The Third Answer the Shia Present to Verses Extolling the Sahaba’s Virtue

Some intellectuals have answered by saying that the pleasure Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declared for the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum in the glorious Qur’an does not refer to all the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum but to only a select few, although there appears to be no exception. Qadi Nur Allah Shostari states in his Masa’ib:

بل هم يقولون اذ شهادته تعالى لهم بالرضا و من اتبعهم باحسان يمكن ان يكون خصوصا من قول الله تعالى و ان كان يخرج الكلام للعموم و هذا فى كتاب الله موجود من خطاب الخصوص و هو عموم و من خطاب العموم و هو خصوص من استقام منهم دون من لم يستقم و النظر يدلنا على ان الله عز و جل انما رضى عمن استقام فى طاعته و ان الجنة وعدها لمن سارع الى مرضياته و تجتنب عن معاصيه و من خرج عن هذه الحال كان محالا ان يستحق الرضا من الله تعالى فما لهم ايضا فى هذا الحال حجة

In fact they say that it is possible that Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala testimony of His pleasure with them and those who follow them with good conduct is specific although the address appears to be general. And this is commonly found in the book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala where the address is specific and the addressees are general or vice versa, i.e. the address is general and the addressees are specific to those who remained steadfast and not to those who did not. Deep reflection points to the fact that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was only happy with those who remained steadfast on His obedience and that He promised Jannat to those who surpassed in doing those actions which pleased Him and stayed away from His disobedience. It is impossible that those who did not practice accordingly are worthy of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala pleasure. Therefore in this case, they (the Sunnis) do not have any proof.

Qadi addresses the author of Nawaqid al Rawafid by saying, “what you claimed that the opinion of the Shia is that these glad tidings do not apply to the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum due to their usurpation of the Caliphate, etc. is a blatant lie. This is not what the Shia say. The answer the Shia give to the verses mentioning the Sahaba’s virtue is that it refers to a specific few. And this is found at many places in the Qur’an that the address is general but the command is specific and vice versa. And this seems to be correct after deep reflection because Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is only happy with those who remained steadfast on His obedience and only promised Jannat to those who surpassed in doing those actions which pleased Him and stayed away from His disobedience. It is impossible that those who did not practice accordingly are worthy of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala pleasure. So the Sunni have no proof.”

At the end of this explanation, Qadi boasts, “all praises belong to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. We have substantiated our explanation and have utterly debunked the Sunni’s view.” However, the reality is that this explanation is just:

کَسَرَابٍۢ بِقِیْعَةٍ یَّحْسَبُهُ الظَّمْاٰنُ مَآءً

Like a mirage in lowland which a thirsty one thinks is water.^{^[1]}

I will prove his mistake.

Qadi denies the fact that it is the Shia view that the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum were excluded from this virtue due to their usurpation of the Caliphate. However, his explanation thereafter proves that he does hold that view. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala announces His pleasure for those who emigrated, assisted and pledged allegiance under the tree (in Hudaybiyyah). All of these activities had already taken place and these verses were revealed to show their acceptance. Now you have to establish one of two things. Either that the three khalifas and the other Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum did not participate in these activities, i.e. they did not emigrate, did not assist and did not pledge the allegiance; so that they may be excluded from these verses. Or either prove that they did such wicked actions thereafter which excludes them from being worthy of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala pleasure. And the only two actions which the Shia find is usurpation of the Caliphate and enmity for the Ahlul Bayt. So the same thing is established which he just denied.

Furthermore, without accepting one of the two options given above, if one accepts the hijrah of the Muhajirin, the assistance of the Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum and the validity of their participation in Bay’at al Ridwan and understands that these verses were revealed in praise of the above actions, but then excludes the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum from this general address, then this is incorrect according to both reason and text. Why against reason? Because Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has declared, “I am pleased with them and they are pleased with Me,” Now for anyone to assume that iman is a condition for the validity of hijrah and assistance and that the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum did not possess iman is erroneous and mythical. The following verse is sufficient proof for the corruptness of their groundless assumption:

وَالَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا وَهَاجَرُوْا وَجٰهَدُوْا فِيْ سَبِیْلِ اللّٰهِ وَالَّذِیْنَ اٰوَوْا وَّنَصَرُوْٓا اُوٓلٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ حَقًّا

But those who have believed and emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aided — it is they who are the believers, truly.^{^[2]}

To exclude the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum when such explicit verses are present is in fact outright denial of nusus qat’iyyah (categorical statements). Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is not saying in this verse, “those who will bring iman and who will do good deeds, I will give them Jannat,” for in this instance, one may argue the perpetuation of the command, generalisation and speciation, etc. However, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is informing us about an action that already happened and the iman of a specific group and is attesting to their faith. So no one has the capacity to doubt and apply irrelevant conditions to this group. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala states categorically:

اُوٓلٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ حَقًّا

It is they (i.e. the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum) who are the believers, truly.

This sentence is a khabar, not an insha’. It is not a command. It is first-hand information. Therefore, there is no possibility of naskh (abrogation) because naskh does not relate to information. Otherwise, the incidents of Sayyidina Adam, Sayyidina Musa, Sayyidina Yusuf and the other Prophets ‘alayh al Salam which are mentioned by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala in the Qur’an will all be doubtful. People can start doubting the end result of these individuals and stop believing in these incidents. Others will assume specific and general applications thus misinterpreting and distorting the entire Qur’an.

Not believing the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum to be true believers notwithstanding such categorical verses is akin to denying the nubuwwah of the Prophets, the virtue of the inhabitants of the cave and all the incidents mentioned in the Qur’an of the past nations. If anyone objects, “I do not accept that the people of the cave had iman. I do not know whether their intention was correct or corrupt since intention is an internal affair. And it is also possible that all the people of the cave did not possess iman because the Qur’an is replete with generalization and specification, i.e. the address is general but the recipients are specific.” What response will you give to such an ignorant imprudent heretic, besides informing him that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declared in the Qur’an in emphatic terms:

اِنَّهُمْ فِتْیَةٌ اٰمَنُوْا بِرَبِّهِمْ وَزِدْنٰهُمْ هُدًی

Indeed, they were youths who believed in their Rabb, and We increased them in guidance.^{^[3]}

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala informs us of their iman and guidance in clear terms. To make such assumptions in such categorical statements and to casts doubts on the addressees is in fact denial of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala speech. Therefore, in a very similar manner, for Allah’s sake, ponder over the iman of the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum concerning whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala emphatically declares:

وَالَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا وَهَاجَرُوْا وَجٰهَدُوْا فِيْ سَبِیْلِ اللّٰهِ وَالَّذِیْنَ اٰوَوْا وَّنَصَرُوْٓا اُوٓلٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ حَقًّا

But those who have believed and emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aided — it is them who are the believers, truly.^{^[4]}

This is termed as Jumlah Khabariyyah, a sentence which provides information, and in this case it informs of their iman. The person who rejects the iman of the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum when such emphatic verses are extolled is just like the one who rejects the iman of the people of the cave. Such a rejecter is nothing but a heretic and renegade.

ذٰلِكَ مِنْ اٰیٰتِ اللّٰهِؕ مَنْ یَّهْدِ اللّٰهُ فَهُوَ الْمُهْتَدِؕ وَمَنْ یُّضْلِلْ فَلَنْ تَجِدَ لَهوَلِیًّا مُّرْشِدًا

That was from the signs of Allah. He whom Allah guides is the (rightly) guided, but he whom He leaves astray — never will you find for him a protecting guide.^{^[5]}

Textual Evidence

If you are not totally satisfied with this explanation, then listen to its approval by one of your own commentators. ‘Allamah al Tabarsi states in his Tafsir:

ثم عاد سبحانه الى ذكر المهاجرين و الانصار و مدحهم و الثناء عليهم فقال الذين امنوا و هاجروا و جاهدوا فى سبيل الله اى صدقوا الله و رسوله و هاجروا من ديارهم و اوطانهم يعنى من مكة الى المدينة و جاهدوا مع ذلك فى اعلاء دين الله و الذين اووا و نصروا اى ضموهم اليهم و نصروا النبى اولئك هم المؤمنون حقا اى اولئك الذين حققوا ايمانهم بالهجرة و النصرة

In these verses, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has mentioned the Muhajirin and Ansar yet again and praised and applauded them.

وَالَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا وَهَاجَرُوْا وَجٰهَدُوْا فِيْ سَبِیْلِ اللّٰهِ

They bore witness to Allah and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and emigrated from their homes and towns, i.e. from Makkah to Madinah, and they waged jihad to elevate the din of Allah.

وَالَّذِیْنَ اٰوَوْا وَّنَصَرُوْا

They granted refuge to the Muhajirin in their homes and assisted Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

اُوٓلٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ حَقًّا

These people are definitely true Muslims for they have attested to their iman by emigrating and assisting unlike those who remained in the land of polytheism.

After such clarity and transparency, who can ever claim that the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum were not believers? Who can have the courage to say that hijrah refers to the hijrah to the valley of Abu Talib? Or that “the first forerunners” refer to those who died first? And who can ever bring up the general and specific argument after hearing this?

The Shia claim that conviction of a pleasant ending is necessary for Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala pleasure is nothing but deception because this very pleasure is proof of a pleasant ending. If Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knows that this group will have an evil ending and will shortly turn renegade and will become infidels due to usurping Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu Caliphate and Fadak, then it is farfetched that notwithstanding Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knowledge of the unseen, He announces His pleasure and declares asserting their iman:

اُوٓلٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ حَقًّا

These people are definitely true Muslims.

A person who has such a wicked thought about Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is an infidel, not a Muslim.

A point worthy of contemplating is that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala never ever praised a munafiq or a murtad (renegade) and never applauded any good action of a kafir. Many kuffar of the past were generous and just. However, due to them being kuffar and deserving of Jahannam, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala did not utter a word in praise of them and did not declare His pleasure regarding any of their actions. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knew fully well that these people are infidels and will be sent to Jahannam, so expressing His pleasure with them is in fact deception, we seek Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala protection from this. So if Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was pleased with the Sahaba’s radiya Llahu ‘anhum hijrah, assistance, and bay’ah; and displeased with majority of their other actions and was fully aware that they will burn in Hell because of their kufr and nifaq, then what was the benefit or reason for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala to speak so highly of them and mention them in such glowing terms? Does Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala also observe Taqiyyah (Allah forbid)? Or, Allah forbid, did He deceive them just to appease them and bribe them? Or is there some mistake here that without thinking of the end result, He praised the group who will turn renegade at the end and who lived as munafiqin? If He did not want to state clearly, then at least He should have stated, “those who emigrated and assisted — not all of them are truthful and believers and I am not pleased with them all.” Or He should have said, “my pleasure is only for those who remained steadfast till death, did not usurp the Caliphate of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and did not snatch away Fadak from Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and who passed away well before these painful incidents transpired.” In this way, no one would be deceived. It would not be correct then to praise the hijrah and assistance of the entire group and use this as proof for their iman.

O Mu’minin! Contemplate over the verses of the Qur’an and ponder over its deeper meaning. Do not attribute deception, Taqiyyah, or Bada’ to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. I do not know what you think about the Imams and the Messengers and Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. You do not believe anyone to be honest and transparent. You deduce deception and dishonesty from everyone’s words. Just as you level the accusation of Taqiyyah on your so called Imams, similarly you relate deception and Bada’ to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala whereas our Imams were always honest and transparent and our true and one Allah always spoke clearly and emphatically. Whoever Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knew was a mu’min, he ordered Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to keep them in his company, take their assistance and take rest at their homes. And whoever Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knew to be munafiq, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala clearly ordered Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to understand them as disbelievers, not to make them partners in anything and not to allow them to sit in his company. Thus, the behaviour of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam towards people makes it very clear as to who is munafiq and who is sincere. The companionship of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was the barometer of iman. The difference is that according to us they were truthful while according to you they were hypocrites. So it is either one of two situations. Either Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam knew about their nifaq or their nifaq was not exposed to him. If their nifaq was exposed, then did he keep them in his company or not? If he did, then what was the reason behind keeping a munafiq in his company? If he did not, then throw all the books of tafsir, hadith, and history into the Ganges and Jumna rivers. Just deny Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam birth as well and deny all the mutawatir reports. And if their nifaq was not exposed, then applaud them for their wittiness and slyness that from the day the sun of nubuwwah rose until it set, they were so cunning and witty that their nifaq was not disclosed to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, neither by Jibril ‘alayh al Salam informing nor by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala revealing. May Allah protect us from this blasphemy!

Moreover, let us ponder over the number of these munafiqin. Were they a handful or a few thousands?

ارتدت الصحابة كلهم الا ثلاثة

All the Sahaba besides three turned renegade.

The above text shows that besides 3, all the Sahaba were munafiqin or kuffar or they turned renegade. And if you look at the following verse:

وَ رَاَیْتَ النَّاسَ یَدْخُلُوْنَ فِيْ دِیْنِ اللّٰهِ اَفْوَاجًا

And you see the people entering into the religion of Allah in multitudes.^{^[6]}

You will conclude that although the munafiqin were plenty, the true and sincere believers number nothing less than 12 000. Now were the munafiqin in majority or the sincere believers? If you say that the munafiqin were outnumbered, then it is amazing that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not expel and humiliate them notwithstanding that the Muslims were more in number. And after Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, no one dared to confront the munafiqin and no one assisted the ‘true successor’ the ‘rightful imam’ besides a handful. In fact, more stunning is that the flesh of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the queen of the women ran barefoot from house to house for three days to all the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum seeking their help but no one helped. She also showed them Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam turban and his cup and begged them to have mercy on Hassanayn radiya Llahu ‘anhuma but to no avail. She was injured by the kick of the enemy and miscarried an innocent child. The munafiq tied a rope around the neck of Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam son-in-law and began dragging him. The son-in-law begged using Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala name and Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam name and Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha began screaming, “O my father! O Muhammad!” which the angels heard. The angels came rushing from Sidrat al Muntaha after seeing this horrific scene. The munafiqin said what they said and those innocent souls were persecuted and tortured. Such a pitiable condition that even the enemy will feel pity and have mercy and even those who are not related will help and protect the oppressed from the oppressor. However, notwithstanding such persecutions and notwithstanding that the true sincere mu’minin numbered 12 000 — who were neither among the Jabariyyah^{^[7]}, nor the Qadariyyah^{^[8]}, nor among the enemies of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu — and besides them the Banu Hashim were present with their weapons; but although they had the power, strength and ability, not a single one of the 12 000 and none from the Banu Hashim stood up to assist the successor of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or the daughter of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. They all just sat watching the atrocities.

On the other hand were the munafiqin — who had no iman in their hearts, no strength in their bodies, no honour among the Quraysh and no virtue whatsoever —were hypocritical when they interacted with Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and who planned to assassinate him. They never unsheathed a sword in any battle and never spilt the blood of an infidel. Forget slaying, they ran away from every battle. For the 12 000 to fear such munafiqin and for the Banu Hashim not to make any scene, can only be possible in one of two situations. Either they were also munafiqin and enemies of the Ahlul Bayt, although they were not oppressors and usurpers — we will not speak about whether they assisted the oppressors and usurpers. Now when they are also munafiqin, then the true believers remain only three. Or either all that which we have quoted from you is a blatant lie and fabrication and none usurped anyone else’s right and no one oppressed anyone. In fact, seeing their justice and righteousness, no one even opposed anyone. And all the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum were true sincere believers.

O Shia! These are the only two possibilities. You have nowhere else to run. Either declare them all to be munafiqin or them all to be sincere believers; which they were. But to sometimes say, “they were munafiqin,” and sometimes, “there were 12 000 Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum with iman,” and sometimes, “they all turned renegade at Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise,” and on others “people repented after the third khalifah and returned to iman,” and similar statements — changing colours all the time to suite the occasion — is contrary to intellect, contrary to iman, contrary to modesty and contrary to honesty. Is it fathomable that all those — who sat in Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam blessed company their entire lives, listened to his advices, performed salah with him and were prepared to sacrifice their live in the battles — turned renegade as soon as Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam closed his eyes from this world? And if anyone did not turn renegade, then yet when they saw the oppression and persecution being meted out against the family of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam they said or did nothing? Yet despite, such clear disbelief deserving of assassination, only after 25 years they repent and join Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu when he is the khalifah and you accept their repentance and call them Muslims and regard them as being worthy of Jannat? What amazing beliefs you have and what amazing statements you make. This is only possible for you.

I will comment on everything I have written above in the discussion of Imamah. I will explain with such depth, that no Shia will have anything to say other than, “you are correct!” Nonetheless, I will write some points here for the benefit of the readers.

اعلموا يا ايها الخلائق هداكم الله

Know, O creation! May Allah guide you!

The Shia first claimed that the Caliphate of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was true and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam declared him as his successor during his lifetime but the three khalifas radiya Llahu ‘anhum usurped his right and assumed the post of Caliphate for themselves. They (the Shia) counted Caliphate as one of the fundamentals of din, hence the one who rejects it is like one who rejects towhid and nubuwwah. From this principle, they deduced that the three khalifas radiya Llahu ‘anhum are kuffar. May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala protect us from such blasphemy!

Since there were over 100 000 Muslims after Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise among whom thousands were Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum and people who participated in Bay’at al Ridwan, all of whom pledged allegiance at the hands of the first khalifah, they passed the ruling of apostasy on all these persons and labelled them as kuffar.

And because they needed the statement of the Imam for this, they attributed the following statement to the noble Imams, “after Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise, all the Sahaba besides three turned renegade.” Sayyidina ‘Ali was thus constrained and would often say, “If forty strong men assist me, I will put up a challenge.”

After claiming that all the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum apostatised, they looked in the Qur’an and found it to be replete with praises for the Muhajirin and Ansar radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Therefore, they began fabricating mindboggling explanations. They said that Muhajirin refers to those who emigrated to the valley of Abu Talib or those who emigrated to Abyssinia, and Ansar refers to those 60/70 men who presented themselves in the service of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the earlier stages of Makkah Mukarramah and forerunners refers to those who passed away in Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam lifetime.

When they realised that there has to be someone to whom all the praises in the Qur’an refer to, they applied them exclusively to Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to the best of their ability. And Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala promise to the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum of Caliphate was deferred to the era of Imam Mahdi, the last era; and the power, strength and dominance of Islam which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala promised in the Qur’an and which was manifested at the hands of the three khalifas, they postponed it to the emergence of the Absent Imam. Only those verses remained which could only refer to the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum and no one else. They acknowledged that it applied to those Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum who remained steadfast on iman and whose actions were good. And after seeing many verses which speak about the great number of the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum and the dominance of Islam, they had no choice but to attest to the praiseworthy traits of a few thousands of Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum. After gaining more understanding and being caught up in the clutches of the Ahlus Sunnah and having some shame for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, Sheikh Muhammad ibn Babawayh al Qummi acknowledged in Kitab al Khisal that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had 12 000 Sahaba among whom 8000 were from Madinah, 2000 were from out of Madinah and another 2000 were freed. None of these were among the Qadariyyah, Jabariyyah, Mu’tazilah or rationalists. All of them were very pious and righteous. They would cry day and night out of the fear of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and would supplicate to Allah, “take our souls before we eat bread made out of flour.” However, the Shia did not apply their minds well in this answer. Because of the three khalifas, they kept silent about the people of Makkah. However, the question remains: were there Muslims there or not? They chose to exclude them all notwithstanding their huge number.

When the Sunni objected, “your creed is baffling. You label the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum — who are admired throughout the Qur’an — as kuffar and renegades,” they presented the above narrations and said that we believe that 12 000 of them were believers and have acknowledged their iman so that all the verses, ahadith and statements may refer to them. Others thought that if anyone has to ask about their names, what answer will we give? Hence, they prepared a list which has names of about 100 Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum, but that list is also laughable, with the grace of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Some are those who were kuffar at hijrah. Others were taken captive at Badr due to their kufr and were released after taking ransom from them. Others were still immature at Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise. And others had been humiliated and disgraced by ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and whom he labelled as treacherous and untrustworthy. Nonetheless, they prepared a list of 100 names to show people. They said regarding the rest, “Sheikh A’zam Muhammad ibn Hassan ibn Babawayh al Qummi prepared a book on Asma’ al Rijal^{^[9]} which had most of the Sahaba’s name, but unfortunately the Nawasib burnt the book. Hence, we are ignorant of their names.”

The Shia have thus made two conflicting claims. One is that all the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum (besides three) turned renegade. The other is that 12 000 Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum were extremely pious and righteous. When the Ahlus Sunnah objected to these conflicting narrations, they gave a new definition to the phrase:

All the Sahaba turned renegade save three.

They said, “What the Imam means by saying that all the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum besides three turned renegade is not that all of these are kuffar. It means that they split up into three groups. One group clearly turned renegade, i.e. they turned their backs to Islam while others rejected the fundamentals of din. Their apostasy is termed Irtidad Dini. The second group abandoned good character and excellent qualities, i.e. they abandoned the good behaviour, good actions and special love for the Ahlul Bayt which they displayed in the lifetime of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and did not assist the offspring of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This apostasy is termed Irtidad Khuluqi. The third group are those who usurped the rights of the Ahlul Bayt and snatched the rights of Sayyidina ‘Ali and Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma and oppressed Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam family. This is termed Irtidad Imani, i.e. they abandoned iman although the name Islam still applies to them externally.” With this wise explanation, they reconciled two conflicting narrations. The narration which mentions the apostasy of all the Sahaba refers to Irtidad Dini and Irtidad Imani and the narration which speaks of the 12 000 Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum, they are not included among those upon whom Irtidad Dini applies.

Thereafter, they pondered and realised that 2 of the 3 groups have left iman in reality and only one group remains who are categorised under Irtidad Khuluqi. The objection against this group is why did they not assist Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and why did such a large group abandon love for the Ahlul Bayt and why did they not fight the oppressors after seeing such clear tyranny? Then majority of them attested to the fact that indeed, there remained no one who had perfect and sincere iman and when some people promised Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu help and he tested them, they failed the test. Therefore, due to them abandoning assisting the Ahlul Bayt, they are also renegades and only three sincere friends remained, viz. Sayyidina Miqdad, Sayyidina Salman and Sayyidina Abu Dhar radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Some have deleted the latter two and only counted Sayyidina Miqdad radiya Llahu ‘anhu as a true friend. They then realised that the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum took Bay’ah at Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu hands after the three khalifas, so if they had been his opposition, why did they elect him as khalifah on this occasion? Were there no other options to choose? In response to this, they came at another angle, i.e. firstly they turned renegade. They then returned to the truth after divine guidance came their way, they repented and remained steadfast on the right path.

Nonetheless, all of these narrations and ahadith are in stark conflict with one another in Shia books. To believe in them is among the impossibilities according to Shia principles. Their great scholars held the belief that the person who heard the categorical statement of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, yet denied Caliphate is out of the fold of Islam and should necessarily be killed. Although, they wiggled themselves out by fabricating many things and regarded about 12 000 as Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum, however, as the saying goes:

لا يصلح العطار ما افسده الدهر

The perfume seller cannot rectify what time has destroyed.

The chain of iman which their seniors have broken cannot be joint again. Until now, no Shia has answered this question. Those who usurped the rights of the Ahlul Bayt were only three. The rest of the people were their helpers and assistants. If their assistants were few in number, then how did they manage to usurp the rights? And if they were many in number, then were some opposed to them or not? If none opposed them, then “all the Sahaba turned renegade” will fit them. And if thousands opposed them, then why did they not combat them with their tongues, swords and armies?

This shows that those who opposed the tyrannical khalifas were very few in number to the effect that some narrations record that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “everyone forgot Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequest after his demise and they abandoned iman. I do not see anyone on whose strength I can fight the enemy.” In this instance, the claim that 12 000 persons were such who used to cry day and night, is falsified since if few thousands were alive until then, they would have definitely helped. Or maybe they found no spare time from their crying and felt it worthless to leave their corners of worship. When Sayyidah Fatimah and Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma went out crying to every house begging for help, was this the time to cry in one corner or was it time to take out the sword and kill the usurpers and protect Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam offspring from oppression?

If you assert that they supported Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu thereafter. I mean, thousands of them were killed in the Battle of Siffin when they fought on the side of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu against Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. But their repentance is unreliable because when they failed to assist Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam beloved daughter and left her stranded at the last hour and sustained their Bay’ah with the tyrannical khalifas for 25 years, then what reliance can be put on their iman? Either leave them on apostasy or do not label them with it. But calling them mu’minin in the beginning, munafiqin in the middle and mu’minin at the end and including and excluding them just like a woman upon whom a revocable talaq is pronounced is in fact turning din into a game.

In short, the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum were put into the mix and have remained therein since. Some call them kuffar and regard only three as sincere believers. Some call 12 000 as sincere mu’minin, just to display their piety, but then go in circles — nothing making any sense. Let us leave aside the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum for a moment and concentrate just on Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. What do they say regarding him? His condition is the same. When he pledged his Bay’ah to the three khalifas, then their Caliphate is established. And when their Caliphate is established then Shi’ism is debunked. Consequently, they fabricated this lie that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu pledged allegiance unhappily. In fact:

دگر در کف خالد پہلواں	بدست عمر بودیک ریسماں
کشیدند اورا بر ابو بکر	فگندند بر گردن شیر نر

One end of the rope was in ‘Umar’s hand and the other in Khalid — the warrior’s — hand. They tied the rope around the lion’s (Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu) neck and dragged him to Abu Bakr.

He was brought forcefully to Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. And although he displayed many miracles en route, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam removed his hand from his blessed grave and an unseen caller read out the eulogy, but no one heard. Hence, he was forced to take bay’ah.

When they realised that using the word ‘forced’ for Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is a defect and imperfection since he is the lion of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and is matchless in his might and valour, they developed a new approach by saying that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequeathed him not to oppose and fight the three khalifas radiya Llahu ‘anhum and he acted accordingly. Had Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequest not been there, people would have seen the action and would have witnessed how Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu exhibits his prize Dhu al Fiqar. However, he had no choice since he could not violate the bequest of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

When they feared that people might object as to why Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam made such a bequest, practicing upon that which will lead to the destruction of din, oppression upon Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam family and kuffar usurping the station of Caliphate, they fabricated a hadith to answer this which says that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala specifically gave Sayyidina Jibril ‘alayh al Salam a letter for Sayyidina ‘Ali Murtada radiya Llahu ‘anhu which he handed over to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his successor. He took many oaths and promises before giving them this letter. When Sayyidina Jibril ‘alayh al Salam was satisfied that they will practice upon it, he gave the letter to them secretly. It was written therein, “do not lift your sword against the three khalifas,” and Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu acted accordingly.

Another objection came to mind: Why did Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu oppose the governor of Syria and why did he kill thousands of men? They made the following addition to the letter, “take up arms against the governor of Syria and the Khawarij and smite their necks.” Subhan Allah! What a letter and what contents! The command to fight one group and remain silent regarding the other. They (the Shia) had the choice of adding whatever they wanted to the letter.

Nonetheless, when they were questioned as to why Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sent such a letter which had conflicting commands, they answered by saying, “Only Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knows the wisdom in His actions. What purpose does a bondsman have to know its wisdoms and mysteries? It is the duty of the believers to accept all His orders without questioning. It is not befitting for them to question the reality, wisdom or reason. There are thousands of verses and ahadith like these.”

Anyways, the benefit of this letter was that it maintained Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu bravery coupled with providing a suitable reason for his bay’ah and thus does not establish the three khalifass Caliphate.

When a Sunni objected as to why Sayyidina ‘Ali Murtada radiya Llahu ‘anhu chose to take bay’ah at the hands of the three khalifas radiya Llahu ‘anhum who were renegades according to you whereas taking bay’ah even at the hands of a fasiq is forbidden. Those who read Urdu eulogies will know that it is for this very reason that Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not take bay’ah at Yazid’s hands. When the latter wrote to him requesting him to take bay’ah, he refused and said:

اس کا نہیں پیام اجل کا پیام

سب جانتے ہیں بیعت فاسق حرام ہے

Everyone knows that bay’ah at the hands of a fasiq is forbidden.

This prohibition is the message of death.

Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not take bay’ah at the hand of Yazid since he was a fasiq and due to this, he was martyred and his entire family was killed in a state of hunger and thirst. So if the three khalifas were fasiq, leave alone being renegades and disbelievers, then why would Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the overpowering lion of Allah, take bay’ah at their hands? They answered this by saying, “You are ignorant. You are unaware of the special letter of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala to Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu which strongly emphasised perseverance and the command not to oppose.” When it was asked: “Why did Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu not practice upon it?” They answered, “There was a different scripture for him. He was commanded not to take bay’ah and to be martyred. You are Sunni, of the Khawarij and enemies of the Ahlul Bayt, what knowledge do you have about the lives of the Imams? These are mysteries and secrets that even the Prophets and angels do not have the capacity to fathom. Understanding of these secrets has only been given to the Shia and people of Kufah. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala sent a special scripture for every Imam which informed him of everything he was required to do. And every Imam practiced accordingly. Our Imams are not like your khalifas. They have no need to ask anyone besides Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. They have knowledge of the past and future. They would communicate directly with Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala without the medium of Sayyidina Jibril ‘alayh al Salam. All their actions were carried out with the permission of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and according to His pleasure. Just as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala send special scriptures and books to the Ulu al ‘Azm^{^[10]} Prophets from Sayyidina Adam ‘alayh al Salam to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, similarly all the Imams were given a special scripture. Therefore, their actions varied. If you doubt the diversity of the Imams’s actions, then you ought to doubt the differences in the different Prophets’s faiths.”

In this aspect, the Shia became giants in towhid, sabr and tawakkul (placing their trust in Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala). Without arguing and debating, they attributed all the Imams’s actions on the divine scriptures and made it a proof for their friendship with the Ahlul Bayt.

This is the condition of the Imams. Now listen to the situation of the khalifas and Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Some have denied their good actions and have claimed that they did not carry out one good action. Others have acknowledged, after realising that to deny this is denying tawatur, that they were very dedicated to external deeds like salah, fasting, etc., and were externally very righteous. But to deprive them of virtue and reward, they invented the law of tinah (sand). They have attributed to the Imams that it appears in the hadith that Imam Baqir rahimahu Llah mentioned:

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala allowed sweet water to flow on a pure piece of land for seven days. He then set aside our sand from it and created the sand of the Shia from its remaining portion. Thereafter, He allowed salty water to flow on an accursed piece of land in a similar manner and created our enemies sand from there. Had they been not been separated then no Shia would have ever committed a sin and all the Shia would have remained sinless just like us. No Sunni Nasibi enemy would have ever carried out any good deed and all of them would have remained as kuffar outwardly. However, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mixed the two sands and some pure sand mixed with the impure sand. So any Shia who commits sin, it is the effect of the impure sand of the Sunni and Nawasib. And any Nasibi who carries out good deeds, it is the effect of that pure sand. On the Day of Qiyamah when Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will display His justice, He will give the action to the sand it belongs to. The Shia sins will be thrown on the shoulders of the Nawasib since these sins were the effect of the impure sand of these wretched folk. On the reverse, the Shia will receive all the good actions of the Nawasib since these are the effects of their pure sand. The narrator says, “When I heard this, I commented, ‘may I be sacrificed for you. Will the Sunni’s actions be transferred to us and our sins transferred to them?’ The Imam replied, ‘by Allah, this will definitely happen.’” The narrator continues, “I asked the Imam, ‘is there any mention of this in the Qur’an.’ ‘Is there anything that is not found in the Qur’an,’ he replied, ‘reference is made to it in this verse as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declares:

فَاُوٓلٰئِكَ یُبَدِّلُ اللّٰهُ سَیِّاٰتِهِمْ حَسَنٰتٍ

For them Allah will replace their evil deeds with good.^{^[11]}^{, ^[12]}

Due to this feature of tinah (sand), all of the good actions of the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum and the Sunni will be transferred to the Shia on the Day of Qiyamah and the Shia will receive the rewards of the hijrah, assistance, jihad, etc., which are mentioned extensively in Qur’an by doing absolutely nothing while the Sahaba will be deprived despite their tireless efforts and struggles. (May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala protect us from such drivel!) The Ahlus Sunnah who used to harp on the hijrah and assistance of the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum, citing these among their virtues, and who were too delighted about these are now silent after the tinah story has popped up.

Only one thing remained. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mentions at different places in the Qur’an that the munafiqin will be humiliated and killed. And we see that the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum — despite their nifaq (May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala protect us from such blasphemy) — became khalifas and governors and their respect and honour increased. Thus, this promise of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was not fulfilled. So either they call Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala a liar (Allah forbid) or deny the nifaq of the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

ہم لعل بدست آیدوہم یار نہ رنجد

To make sure that Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala speech remains accurate and the nifaq of the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum remains intact, they invented the aspect of Raj’ah. Raj’ah^{^[13]} means that when Imam Mahdi will emerge, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam will awaken and all pious and good people will rise up as well as Sayyidah Fatimah and Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. The three khalifas radiya Llahu ‘anhum will then be dragged out of their graves and prosecuted. Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu on one hand will present his case of them usurping his Caliphate while Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha on the other hand will complain of them injuring her, martyring Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu and usurping Fadak. To cut a long story short, after proving them guilty, they will be hanged to death.

What can be said about such rubbish and garbage which these wretched souls have written? It makes a Muslim’s body shiver. In short, Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala promise will then be fulfilled and they will be utterly humiliated and their nifaq will be exposed to everyone. They write that the aspect of Raj’ah is one of the special beliefs of the true sect, i.e. Ithna ‘Ashariyyah, while other sects have been deprived of this pure belief.

Besides all of the above, the greatest disaster of this creed is that all the eleven Imams from Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu outwardly remained on the pattern and path of the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum and would always praise the latter’s qualities and noble traits. When anyone asked, they would excessively praise the latter’s virtues. In fact, Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu continued performing the five times daily salah behind them and giving them counsel in matters of war. He did not only compliment and applaud them during their eras of Caliphate but continued singing their praises when he was khalifah and had full power and authority. Furthermore, he preserved all the commands and rulings issued by the previous khalifas. He neither returned Fadak to the heirs of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, nor discontinued the innovation of Tarawih salah nor declared Mut’ah as permissible.

To unshackle themselves from this, they had to think of fabricating such a thing which proves the noble Imams’s opposition to the Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum despite their outward conformity so that the roots of Shi’ism remain strong. For this, they invented a wonderful yet astonishing principle, i.e. one’s internal conflicting one’s external and speaking lies. Since such words are loathsome and reprehensible, and if they had to include it in their beliefs, then whoever would hear it would feel reservations for it, thus they disguised it with a beautiful and attractive word. They dubbed speaking lies and being hypocritical — i.e. one’s internal conflicting one’s external — as Taqiyyah^{^[14]}. They presented this as the answer to all our questions and objections and the response to all of our doubts and reservations. However, they forgot that smart clothes cannot change one’s appearance. The reality of a thing cannot be transformed by the alteration of words. No matter what beautiful names you give to falsehood and lying, its foulness will be noticeable from its actuality although you dub it as Taqiyyah and include it among the principles of din.

من انداز قدت رامی شناسم

بہر رنگےکہ خواہی جامہ می پوش

No matter what colour and what garment you wear,

I am aware of your height and size.

Now to establish Taqiyyah as one of the principles of din, they needed the certification of an Imam. The Shia are not like the Ahlus Sunnah who regard Qiyas (analogy) and Istihsan^{^[15]} as part of din. With Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala grace, all their beliefs and principles are nothing but the expressions of the Imams. Their ahadith books are not unreliable like the ‘Nawasib’ that any Tom, Dick and Harry can authenticate the ahadith and term them as sahih and sunan. Whatever books of ahadith were written by Shia Muhaddithin were read out word by word to the Imam and it was only published when it received the authentication of the Imam and the signature of approval of the noble Imams, so that people’s action conform one hundred percent with the Imams. As a result, they began fabricating ahadith to define Taqiyyah in the name of the Imams. They were not just satisfied on permitting it, but went to the extent of mentioning such ahadith which emphasise its virtue and necessity that the reward of salah and fasting fades away into nothingness before it. They made Taqiyyah as one of the fundamentals of din and attributed the hadith to the Imams

التقية دينى و دين ابائى

Taqiyyah is my din and the din of my forefathers.

Thus labelling its rejecter as a kafir. The author of Nawaqid al Rawafid erred by saying that the Shia say that Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu accepted Islam owing to Taqiyyah. Qadi Nur Allah Shostari became enraged by this and wrote in Masa’ib al Nawasib:

The Nasibi is lying. No Shia can ever say such a thing since Taqiyyah is the din of the pious and pure folk. How is it ever possible for Abu Bakr to practice Taqiyyah and be included among the pure and pious?

Taqiyyah was declared the din of the pious and Imams and owing to it, they were successful in extricating themselves from the clutches of the Sunni. All the objections and proofs of the Nawasib were rendered null and void. The Sunni extracted from Shia sources ahadith of the Imams comprising of great virtues of their khalifas and thought that they have left the Shia speechless, but to their utter amazement a primary Shia student, in fact an ignorant Shia, answered by saying that this is the product of Taqiyyah. A young boy silenced the great debaters and jurists by this one proof. The truth of the matter is that the benefit accrued by the Shia faith from the aspect of Taqiyyah and the protection it awarded them is unparalleled by any other belief.

Someone once said very aptly that “Taqiyyah in Shi’ism is like the electric wires of a steel railway. If the electric wires are not there, the train will not be able to move smoothly and one train will crash into another.” The trains are protected by nothing besides the electric wires. Similar is the condition of Taqiyyah. Had Taqiyyah not been part of the fundamentals of Shi’ism, the entire creed would have been destroyed. There would be no way to reconcile between conflicting statements, conflicting actions and narrations; and their falsehood would have been exposed. The person who invented Shi’ism was extremely intelligent that he protected falsehood using falsehood. Taqiyyah was the live wire. It was given such importance and significance that its virtues have been related from the first Imam right up to the last and final one, and a lofty status has been promised for those who observe Taqiyyah. Taqiyyah saved the Shia from every type of calamity and the Shia have been tremendously blessed by the rewards promised upon it. The Shia had the opportunity to eat with the Sunni and speak sweet pleasant words as long as they are in the latter’s company. They could praise them, applaud them, and even sing admiration for the three khalifas and Sahaba radiya Llahu ‘anhum, thus practicing on the verse:

وَ اِذَا لَقُوا الَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا قَالُوْٓا اٰمَنَّا

And when they meet those who believe, they say, “we believe.”^{^[16]}

When they return home and are in the gathering of their own folk, they close the doors, scan to see if any of the Nawasib are with them, then they roll with laughter and admire themselves for their deception, practicing upon the verse:

وَ اِذَا خَلَوْا اِلٰی شَیٰطِیْنِهِمْۙ قَالُوْٓا اِنَّا مَعَكُمْۙ اِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُسْتَهْزِءُوْنَ

But when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, “indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers.”^{^[17]}

Then they can begin disassociating themselves. One may curse himself while another may congratulate himself; in both conditions being worthy of reward as promised in the narrations from their Imams. By virtue of Taqiyyah, i.e. the deception displayed in front of the Sunni, and by virtue of the cursing and disassociation after coming home, they receive such a reward which will not be acquired by performing thousand salah and observing a thousand fasts. And if any sin was committed, then too do not grieve since the aspect of tinah is there. The reward of the salah and fasting carried out by the Sunni will not be received by them but is exclusively for the Shia. Did Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala not declare:

مَنْ عَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلِنَفْسِهٖ

Whoever does righteousness — it is for his (own) soul.^{^[18]}

They established their religion on such beliefs. They termed heresy and sacrilege as Shi’ism, thus becoming the epitome of the verse:

فِيْ قُلُوْبِهِمْ مَّرَضٌۙ فَزَادَهُمُ اللّٰهُ مَرَضًاۚ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ اَلِیْمٌ ۢ

In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment.^{^[19]}

The truth is that when a person learns of such fundamentals and beliefs, he is left dumbfounded. He is speechless due to its incongruence. An observer is left flabbergasted. O Allah! Is Shi’ism a religion or heresy? What is this? Such fundamentals, the preposterousness of which cannot be concealed behind any veil. Such beliefs whose absurdity is apparent. There is no need for any proof to establish their falsehood. Why did they invent such principles? Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala created them as men and gave them intelligence just like the rest of us. But the irony of it is that they are pleased with such principles and are proud of such beliefs. They attribute themselves to the noble Imams and rest their weight on the shoulders of Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam offspring, who are free from such blasphemy.

When looking at their beliefs and principles, this verse of the Qur’an comes to mind:

لَهُمْ قُلُوْبٌ لَّا یَفْقَهُوْنَ بِهَاؗ وَلَهُمْ اَعْیُنٌ لَّا یُبْصِرُوْنَ بِهَاؗ وَلَهُمْ اٰذَانٌ لَّا یَسْمَعُوْنَ بِهَاؕ اُوٓلٰئِكَ کَالْاَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ اَضَلُّؕ

They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like livestock; rather, they are more astray.^{^[20]}

At one stage Taqiyyah was the scapegoat which their senior scholars formulated but the Shia of recent times have severed this tail due to its needlessness. Another scapegoat was the concept of Bada’. The story behind this is when the Shia leaders and founders would attend the gatherings of the noble Imams, they would exit and inform their followers, “today the Imam said that very shortly the Shia will be granted sovereignty and governance.” However when the appointed time would come and there would be no sign of the promise manifesting itself, some would begin to have misgivings, because of which the leader would say, “the Imam said that Allah experienced Bada’,” i.e. Allah was unaware of what was going to transpire and changed the previous decree.” May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbid! When anyone would report their leaders to the Imam, the Imam would disassociate himself from them and curse them:

قاتله الله و خذله الله

May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala destroy him and humiliate him.

Thereafter, if anyone would inform the leaders about this, the leaders would laugh uncontrollably and say, “The Imam said this to you from Jirab al Nurah^{^[21]}.” The listener would be baffled and enquire as to what is Jirab al Nurah, and they would reply “Taqiyyah.”

In short, when anyone would be confused that the Imams are cursing them and calling them devils, they would remove this confusion by claiming that the Imam practiced Taqiyyah and they do not know what Taqiyyah is. Taqiyyah is the din of the pious and the Imams. One will only receive proximity to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala on the Day of Qiyamah owing to Taqiyyah. When the same folk would narrate the Imam’s promise and the promise was not fulfilled, they would say that Allah experienced Bada’. When anyone would object to this, they would answer, “You are ignorant. There was some benefit in that. No one knows the benefit and wisdom behind it besides Allah and the Imam. Why do you have reservations about Bada’? It is a type of naskh (abrogation). Look at the laws of shari’ah. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala changed some laws and abrogated some laws by others. So keep quiet. Do not argue about Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala actions.”

Some people still had misgivings and objections. What kind of a Rabb says something today and then does not fulfil it? What relation does Bada’ have with naskh? Naskh means that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala issued a command and permitted something for a certain period or a certain group and then changed that command for a certain reason and forbade the very thing. However, it was never the practice of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala to inform Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam of something or to promise him a certain victory but then fail to fulfil it. So if the Imam narrated something from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala or Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala promised him something, then it must definitely occur. To remove these misgivings, the leaders made up two tablets, viz. Lowh al Mahfuz (the divine tablet) and Lowh Mahw wa Ithbat (the tablet of cancellation and affirmation). They claimed, “Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala created two tablets and wrote everything therein. What was definitely going to happen, He wrote it in Lowh al Mahfuz. There is no alteration or modification here. The second one is Lowh Mahw wa Ithbat, i.e. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala adjusts what is written therein. So the alteration in the Imam’s statement is because of this second Lowh. The Imam informed of the first happening, but that was altered by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. The Imam was unaware that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala would change it. When people objected, “this is illogical. What is the benefit of this second Lowh?” They answered by presenting the same answer Dildar ‘Ali wrote in Sawarim:

و ازاں جملہ ہر گاہ آنکہ انبیاء و اوصیاء خبر دہند از کتاب محو و اثبات و بعد ازاں خبر دہند بخلاف آں بندگاں را واجب باشد اذعان نمودن بآں و چوں ایں اذعان بر نفس بسیار دشوار است موجب مزید اجر آنا گردد فان افضل الاعمال احمزہا و بہا امتاز المسلمون الذین فازوا بدرجات الیقین عن الضعفاء الذین لیس لہم قدم راسخ فی الدین

A part of the story is that when the Prophets or Awsiya’ relate something from Lowh Mahw wa Ithbat and thereafter say something different, it is compulsory for people to comply. And since it is difficult to have conviction on the latter statement, the reward for it is greater. Certainly, the greatest actions are the bitterest ones. It is by virtue of these that the true believers — who climb the high stages of conviction — are separated from the weak, who do not have a firm footing in din.

The crux is that believing in Bada’ is the roadway to high stages and abundant reward and disbelieving in it is the proof of weak iman. In fact, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala made Bada’ to test iman, who will believe it and who will doubt it.

Just observe in what a beautiful and intellectual way the senior Shia invented the fundamentals of din and what beliefs they fabricated. Although Dildar ‘Ali has outwardly denied the real meaning of Bada’ in Sawarim, what he has written establishes the very thing all the more. Dildar ‘Ali removes the doubt as to why the Imams promised that which was not to transpire in such a classic Shia manner in Sawarim:

و ازاں جملہ ایں اخبار موجب تسلیہ مومنین کہ انتظار فرج اولیاء اللہ و غالب شدن حق می کشند می شود چنانچہ ایں معنی در باب قصۂ نوح و در باب فرج اہل بیت مروی گشتہ چہ اگر از اول شیعیان را خبر می دادند آنہا را باینکہ ممکن است کہ حاصل شود فرج آل محمد عنقریب و منظور ازیں اخبار ایں بود کہ تا شیعیان بر دین خود ثابت بماںد و بر اتنظار کشیدن مثاب شوند و بعد ازینکہ جناب مولانا مجلسی در باب تائید ایں احتمال و مناسب ایں مقالہ دوستہ روایت ذکر نمودہ گفتہ فمعنی قولہ علیہ السلام ما عند اللہ بمثل البداء ایں ست کہ ایمان پداء از اعظم عبادات قلبیہ ست بہ جہت صعوبت آں و معارض بودن آں بوساوس شیطانی و بجہت آنکہ اقرار پداء در حقیقت اقرار ست باینکہ لہ الخلق و لہ الامر و ایں کمال توحید ست و یا بعنی این حدیث ایں ست کہ اعظم اسباب دواعی ست بطرف عبادت جناب رب العالمین انتہی

One of the wisdoms is that these narrations are to console the believers so that they await the arrival of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala friends and the triumph of the truth, just as is narrated in the incident of Sayyidina Nuh ‘alayh al Salam, and the triumph of the Ahlul Bayt for it was assured that the family of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam will be victorious shortly. The object of such narrations was so that the Shia remain steadfast on their din and gain reward by waiting. Moreover, ‘Allamah Majlisi has related a few narrations in support of it. Thus, the meaning of the Imam’s statement, “there is nothing (greater) than Bada’ according to Allah,” is that having iman on Bada’ is one of the great acts of worship of the heart due to its complexity and the whispers of Shaitan against it. Furthermore, believing in Bada’ is in fact acknowledging that the choice to create and command is solely for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and this is the highest level of Towhid. Or the meaning of the statement is that it is one of the greatest methods of inviting to Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala worship.^{^[22]}

It is certain that Dildar ‘Ali and Mulla Baqir Majlisi have probably never uttered a truer statement in their entire lives. We ought to thank these men from our hearts. They unwittingly stated, if the Imam had not made false promises to the Shia and kept them going with these promises, majority of the Shia would have turned away from their din and would have not remained steadfast. The only objective of making such far-fetched claims was to keep the Shia on their religion. Otherwise, had the Imam stated clearly that the Shia will have no dominance for the next thousand to two thousand years, the Shia would have reached the throes of death due to despondency and would have sat at home sullen. They would have left a sack of pure sand, ‘aqiq’s ring and their prayer mats at the Imam’s door and fled. Only the special Shia like Zurarah, Hisham, Shaitan al Taq, etc., would have remained without any friend or helper. Zurarah and his ilk did not allow the Shia to scatter by deceiving them with false promises. Out of their wittiness, they immediately fabricated a new principle and invented a new belief to suite the occasion attributing it to the Imam. Will any Muslim hold such a belief? Will any Muslim attribute Bada’ to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala? The perplexity intensifies… they did not only attribute it to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala but brought it to its peak as is their habit. They mentioned virtues of Bada’ which they attributed to the final Imam:

ما عبد الله بمثل البداء

Bada’ is the greatest cause for Allah’s worship.

It is quite manifest as to how it is the greatest cause. When the Shia were promised that they will be given dominance very soon, they began serving Zurarah and the others out of greed for the world. They took prayer mats made of pure sand and straw and prostrated on them, thus making signs on their foreheads. When the promise was not fulfilled after their prolonged anticipation, they grew despondent and asked Zurarah the reason. He wandered for a few days and then said that the Imam has stated that Allah had Bada’, i.e. Allah changed his promise. He encouraged his followers to continue their worship, cursing and dissociation and see what progress Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala grants them. In short, in this way he kept some foolish and ignorant people licking his boots. He pacified them with Taqiyyah and Bada’ and often mixed the aspect of tinah to keep them happy. Slowly but surely, he managed to violate the din of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and made a group his ardent followers. What had to happen, happened. Their din was destroyed just as he had planned.

فقد استحوذ عليهم الشيطان و استغواهم الطغيان

Shaitan overpowered them and false deities misled them.

فصار يرى المعروف منكرا و المنكر معروفا

و كل احد منهم بعاجل حظ مشغوفا

Each one of them is pursuing his immediate benefit, thus seeing good as evil and evil as good.

O Shia! Ponder deeply over the beliefs and principles of your religion and determine whether it is good or evil. If you still do not understand, then it is your choice. Observe Taqiyyah, hope for Raj’ah, accuse Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala of Bada’ (Allah forbid), indulge in sin with delight by remembering the aspect of tinah since you will receive all the acts of worship the Sunni carried out and we will have to bear the burden of your sins. It is meaningless for you to undergo the difficulties of worship.

تو مشق ناز کر خون دو عالم میری گردن پر

You do your pretty effort. The blood of both the worlds is on my shoulders.

NEXT⇒ Appendix

^{^[1]} Surah al Nur: 39

^{^[2]} Surah al Anfal: 74

^{^[3]} Surah al Kahf: 13

^{^[4]} Surah al Anfal: 74

^{^[5]} Surah al Kahf: 17

^{^[6]} Surah al Nasr: 2

^{^[7]} A deviant sect who holds the opinion that the slave does not have a choice or will and that the one doing everything is Allah, and that the slave is deprived of will and ability.

^{^[8]} A deviant sect who holds the view, that the slave does as he wants without the will of Allah.

^{^[9]} The science which deals with the biography of narrators, their reliability and non-reliability etc.

^{^[10]} The resolute Prophets — referring to the 5 loftiest Prophets in rank, Sayyidina Nuh ‘alayh al Salam, Sayyidina Musa ‘alayh al Salam, Sayyidina ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam, Sayyidina Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam and Sayyidina Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

^{^[11]} Surah Furqan: 70

^{^[12]} This text is the gist of a lengthy narration of ‘Ilal al Shara’i’ by Sheikh al Saduq (d. 1381) Urdu translation pg. 491 – 494

^{^[13]} Tuhfat al ‘Ulum is an ancient book in the Urdu language which explains the beliefs and actions of the Shia. The belief of Raj’ah has been documented therein in these brief words, “belief in Raj’ah is necessary, i.e. when Imam Mahdi will emerge, certain believers and certain disbelievers and munafiqin will be brought to life and justice will be meted out to all and the oppressors will be punished.“ (Tuhfat al ‘Ulum pg. 5)

Mulla Baqir Majlisi has quoted on page 139 of his famous book Haqq al Yaqin with reference to ‘Ilal al Shara’i’ of Ibn Babawayh al Qummi a narration from Imam Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah: “When our Mahdi will emerge, he will resurrect Aisha (Allah forbid) and lash her thus taking revenge on behalf of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha.” (Sheikh Muhammad Firasat)

^{^[14]} There is a special section in Usul al Kafi dedicated to Taqiyyah. The narrations of that section are sufficient to display its reality.

عن ابى عمير العجمى قال قال لى ابو عبد الله عليه السلام يا ابا عمير تسعة اشعار الدين فى الدين فى التقية و لا دين لمن لا تقية له و التقية فى كل شىء الا فى النبيذ و المسح على الخفين

Abu ‘Umair al ‘Ajmi narrates, “Abu ‘Abdullah told me, ‘O Abu ‘Umair, nine tenths of din lies in Taqiyyah. The person who does not observe Taqiyyah has no din. Taqiyyah can be practiced in everything besides drinking nabidh and making masah over leather socks.’”

Abu Basir narrates that Imam Jafar rahimahu Llah said, “Taqiyyah is the din of Allah.” I said in astonishment, “The din of Allah?” The Imam clarified, “Yes. By Allah, it is Allah’s din. Indeed, Sayyidina Yusuf ‘alayh al Salam said, ‘O people of the caravan, you are thieves,” whereas none of them stole anything. And Indeed Sayyidina Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam said, ‘I am sick,’ whereas by Allah he was not ill.” The Imam is saying that one person did not steal and he was called a thief; this is Taqiyyah. Another person was not sick yet he said himself to be sick; this is Taqiyyah, which the entire world calls a lie. Thus, we learn that the meaning of Taqiyyah is to lie.” (Sheikh Muhammad Firasat)

^{^[15]} An Arabic term for juristic “preference”. In its literal sense it means “to consider something good”. ‘Ulama’ may use it to express their preference for particular judgements in Islamic law over other possibilities.

^{^[16]} Surah al Baqarah: 14

^{^[17]} Surah al Baqarah: 14

^{^[18]} Surah Ha Mim Sajdah: 46

^{^[19]} Surah al Baqarah: 10

^{^[20]} Surah al A’raf 7:179

^{^[21]} Lit. a container of tar.

^{^[22]} Sawarim pg. 79

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents