whole meaning will be wasted. In fact, the entire sentence will be useless and the exposition of the great learned man Muhaqqiq Tusi in a book Tajrid — which is immaculate with regards to words and meanings — will be meaningless. If he meant kafir by fasiq, then instead of saying:

His opponents are transgressors and those who fought him are kuffar.

 

He should have said:

His opponents are kuffar.

 

so that the fighter might be included or he could have been more emphatic and said:

His opponents and those who fought him are kuffar.

 

Or if he was not satisfied with kufr, and had to use the word fisq, he could have said:

His opponents and those who fought him are kuffar and transgressors.

 

By Muhaqqiq abandoning all of these possibilities and mentioning a separate object for a separate subject shows clearly that the meaning of both is different. Dildar ‘Ali who tries to prove that they mean the same thing is only bluffing. Apart from this, Dildar ‘Ali should have contemplated on what Qadi Nur Allah Shostari has written. He flatly rejected that Sheikhayn radiya Llahu ‘anhuma are kuffar and declared:

To say that the Shia declare Sheikhayn as kafir is something which has absolutely no substantiation from Shia books.

 

He then brings the statement of Muhaqqiq Tusi in support of his claim:

Khwajah Nasir al Din Tusi has written in his book Tajrid that those who opposed Sayyidina ‘Ali were fasiq and those who fought him were kafir.

 

If fasiq means kafir, then Qadi Nur Allah Shostari’s explanation will be futile and part of the drivel of crazy men. If still Mujtahid did not understand, he should have looked at the following text of Qadi Nur Allah Shostari:

 

بمقتضاۓ حدیث حربک حربی و سلمک سلمی واقع ست و ظاہر ست کہ حضرات شیخین با امیر المومنین علیہ السلام حرب نہ نمودہ اند

And in consideration of the hadith, “those who are your enemies are my enemies and those who you give amnesty to, I give amnesty to.” And it is well-known that Sheikhayn did not fight Sayyidina Amir al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

 

It is as clear as daylight from this text that here fasiq does not mean kafir but means:

 

خروج عن طاعة الله مع الايمان

Disobeying Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala while possessing iman.

 

Now, if the followers of Dildar ‘Ali still do not ponder over his high level of ijtihad and call him stupid, and wail over his understanding but continue boasting over Dhu al Fiqar’s solidity and rigidity then what can be said about them but this poem:

 

یچ آدابے و تر تیبے مجو                         ہر چہ می خواہد دل تنگت بگو

Do not consider any etiquette or sequence

Blurt out whatever comes to your mind

 

If Dildar ‘Ali has been thrown into the misconception that the word fasiq has been used in the Qur’an to refer to a kafir and murtad, then we will ask him does fasiq mean kafir wherever it appears? If it is so, we will ask him for this verdict. A mujtahid drank liquor, committed fornication and intentionally not performed salah; is he a kafir or a fasiq? Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has pronounced in the glorious Qur’an:

 

وَلَقَدْ اَنْزَلْنَآ اِلَیْكَ اٰیٰتٍۢ بَیِّنٰتٍۚ   وَمَا یَكْفُرُ بِهَآ اِلَّا الْفٰسِقُوْنَ

And We have certainly revealed to you verses (which are) clear proofs, and no one would deny them except the defiantly disobedient.[15]

 

I take an oath by the Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala who has created me — I do not say out of exaggeration and I do not include any prejudice — what Dildar ‘Ali has written regarding Tusi’s statement is so ludicrous and ridiculous and filled with dullness. What can I say about him? He is a mujtahid, an ocean of knowledge, the pride of the scholars and their king. How can an insignificant one like me utter anything to one so lofty? However, if this had been written by some ordinary layman, I would not have written two words to debunk it and would not have wasted one second of my valuable time since it is so ridiculous that it will not be worth the paper used to write its rebuttal. O Allah! What type of a mujtahid was this? Why do the Shia boast over his knowledge and expertise? How shameful was he that he boasts over such drivel and is on cloud nine? I seek Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forgiveness!

I will now discuss the point Dildar ‘Ali made that if a person rejects one of the fundamentals of din, he becomes a kafir. This does not affect Tusi’s statement in the least. It was better for Dildar ‘Ali that instead of fabricating meanings to Tusi’s statement and taking out such meanings which he did not even see in his wildest of dreams — and had Tusi heard of such weird meanings of his statement, he would have clouted the culprit — he should have stated clearly that although Nasir al Din Tusi or Qadi Nur Allah Shostari have written this but since it contradicts the ahadith of the Imams and the consensus of the Shia scholars, hence they have erred. We would have accepted this explanation perhaps. So just as we did not take Dildar ‘Ali to task due to him not accepting Mulla ‘Abdullah’s statement, we would have done the same here and kept silent. And this is not far-fetched. It is not necessary that the people of a religion accept each and every statement of every mujtahid and scholar especially when someone expresses his own opinion. It is only mandatory to accept Qur’an and hadith. If any scholar — be he Shia or Sunni — mentioned something in conformity with Qur’an and hadith, it will be binding upon the followers of that religion to accept what he said. Therefore, we do not harp on ‘Allamah Tusi’s statement. We are prepared to criticise the path Dildar ‘Ali has treaded claiming it to be unanimously agreed upon and upon which he lays the foundation of his ijtihad.

 

Dildar ‘Ali states in the beginning of the book:

 

پوشیدہ مخفی نماند کہ ایں عبارت ناصب کہ او دریں جا التزام نمودہ کہ بآنچہ دریں اجزاء بر شیعیان احتجاج نماید در عدم استحقاق لعن اصحاب ثلالثہ و احزاب آنہا از اصول مقررہ پیش شیعہ باشد و اصلا قول اہل سنت را دراں دخل نہ دہد پس بدانکہ از جملہ اصول مقررہ پیش شیعہ اثنا عشریہ اصول دین ست کہ عبارت از توحید و عدل نبوت و امامت و معاد باشد پس شکے نیست کہ امامیہ منکر یکے از اصول مذکورہ را مومن نمی داںد و اور از جملہ ملا عین می انگارند آرے منکر امامت را باوجود اقرار او بہ توحید و نیوت و معاد کافر نمید اند یعنی احکام کفار را در دنیا بر آنہا جاری نمی سارند

It should be understood that the nasibi enemy has written this text in this place so that he may have proof against the Shia that not cursing the three Sahaba and their group is one of the fundamentals of Shi’ism. It should not be understood that the Ahlus Sunnah’s principle has anything to do with it. Among the established principles of Shi’ism is that original din is that which included towhid, nubuwwah, imamah and Qiyamah. The reality is this that whoever rejects any one of the above mentioned principles is not a believer according to the Shia and they regard him as accursed. Although, this fact is definite that a person who rejects imamah and believes in towhid, nubuwwah and the hereafter will not be regarded as a kafir, i.e. the laws applicable to the kuffar will not apply to him in this world.

 

He writes at another place:

از کلام بعضے معلوم می شود کہ کفر واقعی ایشاں را اجماعی می دارند

It is apparent from a few people’s statements that they unanimously accept them as kafir.[16]

 

He writes thereafter:

ہر گاہ کہ ایں دانستہ شد پس بنا بریں می گوئیم کہ منشاء تبرا از اصحاب ثلاثہ و عائشہ و حفصہ و طلحہ و زبیر و معاویہ و احزاب آنہا مخالفت ہریکے از اصول معتبرہ مقررہ نزدیک شیعہ امامیہ ست چہ باتفاق معلوم ست کہ ایشاں و تبعہ ایشاں بامامت ائمہ اثنا عشریہ قائل نبودند و نیستند بخوبیکہ شیعہ قائل اند و ایں نیز ثابت است کہ ائمہ ما علیہم السلام از آنہا تبرا فرمودہ اند و رعیت خود را حکم نمودہ اند کہ تبرا از آنہا نمایند و حکم بنفاق اینہا کںد

To express Tabarra’ from Aisha, Hafsah, Talhah, Zubair, Muawiyah and their comrades is for this reason that these persons were against the established reliable principles of the Shia and it is known that they and their leaders did not consider the Imamah of the twelve Imams and did not believe in it as the Shia believe. It is also established that our Imams have expressed Tabarra’ from them all and have commanded their followers to express the same from them and believe them to be hypocrites.[17]

 

He writes in answer to introduction four:

پاید دانست کہ تنازع عامہ با خاصہ بآں ماند کہ زن با مرد مخاصمہ نماید زیراکہ معلوم است کہ صدد شنام زن بہ یک دشنام مرد مقاومت نمی تواند کردد و مصداق ایں حرف این ست تطویلات بلا طائل کہ بکار بردہ و یک حرف کہ عدم ثبوت ایمان اصحاب ثلاثہ و نظر ای ایشاں از جہت عدم اعتراف بامامت ائمہ اثنا عشر ست کافیست و باز ہر گز احتیاج گفتگو باقی نمی ماند

It should be known that for a layman to debate with one of the elite is like a woman debating with a man. And it is apparent that a hundred expletives of a woman cannot match a man’s one expletive. Useless proofs and explanations are worthless. Their not believing and acknowledging the Imamah of the twelve Imams is sufficient proof that the three companions and their comrades were not believers.[18]

 

He writes at yet another place:

محقق طوسی علیہ الرحمۃ در رسالہ قواعد العقائد گفتہ اصول ایمان نزد شیعہ سہ چیز ست تصدیق بہ وحدانیت خدا در ذات اور و در افعال او و تصدیق پیغمبری پغمراں و تصدیق بہ امامت ائمہ بعد از پیغمبراں انتہی کلام المحقق رحمہ اللہ و ایں کلام برہان قاطع ست بر فساد ذہن و اعوجاج طبع ایں معاند مجادل کہ از عبارت تجرید محقق می خواہد کہ کفررا مخصوص بمحاربین گردانیدہ خلفاء ثلاثہ خود را ازاں نجات دہد و نجات متصور نیست

Muhaqqiq Tusi has written in Qawa’id al ‘Aqa’id that there are three principles of iman according to the Shia, viz. 1. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is unique in His being and attributes 2. Believing in the nubuwwah of the Prophets and 3. After the messengers, Imamah is true. This text is an indisputable proof against that enemy’s corrupted mind and warped disposition. The enemy’s objective for quoting Muhaqqiq Tusi’s text is to label only those who fought Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu as kafir and to spare the three khalifas from it, but they cannot be spared.

 

Other latter Shia scholars have expressed similar sentiments as Dildar ‘Ali. Accordingly, the big brother Munshi Subhan ‘Ali Khan writes in response to Idah Latafat al Maqal:

 

حالا بجواب معارضہ کہ حضرت مخدومی فرمودہ اند ہر چہ حاضر طبع ماہر ست گزارش می رود و آں این ست کہ لمحض معارضۂ جناب اینکہ قدمائ امامیہ قاطبۃ معتقد کفر منکران امامت بودہ اند و از کلام خواجہ نصیر الدین طوسی و علامہ حلی و میر نور اللہ شوستری فسق ایشاں مستفاد می گردد بندہ عرض میکنم کہ مختار جمہور امامیہ اثنا عشریہ خواہ از متقدمین و یا از متاخرین ہمین ست کہ مخالف جناب امیرالمومنین علی بن ابی طالب علیہ السلام اعم من ان یکون محاربا ام لا کافر ست لیکن اطلاق کافر بر او نظرا الی دار الاخرۃ و سوء مآل اوست نہ باعتبار در دار دنیا مثل جواز مناکحت یا مجالست و امثال آں و وجہ این عقیدہ نہ آن ست کہ ملازمان خیال فرمودہ اند اعنی در دو حدیثیکہ مضمونش این ست کہ بعد رحلت حضرت رسالت مآب صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم ہمگیں صحابہ مرتد شدند بجز چہار کس و جناب بزغم خود ایں حدیث را منافی آیات کثیرہ و احادیث شہیرہ فہمیدہ اند مع ان الامر لیس کذلک چنانچہ بوجہ وجیہ ایں حدیث بموقع خواہد آمد بلکہ احسن اینکہ امامت بلا فصل علی بن ابی طالب علیہ السلام و ہمچنیں امامت سائر ائمہ نزد کان ایمان نہ جز و اسلام ست و ایں مماثلت باعتبار دار آخرت ست یعنی منکر ہریکے از ینہا مخلد بجہنم ست نہ باعتبار ایں دار چہ معترف بہ شہادتین را در دار دنیا کافر نمی گویند گو مومن نباشد

I state in response to the respected brother’s article. The crux of his answer is that those who reject Imamah have been labelled as kafir by the former Shia whereas they appear to be fasiq from the texts of Khwajah Nasir al Din Tusi, ‘Allamah Hilli and Nur Allah Shostari. I declare that those who believe in the Twelve Imams — whether former or latter — all accept that the one who opposes Sayyidina Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, whether he fights him or not, is a kafir. Such a person is labelled a kafir in terms of the hereafter for he will have a wretched ending there. However, he will not be treated as a kafir in this world. It is permissible to marry and intermingle with him. The reason for this belief is not what the respected brother has imagined as it appears in the ahadith that all the Sahaba besides four turned renegade after Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise. The respected brother has deemed this hadith to be contrary to numerous verses and ahadith whereas this is not the case. This hadith will be written according to its context. The preferred view is that according to the Shia the undisputable Imamah of Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the Imamah of the other Imams are part of the fundamentals of din just as towhid and nubuwwah and acknowledgement of Imamah is a pillar of din. It is not a part of Islam. And he being kafir is with regards to the hereafter, i.e. the person who rejects the pillars of din will remain in Hell forever. And such a person, since he reads the shahadatayn, will not be labelled a kafir in the world although he is also not a Mu’min.

 

The crux of this whole essay is that the three Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum and their followers rejected the Imamah of the twelve Imams, hence they are kuffar. All the laws of kufr will not apply to them in this world since they attest to towhid and nubuwwah, but the laws of Islam will apply to them. However, in the hereafter, all the laws applicable to the kuffar will apply to them and they will remain in Hell forever.

 

I will answer this in a few ways:

1. Dildar ‘Ali said regarding the three khalifas, Sayyidina Talhah, Sayyidina Zubair and Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhum:

 

ایشاں و تبعہ ایشاں بامامت ائمہ اثنا عشر قائل نبودند

They and their followers did not believe in the Imamah of the twelve Imams.

 

However, he did not think that the twelve Imams were not alive in their era. Besides Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu who was alive in their era and Sayyidina Hassanayn radiya Llahu ‘anhuma who were towards the last portion of their era, none of the other Imams were born. They only appeared after all these Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum passed away. If they did not bring iman on the twelve Imams, then is this their fault? May Allah forbid, it cannot be the Almighty’s fault for not creating all the Imams in their era. Glory be to Allah! Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is pure! What intelligence and wit Dildar ‘Ali possesses? He does not consider his words when writing and is so intoxicated with his expertise that he does not proof read it. O Mu’minin! Deal with fairness for Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sake. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has declared:

 

لَا یُکَلِّفُ اللّٰهُ نَفْسًا اِلَّا وُسْعَهَا

Allah does not charge a soul except (with that within) its capacity.[19]

 

Dildar ‘Ali eliminates the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum from this verse and labels them as kuffar since “they and their followers did not believe in the Imamah of the twelve Imams.” Applause to such understanding. Bravo to such intellect.

 

2. If Mujtahid refers to the being of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu by the twelve Imams, meaning that acknowledgement of his Imamah at that time was like acknowledgement of the Imamah of the twelve Imams, which the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum denied; we will accept his corrupt explanation. The answer then is that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala revealed verses in praise of the Muhajirin and Ansar and commended their hijrah, assistance, and jihad. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has stated:

 

وَالسّٰبِقُوْنَ الْاَوَّلُوْنَ مِنَ الْمُهٰجِرِیْنَ وَالْاَنْصَارِ

And the first forerunners (in the faith) among the Muhajirin and the Ansar.[20]

 

اَلَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا وَهَاجَرُوْا وَجٰهَدُوْا فِيْ سَبِيْلِ اللّٰهِ

The ones who have believed, emigrated and striven in the cause of Allah.[21]

 

رَضِیَ اللّٰهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوْا عَنْهُ

Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him.[22]

 

لَقَدْ رَضِیَ اللّٰهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ اِذْ یُبَایِعُوْنَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ

Certainly was Allah pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you, (O Muhammad), under the tree.[23]

 

So when these verses were revealed, was Imamah part of the fundamentals of din together with towhid and nubuwwah? And was the person who rejected the Imamah of Sayyidina ‘Ali Murtada radiya Llahu ‘anhu labelled a kafir? If there is such a verse in the glorious Qur’an, then please show it to us.

When these verses were revealed, there was no mention of Imamah because Imamah is Caliphate and Caliphate was founded after Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise. So to label those persons as kuffar who brought iman on Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, emigrated with him and fought in jihad besides him and regarding whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala revealed verses before the beginning of the era of Caliphate and before the new fundamental of Imamah came into existence is synonymous to crying over the death of chickens who have not yet hatched. No doubt, according to Shia principles, those people can be labelled as kuffar who found the era of Caliphate and rejected the Imamah of Sayyidina ‘Ali Murtada radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

 

3. If any Shia has to say that the three khalifas radiya Llahu ‘anhum are among those who found the era of Caliphate and rejected the Imamah of Sayyidina ‘Ali Murtada radiya Llahu ‘anhu, hence we label them as kuffar and exclude them from the virtues mentioned in the above verse. The answer is that the Shia principle that the rejecter of Imamah is a kafir begins after the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It begins when they reject Sayyidina ‘Ali Murtada’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu Caliphate and assume this position. Conversely, the glorious Qur’an was revealed during the lifetime of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and hijrah, assistance, and jihad — whatever the Muhajirin did ­ took place in Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam lifetime. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala accepted these services and revealed verses in their praise. So until they did not usurp the Caliphate and reject the Imamah of the first Imam, what crime did they commit that deprives them of the virtues mentioned in these verses? What offence excludes the Muhajirin and Ansar from being among:

 

وَالسّٰبِقُوْنَ الْاَوَّلُوْنَ مِنَ الْمُهٰجِرِیْنَ وَالْاَنْصَارِ

The first forerunners (in the faith) among the Muhajirin and the Ansar.[24]

 

4. O Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala! Someone might say that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam made Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu khalifah in his lifetime by announcing:

من كنت مولاه فعلى مولاه

Whose guardian I am, ‘Ali is his guardian.

 

And he made everyone acknowledge his Imamah. The Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum then rejected Imamah in the very lifetime of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, hence they are kuffar.

 

The answer to this is given in two ways:

Firstly, when did Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam announce the Imamah of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu? Did he establish the Imamah of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the beginning stages of Islam when he announced his nubuwwah? If Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had done so, then show us a sign or proof of this. To our understanding, no intelligent person, even if he be Dildar ‘Ali, will utter such rubbish. The most he will say is that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave the khutbah of his Caliphate at Ghadir Khum after Hajjat al Wada’[25]. The response to this is this happened in the last stages of the life of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and hardly any verses were revealed after this. Moreover, the verse:

 

اَلْیَوْمَ اَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِيْنَكُمْ وَاَتْمَمْتُ عَلَیْكُمْ نِعْمَتِيْ وَرَضِیْتُ لَكُمُ الْاِسْلَامَ دِیْنًا

This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favour upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion.[26]

 

is testimony to the din being complete and perfect as acknowledged by the Shia as well. On the other hand, the verse which complements the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum is either Makki[27] or Madani[28] and were revealed many years before Hajjat al Wada’. Hence, the senior Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum cannot be excluded from being the addressees of these verses.

Secondly, according to the Shia, no one rejected Imamah in Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam lifetime. Everyone accepted it outwardly and no one at that time emphatically rejected Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu Caliphate. Until a person does not reject towhid and nubuwwah verbally, he is not a kafir. So the person who does not reject Imamah verbally, how can he be a kafir?

Therefore, the following statements of Dildar ‘Ali are ludicrous and ridiculous:

 

اصحاب ثلاثہ و عائشہ و حفصہ و طلحہ و زبیر و غیرہم بہ امامت ائمہ اثنا عشر قائل نبودند

The three Sahaba, Aisha, Hafsah, Talhah, Zubair, etc. did not believe in the Imamah of the twelve Imams.

 

And his other statement:

 

عدم ثبوت ایمان اصحاب ثلاثہ و نظر ای ایشاں از جہت عدم اعتراف بامامت ائمہ اثنا عشر ست کافیست

Sufficient as proof that the three Sahaba and their like were not believers is that they did not accept the Imamah of the twelve Imams.

 

Dildar ‘Ali says:

 

تنازعہ عامہ با خاصہ بآں ماند کہ زن با مرد مخاصمہ نماید زیراکہ معلوم است کہ صدد شنام زن بہ یک دشنام مرد مقاومت نمی تواند کرد

For a layman to debate with one of the elite is like a woman debating with her husband. And it is apparent that hundred expletives of a woman cannot match a man’s one expletive.

 

After what I have written, if a person flings his statement right back at him, it will be quite apt.

 

تنازعہ خاصہ یعنی حضرات شیعہ با عامہ یعنی سنیاں بآں ماند کہ زن با مرد مخاصمہ نماید زیراکہ معلوم است کہ صدد شنام زن بہ یک دشنام مرد مقاومت نمی تواند کرد

For the Shia to debate with a Sunni is like a woman debating with her husband. And it is apparent that hundred expletives of a woman cannot match a man’s one expletive.

 

However, we will remain silent and we will not use expletives. O Shia! Look at the holiness, morals and dignity of your Fountain of Guidance. When giving examples, he chooses those with expletives. If only he used a different example, he would have maintained his dignity and morals and would not have been embarrassed in front of all.

If you have a look at Dhu al Fiqar, you will see that pages after pages are blackened with the substantiation of this fundamental that according to Shia scholars, the rejecter of Imamah is a kafir. And the size of the book has been unreasonably thickened so that people might think that he wrote a voluminous book, whereas the crux of it all is that Imamah is a fundamental of din according to the Shia and the one who rejects it is kafir. However, this does not provide an answer to the objection of Tuhfah’s author. The author of Tuhfah does not wish to establish the iman of all the Ahlus Sunnah — who according to Shia principles should be labelled as kuffar due to their rejection of Imamah. He only discusses the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum and claims that they cannot be labelled as kuffar. He furnishes those verses as substantiation which are in praise of the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum and brings the statements of Mulla Nasir al Din Tusi and Nur Allah Shostari for corroboration. But sadly, Dildar ‘Ali does not consider the clear difference between the two and does not understand what the author of Tuhfah wrote. He mixes the two up and answers like an amateur, “our principles show that the one who rejects the imamah of the 12 Imams is a kafir.”

How can the one who rejects Imamah be a kafir according to your principles? If according to your principles, the one who rejects your holiness and ijtihad is a kafir, then good for you all, but the author of Tuhfah is not discussing this. The crux of what Dildar ‘Ali has written is that the one who rejects Imamah is a kafir. However, since the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum did not reject Imamah until after Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise, they being kuffar during Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam lifetime is not established according to this principle. Now when their kufr is not established, then they are definitely included in those verses which were revealed in praise of the Muhajirin and Ansar. Thus the Muhajirin and Ansar especially the three khalifas possess the highest level of those attributes which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala listed in those verses, viz. iman, hijrah, assistance, jihad, bay’ah, etc. So what is the reason for excluding these individuals? And if they are excluded then only Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and three others will remain, no one else. To claim that all these verses apply to Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu alone and to exclude all the Muhajirin and Ansar is in fact distortion of the glorious Qur’an.

I feel it appropriate to falsify the statement Dildar ‘Ali quoted from Muhaqqiq Tusi’s article, Qawa’id al ‘Aqa’id, which was quoted earlier when proving that Muhaqqiq Tusi regards Imamah as one of the fundamentals of din, so how could he specify kufr only for those who waged war against Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

The answer is that this statement of Muhaqqiq Tusi recorded in Qawa’id al ‘Aqa’id is contrary to the belief of the majority of Shia scholars. He writes:

اصول ایمان نزد شیعہ سہ چیز ست تصدیق بہ وحدانیت خدا و تصدیق پیغمبری و تصدیق بہ امامت

The fundamentals of iman according to the Shia are three, viz. belief in the oneness of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, nubuwwah and Imamah.

 

The majority of Shia scholars have written that the fundamentals of din are five. Dildar ‘Ali himself has stated in his book Dhu al Fiqar:

 

از جملہ اصول مقررہ پیش شیعہ اثنا عشریہ اصول دین ست کہ عبارت از توحید و عدل نبوت و امامت و معاد باشد

The Shia who believe in the twelve Imams consider the following as established fundamentals of din, viz. 1. Towhid 2. Justice 3. Nubuwwah 4. Imamah and 5. Hereafter.[29]

 

Muhaqqiq Tusi has forgotten two fundamentals and chosen three instead of five. If he has so much of love for ‘three’ that he only listed three fundamentals of din, then it is not astounding if he spared the ‘three’ khalifas from kufr by saying, “those who opposed him were fasiq.”

Moreover, Muhaqqiq Tusi’s statement in Qawa’id al ‘Aqa’id does not falsify his statement in Tajrid since the former (i.e. the fundamentals of iman according to the Shia are three) is general while the latter (i.e. his opponents are transgressors and those who fought him are kuffar) is specific.

و ما من عام الا و قد خص

Every general rule has exceptions.

 

Thus, those Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum who only opposed are excluded from this verdict.

If someone objects, “when you do not accept Dildar ‘Ali’s explanation of ‘his opponents are transgressors’ then why do you give such an explanation? The answer is that we have proof for this explanation and substantiate it with the statement of another Shia Muhaqqiq, i.e. Qadi Nur Allah Shostari. He says in support of Muhaqqiq Tusi’s statement:

Sheikhayn did not fight against Sayyidina Amir al Mu’minin. Rather, without unsheathing their swords they made people theirs, trampled on ‘Ali’s right and usurped his right of being Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam khalifah.

 

If usurping the Caliphate necessitated kufr according to him, then why does he present the usurpation of Caliphate without a fight as substantiation of the non-kufr of those who opposed Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu? If there is any other meaning to this text of Qadi Nur Allah Shostari, then kindly explain it.

فعليكم البيان و علينا دفعه بالبرهان

You task is to explain and our task is to falsify that with proof.

 

If someone says, “just as you have furnished another of Muhaqqiq’s statement as proof, Dildar ‘Ali has also has furnished proof. In fact, you have furnished proof from another source whereas he has furnished proof from the same source, i.e. from Muhaqqiq Tusi’s other book.” The answer is that certainly we both have furnished proof. However, there is a difference between the two. Our explanation conforms to the words, text and the external meaning of what Muhaqqiq has said and our proof is in support of it in clear-cut terms whereas Dildar ‘Ali’s explanation is contrary to the wording, text and the external meaning and the proof he furnishes does not clearly support what he says. The meaning we present is clear and manifest whereas the meaning presented by Dildar ‘Ali is so intricate that it contradicts the rules of Arabic grammar and etymology. If you have any doubt, place the two meanings in front of an Arabic student — who is neither Shia nor Sunni — and ask him which meaning is correct. He will definitely say that what the Sunni is saying is correct and the meaning Dildar ‘Ali has claimed does not make any sense. Maybe only the Imam can understand such intricacies. So go to Surra Man Ra’a[30] and ask the Imam. Until the Imam does not emerge, and does not praise Dildar ‘Ali’s understanding, far-sightedness and holy nature and does not approve of his self-made explanations, no one will accept it.

The above discussion is now complete. I will now discuss whether the senior Sahaba and the noble khalifas radiya Llahu ‘anhum are Muslims according to Shia principles. Dildar ‘Ali acknowledges this by saying that the one who rejects Imamah is not a kafir, i.e. the laws of kufr do not apply to him in this world. We have quoted this earlier and supported it with quotations from Istiqsa’ al Afham. This proves that according to the Shia scholars, as he himself has stated, there are three stages:

  1. Iman: The one who believes in the five fundamentals viz. towhid, nubuwwah, Imamah, justice and hereafter.
  2. Kufr: The one who rejects all the above five or one of them besides Imamah. Neither iman nor Islam will apply to him.
  3. Islam: The one who rejects only Imamah. He will be with the kuffar on the Day of Qiyamah. However, the laws of kufr will not apply to him in this world.

The reason for making up these three stages is so that there remains scope to label the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum as kuffar as well as Muslims. When they see that the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum were truthful in their belief in towhid and nubuwwah, they were perfect in good actions, strong in din and had no defect in their external actions, they call them Muslims. But when they wish to criticise, defame and exclude them from the verses in praise of them, then they say that “they were not Mu’minin,” since they rejected one of the fundamental of din. Hence, they invented a level between kufr and iman and called it Islam.

Furthermore, they assumed that if anyone hears this difference, he will laugh and will call the one who made it up an idiot. The reason for this is that the fundamentals of din are five and all of them have been given an equal status. Four are such that if anyone rejects them or any one of them, he falls out of the fold of Islam and is regarded as a kafir (in this world and the next, and the relevant laws apply to him) while one (i.e. Imamah) is such that the one who rejects it is neither a kafir nor a Mu’min, but remains a Muslim and is not out of the fold of Islam. So either this fundamental of Imamah is not among the fundamentals but among the minor aspects; and if it is among the fundamentals, then the one who rejects it ought to be a kafir (and not a Muslim). So they discussed this matter in order to remove its absurdity and provide a unique reason for it. But instead of concealing its stupidity, its ridiculousness was doubled. I will now mention the reason and substantiate my claim. Dildar ‘Ali writes in Dhu al Fiqar:

 

بنا بر ورود احادیث بسیار محققین امامیہ در کتب خود تصریح نمودہ اند کہ مخالفین در عقبی حکم کفار دارند و ہر گز از جہنم بیروں نمی آیند و دریں دنیا نیز در احکام کفار شریک اند اما چوں علام الغیوب می دانست کہ دولت باطل بر دولت حق پیش از ظہور قائم آل محمد غالب خواہد گردید و شیعیان را معاشرت مواصلت و معاملت با مخالفاں ضرور خواہد شد دریں دولتہاۓ باطل احکام اسلام را بر ایشاں جاری گردانید کہ جان و مال ایشاں محفوظ بودہ باشد و حکم بہ طہارت ایشاں بہ کںد و ذبیحہ ایشاں را حلال داںد و دختر از ایشاں بخواہند و میراث بایشاں بد ہند و از ایشاں بگیرند و دیگر احکام اسلام بر ایشاں جاری کںد تا بر شیعیان کار دشوار نہ شود در دولت ایشاں و ہر گاہ حضرت صاحب الامر ظاہر شود حکم بت پرستاں را بر ایشاں جاری کند و درہمہ احکام مثل سائر کفار باشند و ایں تفضل خداست نسبت بحال شیعیان زیرا کہ فرق کفار بسیار اند اگر بر سنیاں نیز دریں ایام احکام کفار جاری می گردید در امور مسطورہ عسرتے بر شیعیان می شد کہ مزیدی بر آں متصور نیست

Shia research scholars have categorically declared in their books with reference to abundant ahadith that the opponents of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu are kuffar with regards to the hereafter and will never come out of Hell. They are partners to the kuffar in laws in this world as well. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knew that before the appearance of the Imam of the time, the false government will overpower the true one and the Shia will be forced to socialise and deal with their opponents. Hence, He set out laws to call the false government as Muslims for the safety of the Shia’s lives and wealth. They will regard the Muslims as clean, regard their slaughtered animals as halal, marry their daughters, give them inheritance, take inheritance from them and apply other laws of Islam to them so that worldly affairs are not constrained for the Shia when the Sunni are in power. When the Imam of the era makes his appearance, then the laws applicable to the idol-worshippers will be applied to the Sunni and all laws applicable to the kuffar will apply to them. This is Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala grace and kindness upon the Shia since the different sections of kuffar are in majority. If in such a time, the Sunni are regarded as kuffar, the worldly affairs of the Shia will be constrained to such an extent that it cannot be imagined.

 

This proves that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knew that the poor Shia will be disgraced and humiliated and the Sunni will enjoy honour and affluence. So if the laws of kufr applied to the Sunni then from where will the poor Shia get bread and who would feed them? The Shia would be forced to serve the Sunni and remain their servants. If the laws of kufr would be applied to the Sunni and if the Shia will brand them as kuffar then all the Shia would die out of hunger and the Sunni would stop giving them food. In fact, they would be enraged and kill them. Had this happened, the Jafari faith would be destroyed and no one would remain on the surface of this earth to take Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul’s name. By the extermination of the Shia, Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala worship would cease to exist. Since Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had mercy on the Shia’s subjugation and poverty and had sympathy on their pitiable condition, He protected the Sunni from kufr in this world and kept them as Muslims due to the Shia. But this mercy and compassion will only last until the emergence of the final Imam. When the Imam will emerge from the cave of Surra Man Ra’a and will finally overcome the fear of the Sunni after a good few thousands of years, then what will be the splendour and grandeur of the Shia! They will enjoy authority and kingdom. Some will have the knowledge of Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Someone will have the Imam’s shield on his shoulders. Someone will be running to kiss Dhu al Fiqar. Someone will be unsheathing Sawarim and Samsam. Someone will be running into Zurarah’s cave. Someone will be searching for Hisham and Shaitan al Taq. The Shia’s will be running everything then. People will forget about the tenth of Muharram. Shouts of O Imam! O Imam! will be heard in the skies. When the Shia will enjoy such grandeur and might and they will need nothing from the Sunni, the Imam will announce, “today, the verdict of Islam has come to an end and the time for open declaration of kufr has come. Now our Shia have no need for the Sunni. Hence, no one should call a sunni a Muslim from today onwards and no one should utter the word Islam. Understand them as genuine and impure kuffar. Apply the rules of the idol-worshippers upon them. Do not eat their slaughtered animals and do not drink water from their hands. Take your swords and sickles, and butcher them. They have suppressed our Shia for years and forced them to practice Taqiyyah. It was due to these wretched Sunni that our Shia had to speak lies. In fact, speaking the truth became difficult even for us Imams and we were forced to be two-faced. These despicable people caused much harm to us and our Shia. Now take full revenge. Live in peace and bliss. Beat the drums of sovereignty. Rule with might and force. And take out the thousand year old malice on the Sunni.”

O Sunni! For Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sake, be grateful to the Shia. It is because of them that you are saved from kufr. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has shown mercy upon them by not labelling you as kuffar and applying the laws of Islam upon you until the emergence of the Imam. Had there been no Shia, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala would not have dealt with you with such kindness and tenderness.

The reason Dildar ‘Ali has proffered for not labelling the Sunni with kufr until the Imam’s emergence has removed the entire objection. All the wind has been hit out of the Sunni. Does any Sunni have the guts to object to it or reject his reason which has been backed by philosophical proofs? We have definitely lost and Dildar ‘Ali has won.

We are unable to answer such an exposition, the strength and force of which can be gaged by its words and meanings. O Shia! Listen attentively and place this reason in your hearts. Dildar ‘Ali has said something very subtle and has taught you something extremely intricate. This is a proper mujtahid and a proper Muhaqqiq! The only words which can be uttered regarding such wisdom is “we accept and we believe” and no one can refute his sound statements.

اذا قالت حذام فصدقوها         فان القول ما قالت حذام

When Hudham[31] speaks then believe her

Because what Hudham says is the truth

 

When I read in Sawarim that Dildar ‘Ali has boasted over Dhu al Fiqar and thought his book to be unanswerable and proudly declared that no one has written a response thus far, I had a desire to study Dhu al Fiqar from cover to cover to see those wise proofs and philosophical explanations he filled his book with, which no one could answer. After I studied it from beginning to ending — Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is witness and I do not say with exaggeration — I did not find any scholar’s book more preposterous and absurd than his and do not feel it is worth a glance. He does not consider textual evidences and does not stick to the topic. He gathers muddled points, jumbled discussions and unnecessary discussions. Most probably it is for this reason that no one has written an answer to it. If anyone is uncertain, he should study all the texts I quoted from his book and he will confess to what I have said.

I will write one or two incidents for the Shia concerning the reason Dildar ‘Ali has proffered as to why Sunnis are not labelled as kuffar. Whoever is interested should listen. Whatever I am going to say is very beneficial and worth listening. So listen attentively, O Mu’minin!

 

سخن ماشنیدنی دارد                   جلوہ مفت ست دیدنی دارد

Our statement is worth listening to

It is a free show for those who wish to see

 

Firstly, according to the Shia, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has termed the Sunni as Muslims for the sole reason that:

 

تا بر شیعیان کار دشوار نہ شود

So that worldly affairs are not constrained for the Shia.

 

So why did Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala not show a little more mercy on their pitiable condition by making all the idol-worshippers and kuffar their brothers? Just as how rejection of one fundamental (Imamah) notwithstanding that it is clear-cut kufr, yet the word Islam is used for the Sunni for their sake, so why was Islam not used for those who reject all five fundamentals, because now the true meaning of Islam which appears in the Qur’an and ahadith does not remain. This is a brand new term.

Just as due to mercy upon the Shia, the Sunni could be called Muslims notwithstanding their kufr and remaining in Hell forever, similarly permission could be given for this word to be used for the rest of the kuffar so that the Shia may have even more freedom.

Secondly, why were the forbidden things not made halal for the Shia until the Imam’s emergence, so that worldly affairs are not constrained for the Shia? When for their sake, kufr and Islam were made synonymous and Allah handed himself over to them, it would be appropriate that all things be made halal for them. Then they could have drunk liquor with happiness and fulfilled their desires illicitly with women. All of the wealth of the world would be made permissible for them so they could steal anything from anyone and could live better lives. All animals even pigs could be made halal for them so that they could eat with relish. Moreover, they should not have been burdened with anything. Salah should have been waived for them, fasting should not have been made compulsory upon them so that they are not inconvenienced in the least. Although, I have thought of rather surprising and far-fetched things, but in reality the Shia have made plenty of things halal for themselves. For instance, they perform salah at three times thus saving themselves from two times. They are not shackled by nikah, thanks to mut’ah. They can pay any woman they desire and use her the whole night and be grateful to Allah. But it would be better for them to abandon the little injunctions of shari’ah which are left and become genuine heretics. Then if anyone has to object, they should just quote their magnificent scholars statement:

 

ایں تفضل خداست نسبت بحال شیعیان

This is Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala grace and kindness upon the Shia.

 

Thirdly, if in reality Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala saved the Sunni from kufr externally due to having mercy on the Shia’s condition, then the condition of it lasting until the Imam’s emergence is useless. The condition should rather have been until a mujtahid’s emergence and Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala should have said, “This ruling is until the emergence of any mujtahid.” This ruling ought to terminate the moment the Shia have authority over any land to the extent that a mujtahid can assume the position of ijtihad and few thousands in pursuit of the world can gather around him and he is able to write books in rebuttal of the Sunni.

 

اذا فات العلة فات المعلول

When the cause does not remain, the effect does not remain.

 

It is really startling! Why is this verdict still present in Lucknow and Iran and who is awaiting the Imam’s emergence there? When Mujtahid wrote Dhu al Fiqar in the royal house of Lucknow and published it, he was not constrained at that time. The amount of glory, power and might the Shia enjoyed at that time was not possible thereafter. Hence, he ought to have abolished that verdict. The truth is that he did abolish it, although not explicitly in writing, but he passed verdict of the kufr and impurity of the Sunni. The situation reached the level that if any Sunni sat on any pure Shia’s bedding, the latter would send it to the river for washing right away and the Shia regarded the food and drink of the Sunni as haram and impure. So Mujtahid’s following statement was only to beautify his book, not for practice:

 

حکم بطہارت ایشان بکنید و دیگر احکام اسلام بر ایشاں جاری کنید

They will regard the Muslims as clean and apply other laws of Islam to them.

 

The sad reality is that the Shia’s mujtahid is just like the Christians’ pope and the pundits. Just as they consider themselves as infallible and have the right to change and alter all the laws of their religions, the condition of the mujtahid is same. They think that the laws of the shari’ah are subject to their desires. They pass verdict as they please. They label with kufr when it suites them and label with Islam when they desire. Divinity is in their hands, so they may do as they please. Their eyes will open on the Day of Qiyamah. It will be us and the Mujtahid!

 

Fourthly, Dildar ‘Ali has stated regarding inheritance:

میراث بایشاں بدہند و ازیشاں بگیرند

Give them inheritance and take inheritance from them.

 

And he has stated regarding nikah:

دختر ایشاں بخواہند اور براہ دیانت دختر بایشاں بدہند

Take their daughters and give them daughters out of trust.

 

He should have been ashamed at saying this. It is not permissible to give a Sunni your daughter. The immorality of this can be understood by that person who turns back a few pages and reads the discussion on Sayyidah Umm Kulthum’s radiya Llahu ‘anha nikah.

It is apparent from this above discussion that Dildar ‘Ali does not regard the three Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum as Mu’minin but rather as Muslims and he brings many proofs to substantiate his view. Nonetheless, his view is incorrect. His own Muhaqqiqin and Muhaddithin have branded it incorrect and fallacious. It is surprising that Dildar ‘Ali neither considered this nor quoted it and acted in contradiction to his leaders by referring to the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum as Muslims. It is very regretful that he is not perfect in his Shi’ism and is not fully aware of his principles, yet he is prepared to write a book and unlawfully disgrace his fellow brethren with his stupid declarations.

Now listen to the great Shia scholars’ opinion concerning this topic. These scholars are neither like Mulla ‘Abdullah who Dildar ‘Ali can claim to be unknown. In fact, I will present the words of such a scholar and researcher, whose holiness is acknowledged like the sixth fundamental of din and the rejection of his knowledge and ijtihad is equivalent to rejection of Imamah. He is the honourable, master of both rational and reported knowledge, expert of usul and furu’, Muhaqqiq, knower of the subtleties, Mulla Baqir Majlisi. He quotes the hadith regarding the apostasy of the Sahaba from al Kafi and then says:

 

بيان قوله عليه السلام من ان يرتدوا عن الاسلام اى عن ظاهره و التكلم بالشهادتين الى قوله و لياتى ان الناس ارتدوا الا ثلثة لان المراد منها ارتدادهم عن الدين واقعا و هذا محمول على بقاءهم على صورة الاسلام و ظاهره و ان كانوا فى اكثر الاحكام الواقعية فى حكم الكفار و خص هذا بمن لم يسمع النص على امير المؤمنين عليه السلام و لم يبغضه و لم يعاده فان من فعل شيئا من ذلك فقد انكر قول النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم و كفر ظاهرا ايضا و لم يبق له شىء من احكام الاسلام و وجب قتله

Imam Abu Jafar rahimahu Llah said, “Amir radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not claim Imamah out of fear that it should not happen that the Sahaba do not accept it, abandon Islam and turn renegade. Turning renegade meaning that they outwardly abandon Islam and reject the Shahadah. This is not contrary to what has passed and what will come further on that all the people turned renegade except three since the meaning there refers to their turning renegade in reality and this refers to their remaining on the outward and apparent form of Islam although they are in the sphere of the kuffar in majority of laws. Those who did not hear the emphatic command of Amir al Mu’minin rahimahu Llah and did not harbour hatred and enmity for him are excluded from this. Whoever has perpetrated any of the above has also openly rejected Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam statement. None of the laws of Islam apply to him and it is necessary that he be killed.

 

The crux of the above is that those Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum who did not hear the categorical declaration of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam appointing Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu as khalifah and did not harbour enmity for him, the laws of Islam will apply to them although due to their allegiance to the khalifas, majority of them will be included in the laws of the kuffar in reality. On the other hand, those who did hear the declaration of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or harboured hatred for Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu are kuffar outwardly. None of the laws of Islam apply to them, it is not permissible to call them Muslims and it is obligatory to kill them.

If anyone is surprised that when Mulla Baqir Majlisi has stated this, then why did Dildar ‘Ali oppose him and call the Khalifas Muslims? The answer is that it is our job to authenticate this narration and it is your job to decide whether Dildar ‘Ali is truthful or Mulla Baqir Majlisi. Listen to the authentication of what we have written. The author of Istiqsa’ al Afham quotes this in answer to Muntaha al Kalam and then says:

 

اگر غرض از نقل ایں عبارت محض اثبات ایں معنی ست کہ صاحب بحار ثلاثہ و اتباع ایشاں را کافر مید اند پس البتہ ایں معنی بسر و چشم مقبول است اصلا جای استنکاف و انکار نیست

If the purpose of quoting this text is to prove that the author of Bihar al Anwar regards the three Sahaba and their followers as kuffar, then this meaning is accepted whole heartedly. We are not at all embarrassed of this and do not reject it.

 

The text of the Persian translation of Bihar al Anwar is:

 

ایں حکم یعنی بقای ظاہر اسلام مخصوص بکسی ست کہ از رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم نص بر خلافت امیر علیہ السلام نشنیدہ و بغض و عداوت آنحضرت نداشتہ چہ مرتکب ایں امور منکر قول پیغمبر صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم ست و بحسب ظاہر ہم کافر ست و ہیچک از احکام برای او ثابت نیست و قتلش واجب ست انتہی بلفظہ

This verdict i.e. remaining on external Islam is for the person who did not hear the categorical declaration of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding Amir al Mu’minin’s Caliphate and did not harbour hatred and enmity for him because the one who did perpetrate this has rejected Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam declaration and is a kafir externally as well. No ruling of Islam applies to him and it is necessary that he be killed.

 

If the Shia act justly and abandon prejudice and bias then they will mourn over Dildar ‘Ali’s holiness and honesty. He quoted nearly all statements relating to this topic and deduced this conclusion:

 

در دار دنیا احکام اسلام بر اینہا جاری می شود گودر دار آخرت مخلد بنار خواہد بود

The laws of Islam will apply to them (the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum) in this world. However, in the hereafter they will go to Hell forever.

 

However, he did not quote the statement of his Imam and ‘Allamah who declares that calling the khalifas outward Muslims is incorrect and is in fact kufr. The Shia are perplexing. They never remain steadfast on one view. Sometimes they say that the Sahaba and khalifas were Muslims externally and the laws of Islam applied to them while at other times they label them as kuffar and say that they ought to be killed. May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala make this nation taste His justice and punish them for the damage they caused to the din of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

O Believers! Have a look at Dhu al Fiqar how brazenly it claims that outwardly the laws of Islam will apply to the three khalifas radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Then look at Bihar al Anwar and Istiqsa’ and see with what clarity they labelled them as kuffar. Marvel at this contradiction.

 

فاعتبروا يا اولى الابصار و انظروا الى هؤلاء الكبار لانهم فى كل واديهيمون و فى كل تيه يتيهون تِلْكَ اٰیٰتُ اللّٰهِ نَتْلُوْهَا عَلَیْكَ بِالْحَقِّ فَبِاَیِّ حَدِیْثٍۢ بَعْدَ اللّٰهِ وَ اٰیٰتِهٖ یُؤْمِنُوْنَ

Take lesson, o men of understanding. Look at these seniors. They wander in every valley and are lost in every gorge. These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?[32]

 

What we have written up until now shows that the Shia scholars have difference of opinion regarding whether the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum are Muslims or kuffar. Majority label them as kuffar while some regard them as Muslims — and that too due to Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala merciful gaze on the Shia and with the clarification that kufr and Islam are synonymous.

 

I will now discuss the reason for them labelling the Sahaba as kuffar.

  1. Is it for this reason that they rejected the oneness of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala? Did they worship Lat and ‘Uzza? Were they idol-worshippers like Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab?
  2. Did they reject nubuwwah? Did they not believe Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to be a true Messenger? Or did they belie Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam like the other kuffar?
  3. Did they only reject Imamah but were perfect in towhid and nubuwwah?

I will discuss all three aspects separately.

Some Shia scholars claim all three. They claim that from the very beginning the three khalifas did not truly believe in the oneness of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam nubuwwah. This is one of the mainstream beliefs of the Shia which does not need any substantiation. Dildar ‘Ali writes at many places in Dhu al Fiqar, “they (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) did not believe from the very beginning.”

I have already answered this in the discussion of Sheikhayn’s radiya Llahu ‘anhuma iman. I will not repeat it here. However, I will furnish more proofs for their iman, besides those previously mentioned, so that the Shia claim that the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum were hypocrites will be totally debunked.

 

NEXT⇒ Proofs Establishing That the Sahaba Were Not Munafiqin


[1]  Surah al Towbah: 100

[2]Dhu al Fiqar: Majma’ al Bahrain publishers Ludhiyana 1281 A.H

[3]  Surah al Hashr: 8

[4]Dhu al Fiqar: pg. 37 line 15

[5]Dhu al Fiqar: pg. 57

[6]Sawarim Kolkata print 1218 A.H Pashtu pg. 74

[7]Dhu al Fiqar: pg. 56

[8]Dhu al Fiqar: pg. 58 line 12

[9] Dhu al Fiqar: pg. 52 line 12

[10]  A famous Shia fabricator whose name was Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Nu’man al Ahwal.

[11]Sawarim pg. 5 line 12

[12]  Tabarra’ is the Shia practice of dissociating, renouncing and cursing those they deem to be the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt.

[13]  Surah al Baqarah: 99

[14]  Surah Al ‘Imran: 82

[15]  Surah al Baqarah: 99

[16]Dhu al Fiqar: pg. 11

[17]  Ibid

[18]Dhu al Fiqar pg. 23

[19]  Surah al Baqarah: 286

[20]  Surah al Towbah: 100

[21]  Surah al Towbah: 20

[22]  Surah al Towbah: 100

[23]  Surah al Fath: 18-21

[24]  Surah al Towbah: 100

[25]  The final hajj

[26]  Surah al Ma’idah: 3

[27]  Those verses which were revealed prior to hijrah

[28]  Those verses which were revealed after hijrah

[29]Dhu al Fiqar: pg. 10

[30]  The name of the cave where the alleged twelfth Imam is hiding.

[31]  Hudham was an Arabian woman. When she would speak, her lover would listen and would not object. A poet said this couplet regarding her, “when Hudham speaks then believe her because what Hudham says is the truth. No one can reject what she says.

[32]  Surah al Jathiyah: 6

Back to top