Verses of the Qur’an Complimenting the Sahabah

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Verses of the Qur’an Complimenting the Sahabah

 

The First Verse

 

كُنْتُمْ خَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ اُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَاْمُرُوْنَ بِالْمَعْرُوْفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْکَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُوْنَ بِاللّٰهِؕ وَلَوْ اٰمَنَ اَهْلُ الْکِتٰبِ لَکَانَ خَیْرًا لَّهُمْؕ مِنْهُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ وَاَكْثَرُهُمُ الْفٰسِقُوْنَ

You are the best nation produced (as an example) for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the Ahlul Kitab had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient.^[1]

 

In this verse, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala extolls the virtue and righteousness of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum directly to them. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala addresses them as being part of the best ummah and informs them that He has chosen them from the entire creation to guide people. Therefore, continue fulfilling your responsibility and service; “you enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong.”

If a person reflects and comprehends correctly, then this verse alone is sufficient to demolish the entire edifice of the false creed of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is declaring them to be the best nation who were selected for the guidance of mankind and confirming their righteous actions of enjoining good and forbidding evil. Notwithstanding this, Shia regard them as the worst nation and deny their virtue and righteousness. I am totally astonished that in the light of such categorical and clear verses, they do not reconsider the corruptness of their beliefs and do not reflect a little over the words of the Qur’an. If the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum are not the best nation, then who is Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala addressing? If there actions were not righteous, then who is Allah praising? If they did not possess true iman, then what perfect iman is Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala attesting to by the words “and believe in Allah”? These verses are categorical. They cannot be misinterpreted or concocted in anyway. Allah is praising their iman and actions in clear words. It is the overwhelming compassion of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala that He is praising them directly. I am totally stunned! Do the Shia regard this verse to be meaningless or is the meaning too obscure or deep that it cannot be fathomed or grasped? Or do they believe that these are not the words of the Qur’an but rather added by the compiler of the Qur’an to extol his, and his associates’, virtue? If it is none of the above then why do they continue believing these to be verses of the Qur’an and continue acknowledging that they were revealed in virtue of the Sahabah, yet do not believe in their virtue and go to the extent of denying their iman? They regard as the worst nation those whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declares to be the best nation; and they regard them to enjoin evil and forbid good whereas concerning them Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declares the opposite.

Although these categorical verses are clear and explicit and there is no need to check their commentary, nevertheless I will quote some texts from their reliable commentaries for the benefit of the Shia.

 

It appears on page 300 in Tafsir Majma’ al Bayan of al Tabarsi — the best tafsir according to the Shia (printed in 1275 by Dar al Saltanat in Tehran, Iran):

 

لما تقدم ذكر الامر و النهى عقبه تعالى بذكر من تصدى للقيام بذلك مدحهم ترغيبا فى الاقتداء بهم فقال كنتم خير امة اخرجت للناس قيل فيه اقوال احدها ان معناه انتم خير امة

After commanding enjoining good and forbidding evil, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mentioned those who stood up for this task and praised them as encouragement for others to follow in their footsteps. Thus Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declared, “You are the best nation.” There are a number of opinions regarding the meaning of this, one is that it means, “You all are the best nation.”

و اختلف فى المعنى بالخطاب فقيل هم المهاجرون خاصة و قيل هو خطاب للصحابة و لكنه يعم سائر الامة

There is a difference of opinion regarding the addressees. Some say that it is refers specifically to the Muhajirin, while others feel that the address is to the Sahabah but also includes the entire ummah.

 

Look at this explanation and consider that it is an attestation by one of your own scholars. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala spoke highly about the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum so that others may emulate them. Are you carrying out this emulation? If disassociation means emulation in your vocabulary then undoubtedly you have acknowledged this verse; otherwise you have blatantly denied it.

Some ignoramuses can be deceived by the word “كُنْتُمْ” in this verse by thinking that Allah is informing the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum that “You were the best nation,” and this does not mean that they remained like this till the end for it is possible that they became the worst thereafter. In response to this their great scholar Tabarsi answered this in his tafsir:

 

و رابعها ان كان مزيدة دخولها كخروجها لا انها تاكيدا لوقوع الامر لا محالة لانه بمنزلة ما قد كان فى الحقيقة فهى بمنزلة قوله تعالى و اذكروا اذ انتم قليل و فى موضع اخر اذ كنتم قليلا فكثركم و نظيره قوله تعالى و كان الله غفورا رحيما لان مغفرة المستانفة كالماضية تحقيق الوقوع – مجمع البيان

It has been used to emphasise the occurrence of this matter which is undoubtedly going to happen. The Sahabah who are the best will remain the best. The example of this is when Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala states regarding Himself:

 

وَکَانَ اللّٰهُ غَفُوْرًا رَّحِیْمًا

Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.

 

this does not mean that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala ‘was’ most-forgiving most merciful but is not anymore or will not be. (Rather it means that will Allah always be Most Forgiving Most Merciful.)

When the virtue of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum has been established in this verse and there remains no scope of denying their righteousness, some chose a different methodology and testified to the adulteration of the Qur’an. Some claim that it was actually “خَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ” instead of “خَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ” (the best nation) and Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is actually addressing the Imams of the Shia saying: “You are the best of the Imams.” However, the compilers of the Qur’an (they claim) altered “خَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ” to “خَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ”. Although other Shia scholars have disliked this response but we all know the devastating effect of the above view. Accordingly, Mister Miran Qiblah writes in chapter three of Hadiqah Sultaniyyah:

 

تغیر و نقصان در قران منحصر در چہار چیز است یکے تبدیل لفظی بلفظ آخر مثلا اینکہ گفتہ شود بجاۓ كُنْتُمْ خَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ خَیْرَ اَئِمَّةٍ بودہ لیکن بعضے از اعداۓ اہل بیت آں را تبدیل نمودہ اند

Alteration and deduction in the Qur’an has taken place in one of four ways. One is switching a word for another, e.g. كُنْتُمْ خَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ was actually خَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ and was adulterated by those who hate the Ahlul Bayt.

 

He then later acknowledges:

The first method is very rare.

 

I feel that instead of acknowledging خَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ and then rejecting the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum as being the best, it is better for them to confess to tahrif al Qur’an by saying that خَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ wasخَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ so as not to reject clear verses.

It is a pity that Miran Qiblah and his father have passed away. Otherwise, I would have gone to them myself with Hadiqah Sultaniyyah and Sawarim and asked that if “كُنْتُمْ خَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ” is the product of the adulteration of the compilers of the Qur’an, then tell me that besides Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, which of the Imams were alive at that time enjoining good and forbidding evil whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is praising? If they accept that “خَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ” is correct then I will humbly ask that is it not disbelief to disassociate from those who Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has classed as the best nation? I will open their book on page 186 to this text and ask them for an explanation:

 

ازاں جملہ است آنچہ از حضرت صادق علیہ السلام ماثور است کہ فرمود آں ھذا القران فیھ منار الھدی و مصابیح الدجی یعنی دریں قران انوار ھدایت و چراغہاۓ دور کنندہ تاریکی ضلالت و غوایت روشن است

It is narrated from the tongue of al Sadiq rahimahu Llah that this Qur’an contains illuminated discourses and a burning lantern to remove darkness and deviation.

 

I will ask them to take an oath on their ijtihad concerning what the Qur’an has to say about the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum regarding which the Imam says that it contains illuminated discourses and a burning lantern. If it says that they are the best nation then why do you reject it and why do you renounce light for darkness?

 

I will then present this text of the book:

 

از حضرت باقر علیہ السلام منقول است کہ در ہنگامے کہ فتنہا برشما ملتمس شود و مانند پارہ شب تار پس رجوع آرید بقران کی شفاعت کنندہ و مقبول الشفاعت ست ھر کسی کہ آں را پیش نھد اللہ اورا براہ جنت می برد

It is related from Imam al Baqir: “When trials will be unclear and the darkness of night will envelope you, then return to the Qur’an since it is an intercessor whose intercession is accepted.”

 

There is no trial greater than us regarding the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum as the best nation while you regard them as the worst. We do not believe you and vice versa. So why do we not practice on the advice of the Imam rahimahu Llah and return to the Qur’an. If the Qur’an declares them as the best nation, then tread the path to Jannat by abandoning your false creed. And if the Qur’an declares them as the worst nation, then embrace us into your faith and extricate us from darkness. I do not know what answer they would have given me if they were alive. And I do not know what response their successors will have to offer.

 

The Second Verse

 

فَالَّذِيْنَ هَاجَرُوْا وَأُخْرِجُوْا مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ وَأُوْذُوْا فِيْ سَبِيْلِيْ وَقَاتَلُوْا وَقُتِلُوْا لَأُكَفِّرَنَّ عَنْهُمْ سَيِّئَاتِهِمْ وَلَأُدْخِلَنَّهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِيْ مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ ثَوَابًا مِّنْ عِنْدِ اللّٰهِؕ وَاللّٰهُ عِندَهحُسْنُ الثَّوَابِ

So those who emigrated or were evicted from their homes or were harmed in My cause or fought or were killed — I will surely remove from them their misdeeds, and I will surely admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow as reward from Allah, and Allah has with Him the best reward.^[2]

 

In this verse, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala praises the Muhajirin and gives them the glad tidings of Jannat.

Consider the compassionate and loving address of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala to the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and understand their virtue and rank therefrom. In what a striking manner Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala depicts their status and declares them as being perpetual inhabitants of Jannat. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala promises to forgive their errors and mistakes and to convert them into good deeds. And besides the reward for their actions, in what a generous way Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala assures them a graceful reward from His side.

Who are the Muhajirin who have been promised all these bounties and Jannat? Were Sayyidina Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum not Muhajirin? Were they not among the Muhajirin whom the Shia disparage? Have these personalities been excluded from this verse and discounted from the promise, “I will surely remove from them their misdeeds”?

After reciting this verse, do not waste your time and spoil your life searching for the faults of the Muhajirin. Even if you happen to find a few faults, as long as you accept that they are Muhajirin, your fault finding will not benefit you and will not debar them from being affirmed as inhabitants of Jannat. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has already declared that he will forgive their sins and most definitely enter them into Jannat for they were banished and plagued with sorrow and adversity for His sake and they abandoned their friends and beloveds for His friend and beloved. Thus their emigration alone is far superior to thousands of acts of worship and a million good deeds.

 

The Third Verse

 

وَالسّٰابِقُوْنَ الْأَوَّلُوْنَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِيْنَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ وَالَّذِيْنَ اتَّبَعُوْهُمْ بِإِحْسَانٍۙ رَّضِيَ اللّٰهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوْا عَنْهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِيْ تَحْتَهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِيْنَ فِيهَا أَبَدًاؕ ذٰلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيْمُ

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.^[3]

 

In this verse, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has announced His pleasure with the Muhajirin and Ansar and has given glad tidings to those who follow in their footsteps. If anyone has to reflect even a little on this verse and ponder over its meaning; he will award nothing but distinction and excellence to the Muhajirin and Ansar. When Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has declared that He is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him and that He has prepared gardens for them, then who can deny their virtue? The Shia should ponder: are the Sahabah whom they harbour hatred for not included among the Muhajirin and Ansar? If they are, then them being recipients of Jannat is undoubted and if not, who is Allah addressing?

Does believing in the Glorious Qur’an mean that you are displeased with those whom Allah is pleased with and you do not regard as Muslims those whom Allah has promised Jannat? If anyone rejects this verse or objects that the names of the first three khulafa’ are not mentioned herein, so rejection of their virtue does not necessitate rejection of this verse; then I will present the testimony of Imam al Baqir rahimahu Llah since he agrees that the three khulafa’ are included in this verse just as we do. Listen to it attentively from your own source. The author of al Fusul narrates regarding Imam al Baqir rahimahu Llah:

 

انه قال لجماعة خاضوا فى ابى بكر و عمر و عثمان الا تخبرونى انتم من الْمُهٰجِرِیْنَ الَّذِیْنَ اُخْرِجُوْا مِنْ دِیَارِهِمْ وَ اَمْوَالِهِمْ یَبْتَغُوْنَ فَضْلًا مِّنَ اللّٰهِ وَ رِضْوَانًا وَّ یَنْصُرُوْنَ اللّٰهَ وَ رَسُوْلَهقالوا لا قال فانتم من الَّذِیْنَ تَبَوَّؤُا الدَّارَ وَ الْاِیْمَانَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ یُحِبُّوْنَ مَنْ هَاجَرَ اِلَیْهِمْ قالوا لا قال اما انتم فقد برئتم ان تكونوا احد هذين الفريقين و ان شهدانكم لستم من الذين قال اللّٰه تعالى وَ الَّذِیْنَ جَآءُوْ مِنْۢ بَعْدِهِمْ یَقُوْلُوْنَ رَبَّنَا اغْفِرْلَنَا وَ لِاِخْوَانِنَا الَّذِیْنَ سَبَقُوْنَا بِالْاِیْمَانِ وَ لَا تَجْعَلْ فِیْ قُلُوْبِنَا غِلًّا لِّلَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا رَبَّنَآ اِنَّکَ رَءُوْفٌ رَّحِیْمٌ

He passed by a group who were reviling Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman and questioned them, “Kindly inform me if you are among the poor Muhajirin who were expelled from their homes and their properties, seeking bounty from Allah and (His) approval and supporting Allah and His Rasul?” They replied in the negative. He asked further, “Are you among those who were settled in Madinah and (adopted) the faith before them and gave sanctity to the Muhajirin?” They replied in the negative. He then announced, “You have exempted yourselves from being among these two groups (i.e. the Muhajirin and Ansar). And I declare that you are not among those concerning whom Allah declared: “And those who came after them, saying, ‘Our Rabb, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those who have believed. Our Rabb, indeed You are Kind and Merciful.’”

 

You call yourselves the Imamiyyah and regard the words of the Imams to be no less than the Qur’an. I cannot fathom why you do not accept those statements which mention the virtues of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and why you do not follow you’re Imams in this regard and why are you such liars when it comes to mentioning their virtues.

Nevertheless, by the narration of Imam al Baqir rahimahu Llah it is established that according to him the three khulafa’ are included in this verse. They are deserving of all the promises that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala promised, viz. Jannat, etc., to the Muhajirin and Ansar. It is also clear that Imam al Baqir is exempt of those who criticise these great personalities and regard them to be out of the fold of Islam. There is no excuse for this statement besides Taqiyyah (dissimulation)? Until when will you present the fallacious Taqiyyah excuse and use it as a scape goat? What a pity that even when Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala categorically praises the Muhajirin and Ansar, and the Imams rahimahu Llah explicitly praised the three khulafa’ then too the Shia do not believe. What greater proof do they demand to prove the virtue of the Muhajirin and Ansar?

The Shia sometimes create this doubt that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala only praised those Muhajirin and Ansar who emigrated and assisted solely for the pleasure of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and not those who carried these out for ulterior motives. We will remove this doubt in three ways.

1. When the Muhajirin emigrated and the Ansar assisted, what worldly gain was there for them to desire? When the Muhajirin emigrated, did they hear that there was some type of treasure in Madinah which they wished to seize? Did the Ansar grant the Muhajirin shelter and assist them because they knew that the latter had plenty wealth which the former could usurp? If they had not emigrated and assisted for Allah’s sake, then for what did they do it?
2. If all the Muhajirin had emigrated and all the Ansar had assisted for worldly reasons, then for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala to praise them is superfluous (Allah forbid). If no one emigrated and assisted for the pleasure of Allah, then who does and the first forerunners among the Muhajirin and the Ansar refer to? And if all of them are hypocrites then regarding whom did Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declare His pleasure? If some had emigrated and assisted for the sake of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala while others had done so for worldly benefits, then when enumerating those who did it for the sake of Allah, you will only count three or four names. There is no real worth of the emigration and assistance of only three or four individuals.
3. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala Himself has answered this allegation and declared the Muhajirin and Ansar as innocent. In another two verses of the Qur’an, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has clarified that the Muhajirin and Ansar did everything for His sake. One verse is about the Muhajirin while the other is about the Ansar.

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala states regarding the Muhajirin:

الَّذِيْنَ أُخْرِجُوْا مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ إِلَّا أَنْ يَّقُوْلُوْا رَبُّنَا اللّٰهَ

(They are) those who have been evicted from their homes without right — only because they say, “Our Rabb is Allah.”^[4]

It is evident from this verse that the reason for emigration was that the kuffar were angry at the Islam of the Muhajirin and their belief in Allah as their deity, hence they persecuted them and forced them to leave their homes. If after studying this verse the Shia still claim that the Muhajirin emigrated for worldly reason then this defamation is befitting for them. Such slander can never be blurted from our tongues.

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala states regarding the Ansar:

وَالَّذِيْنَ تَبَوَّءُوا الدَّارَ وَالْإِيْمَانَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ يُحِبُّونَ مَنْ هَاجَرَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَا يَجِدُوْنَ فِيْ صُدُوْرِهِمْ حَاجَةً مِّمَّا أُوْتُوْا وَيُؤْثِرُوْنَ عَلىٰ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَلَوْ كَانَ بِهِمْ خَصَاصَةٌۚ وَمَنْ يُّوْقَ شُحَّ نَفْسِهٖ فَأُولٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُوْنَ

And (also for) those who were settled in Madinah and (adopted) the faith before them. They love those who emigrated to them and find not any want in their breasts of what the emigrants were given but give (them) preference over themselves, even though they are in privation. And whoever is protected from the stinginess of his soul — it is those who will be the successful.^[5]

Consider how Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala praises their assistance and acknowledges the fact that it was done for His sake. It is astonishing and shocking that notwithstanding Allah emphatically declaring the emigration of the Muhajirin and assistance of the Ansar to be solely for His sake, the Shia blurt out such drivel that it was done for worldly motives.

Ponder a little. Do you believe or disbelieve in the Speech of Allah? Do you accept or reject His statements. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declares them as righteous while you regard them as most wicked. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala states that He is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, while you say the exact opposite. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala affirms that their emigration and assistance was for His sake, while you argue that it was for worldly gains. Reflect on what you are saying and doing. If it was only one or two verses, you could have interpreted them to suit your fancy, maybe. However, the entire Qur’an is replete with their praise. Until when are you going to adulterate the meaning? The fact is that you opted for the religion of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ but things are not working out for you now. You cannot reject the Qur’an and cannot accept it.

عشق چہ آساں نمود آہ چہ دشوار بود ہجر چہ دشوار بود یار چہ آساں گرفت

How pleasant love seemed but how thorny it is

How difficult dissociation was but the lover thought it to be so easy

 

The Fourth Verse

 

لَّقَدْ رَضِيَ اللّٰهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ إِذْ يُبَايِعُوْنَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ فَعَلِمَ مَا فِيْ قُلُوْبِهِمْ فَأَنْزَلَ السَّكِيْنَةَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَثَابَهُمْ فَتْحًا قَرِيْبًا ﴿18﴾ وَمَغَانِمَ كَثِيْرَةً يَأْخُذُوْنَهَاؕ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَزِيْزًا حَكِيْمًا ﴿19﴾ وَعَدَكُمُ اللّٰهُ مَغَانِمَ كَثِيْرَةً تَأْخُذُوْنَهَا فَعَجَّلَ لَكُمْ هٰذِهِ وَكَفَّ أَيْدِيَ النَّاسِ عَنْكُمْ وَلِتَكُوْنَ اٰيَةً لِّلْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ وَيَهْدِيَكُمْ صِرَاطًا مُّسْتَقِيْمًا ﴿20﴾ وَأُخْرَىٰ لَمْ تَقْدِرُوْا عَلَيْهَا قَدْ أَحَاطَ اللّٰهُ بِهَاؕ وَكَانَ اللّٰهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيْرًا

Certainly was Allah pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you, (O Muhammad), under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquillity upon them and rewarded them with an imminent conquest. And much war booty which they will take. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise. Allah has promised you much booty that you will take (in the future) and has hastened for you this (victory) and withheld the hands of people from you — that it may be a sign for the believers and (that) He may guide you to a straight path. And (He promises) other (victories) that you were (so far) unable to (realise) which Allah has already encompassed. And ever is Allah, over all things, competent.^[6]

 

The background of this verse is that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam intended to perform ‘umrah, and thus invited the nomad Arabs for this journey. Majority of the Arabs did not answer his call for they feared a war will break out and the Makkans would prevent the Muslims from entering Makkah. Only the sincere and loyal whose hearts brimmed with iman accompanied Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam on this journey. When the Muslims approached Makkah, the Quraysh prevented them from entering. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sent Harrash to the Makkans but they plotted to kill him. He thus returned. Thereafter Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sent Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu for negotiations. The Makkans detained Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and a rumour spread that he had been killed. Upon this, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gathered those who were with him who numbered 400 to 2300 (according to different narrations) who pledged allegiance at his hands to fight the Quraysh and avenge the death of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and not to flee. All of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum readily pledged allegiance, besides the hypocrite Qayd ibn Qais^[7]. Since the hypocrisy of the hypocrites and the sincerity of the sincere became apparent and by the pledge the steadfastness and level of iman of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum was displayed; hence this pledge of allegiance was called Bay’at al Ridwan. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declared regarding those who pledged allegiance:

 

لَّقَدْ رَضِيَ اللّٰهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ إِذْ يُبَايِعُوْنَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ

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

 

فَعَلِمَ مَا فِيْ قُلُوْبِهِمْ

And He knew what was in their hearts.

 

Had they been hypocrites, they would not have accompanied Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and pledged allegiance at such a crucial time.

 

فَأَنْزَلَ السَّكِيْنَةَ عَلَيْهِمْ

So He sent down tranquillity upon them.

 

To the extent that they were prepared for battle and pledged allegiance at your hands to slay and be slain.

 

وَأَثَابَهُمْ فَتْحًا قَرِيْبًا

And rewarded them with an imminent conquest.

 

From these verses the piety, sincerity and perfect faith of those who pledged allegiance to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam under the tree are apparent. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala did not mention a word or letter of displeasure in these verses. On the contrary, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala announced His eternal pleasure and promised those victories which took place at the hands of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

We challenge the Shia: is this verse part of the Qur’an or not? If yes, then was it not revealed regarding those who pledged allegiance under the tree? If yes, then were not Sayyidina Abu Bakr, Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, etc., among them? If yes, then are they not included in the rewards Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala promised them, such as His pleasure? If not, what proof is there to exclude them? If so, then is being angry at and reviling those whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is pleased with not rejection of the verse? If you claim that they are hypocrites, then Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has refuted this by declaring:

 

فَعَلِمَ مَا فِيْ قُلُوْبِهِمْ فَأَنْزَلَ السَّكِيْنَةَ عَلَيْهِمْ

And He knew what was in their hearts so He sent down tranquillity upon them.

 

Had they being hypocrites, why would Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala testify to their iman and promise them victory?

If after studying all these verses, the Shia think that in spite of such clear verses in the Qur’an regarding the virtue of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, why have our scholars rejected their virtue? There must be a valid reason. It is not possible that all our scholars, learned, mujtahids, etc., were so ignorant to reject such emphatic verses and regard the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum as evil.

To respond to this, I will establish my claim from their reliable commentaries. I will leave for them to decide whether there scholars were ignorant or not, believers or not, truthful or not, just or bias. They should read their commentaries and come to a reasonable conclusion. Listen to what your mufassirin have written.

 

Al Kashani writes in his Tafsir:

 

آنحضرت فرمودند بدوزخ نہ رودیک کس ازمومناں کہ در زیر شجرہ بیعت کردند و ایں را بیعت الرضوان نام نھادہ اند بجھت آں کہ حق تعالی در حق ایشاں فرمود کہ لَقَدْ رَضِیَ اللہُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِیۡنَ اِذْ یُبَایِعُوۡنَکَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَۃِ

Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has stated: “Those who pledged allegiance under the tree will never enter Hell.” This pledge is known as Bay’at al Ridwan (the pledge of pleasure) since Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declared regarding those who pledged allegiance, “Certainly was Allah pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you under the tree.”

 

If you are not satisfied with this narration and are desirous to hear the answer of your theologians and hell-bent Shia, then open your ears. Your scholars have answered this verse in two ways:

 

کہ مدلول آیت عند التحقیق رضاۓ حق تعالی است از فعل خاص کہ بیعت است و کسے منکر ایںنیست کہ بعضے از افعال حسنہ مرضیہ ازیشاںواقعت سخن درین ست کہ بعضے افعال قبیحہ از ایشاںبوجود آمدہ کہ مخالف آںعہد و بیعت است چنانکہ در امر خلافت

1. Some have stated that it is established from this verse that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was pleased and will remain pleased with this specific act i.e. their allegiance.

 

ایںکلام معجز نظام دلالت میکند براینکہ بعضے اہل بیعت رضوان نکث بیعت خواہند کرد چنانچہ از ابو بکر و عمر و دیگ راںبظہور رسید بیانش آنکہ بیعت بایںشرط بودہ است کہ فرار ہزیمت نہ کنند در حرب ثابت بمانند یا کشتہ شوند بعد ازیںبیعت در ہماںسال جنگ خیبر پیش آمد ابو بکر و عمر فرار کردند و ہزیمت خوردند

2. Some are of the view that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum perpetrated those actions after this allegiance which were contrary to it i.e. they fled the battlefield, usurped the khilafah of the rightful khalifah. They are thus excluded from the promise of this verse.

 

a. In answer to the first contention, to think that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was unhappy with the other actions of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and only pleased with this one specific action is such a blasphemous slander which no Muslim will ever think about. Is it possible for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala to declare His pleasure with the words, “certainly was Allah pleased with the believers,” if He had not been pleased with them on every account? Did Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declare this just to appease them and concealed all the things He was unhappy with as a form of Taqiyyah? Something to ponder deeply over is how do the Shia know that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was unhappy with the other actions of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum? How did they reach this conclusion?

It is flabbergasting that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala reveals only that action which He is pleased with to the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and exposes all the other actions which He is displeased with to none other than ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’. Maybe the Shia will answer that the evil of the Sahabah is documented in the Qur’an which is in the care of the alleged Imam al Mahdi. However, we cannot accept this until we see it with our own eyes and the Imam testifies to it. But is a great pity that there is absolutely no trace of the Imam nor any evidence of that alleged Qur’an. A thousand years have passed, yet up to date the number of days and even years left for the emergence of the Imam is still a mystery.

صد شب ہجر گزشت و مہ من پیدا نیست طرفہ عمرے کہ بصد سال ندیدم یک ماہ

Thousand nights of separation have passed and my moon (beloved) has not appeared,

The irony of life is that I have not seen the moon for a hundred years.

 

b. In answer to the second contention that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum are excluded from the promise due to their violation of the pledge; it is evident from this contention that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum were true believers up to Bay’at al Ridwan. They were neither hypocrites nor disbelievers and their allegiance was sincere not hypocritical. The author^[8] of Taqlib al Maka’id’s upcoming text proves that they were neither hypocrites nor disbelievers at the time of pledging allegiance but were included in “Certainly was Allah pleased with the believers.”

ایں کلام معجز نظام دلالت می کند برینکہ بعضے از اہل بیعت رضوان نکث بیعت خواہند کرد

This miraculous speech indicates that some of those who pledged the allegiance of Ridwan will break their allegiance.

 

The ‘third martyr’, Nur Allah Shostari^[9] states:

مدلول ایت عند التحقیق رضاۓ حق تعالی است ازاں فعل خاص کہ بیعت است و کسی منکر ایں نیست کہ بعضے از افعال حسنہ مرضیہ ازیں شاں واقع است

The purport of the verse is His pleasure with a specific action i.e. pledging allegiance. No one denies that they did carry out pleasing actions.

 

This proves that their allegiance was a good deed. Thus, the belief that the senior Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum were hypocrites from the very beginning is falsified and it is proven that they were true believers at the revelation of the verse declaring His happiness.

Let us move on. Let us study their lives to determine the action which violated their pledge and the time when this happened, whether prior or after the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. According to what Nur Allah Shostari and the author of Taqlib al Maka’id have written, it is clear that this violation took place in front of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam i.e. they did not remain steadfast at the Battle of Khaybar and fled.

Our answer is that although the fort of Khaybar was not conquered at the hands of Sayyidina Abu Bakr and Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, this does not necessitate fleeing. Where did the Shia prove fleeing from? And if for argument’s sake they fled from the Battle of Khaybar and violated the pledge, then it devolves upon the Shia to furnish a verse to prove their fleeing, violation of the pledge and Allah’s displeasure just as we have proven the pledge and Allah’s happiness from the Qur’an. (If you cannot, then your claim is baseless!) I say with conviction that if the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum had to commit a grave mistake after the pledge of allegiance, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala would have announced His displeasure upon their fleeing and violation just as He had announced His pleasure upon their allegiance. Fleeing the battlefield and violating the pledge took place in front of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and revelation was still coming and Jibril ‘alayh al Salam was still descending. Why is it that Allah only boasts about their good actions and conceals their faults? It is either that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala feared them so He did not expose them or that they did not commit any violation at all. Had they blundered, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala overlooked it and concealed it considering their abundant good actions.

If it is claimed that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum perpetrated such actions after the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam like usurping the khilafah which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was angry with, then we say that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala would have exposed them beforehand and Allah would have never announced His happiness and declared that He knows what is in their hearts and Allah would have never sent tranquillity upon them. Is it fathomable that such giants would turn away from the truth?

I appeal to the Shia to stop wasting their time in debates and to contemplate on the words of al Kashani: Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has stated, “Those who pledged allegiance under the tree will never enter Hell.” This mufassir has left no scope for any objection. He has attested to the general glad tidings of Jannat for all those who pledged allegiance on the tongue of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. If you are not satisfied with this narration, have a look at another one for substantiation. It is written in the translation of Kashf al Ghummah:

 

از جابر بن عبد اللہ انصاری روایت است کہ مادراں روز ہزار و چھار صد کس بودیم دراں روز من از حضرت پیغمبر خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم شنیدم کہ آنحضرت خطاب بہ حاضراں نمود و فرمود کہ شما بھترین اہل روۓ زمین اید و ما ہمہ دراں روز بیعت کردیم و کسے از اہل نکث نمود مگر قید بن قیس کہ آں منافق بیعت خودرا شکست

Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah Ansari narrates: “We were 1400 on that day (Bay’at al Ridwan). I heard Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam addressing those present, “You are the best people on the surface of the earth.” We pledged allegiance that day. None of us broke our pledge besides Qayd ibn Qais, the hypocrite.”

 

Some points regarding this narration:

1. 1400 Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum were present at Bay’ah al Ridwan whose iman has been verified by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and regarding whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has announced His pleasure.
2. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has stated that they are the best of the nation.
3. Besides one hypocrite, no one broke his pledge.

Have an unbiased look at this narration and reflect over the ‘honesty’ and ‘fairness’ of Qadi Nur Allah and the Sayed Muhammad Qilli. Just look at how they adulterate the verse of Allah and reject categorical verifications under the disguise of love for the Ahlul Bayt. Even if for argument’s sake we acknowledge the errors of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, then too the words of Qadi Nur Allah hold no weight since ‘Allamah al Kashani has written in his Tafsir that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has stated, “Those who pledged allegiance under the tree will never enter Hell.” What answer do you have to this besides Taqiyyah?

It is appropriate to mention at this juncture that if anyone objects saying that Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not participate in Bay’ah al Ridwan hence he is excluded therefrom. The answer is that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had so much of love for Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu that notwithstanding his absence, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam included him in the bay’ah by declaring his hand as the hand of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

 

فلما انطلق عثمان لقى ابان بن سعيد فتأخر عن السرج فحمل عثمان بين يديه و دخل عثمان فاعلمهم و كانت المناوشة فجلس سهل بن عمرو عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و جلس عثمان فى عسكر المشركين و بايع رسول الله المسلمين و ضرب صلى الله عليه و سلم باحدى يديه على الاخرى لعثمان قيل طوبى لعثمان قد طاف بالبيت و سعى بين الصفا و المروة و احل فقال رسول الله ما كان يفعل فلما جاء عثمان قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ا طفت بالبيت فقال ما كنت لاطوف بالبيت و رسول الله لم يطف به ثم ذكر القصة و ما كان فيها الحديث – كتاب الروضة

When ‘Uthman left, he met Abban ibn Sa’id. He thus got delayed in saddling (the conveyance). He then escorted ‘Uthman in front of him until ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu entered. ‘Uthman informed them and there was a skirmish. Sahl ibn ‘Amr sat by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam whilst ‘Uthman sat in the army of the polytheist. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam placed his one hand on the other for ‘Uthman. It was said: “How fortunate is ‘Uthman! He has performed tawaf around the Ka’bah and ran between al Safa and al Marwah and came out of Ihram.” Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “He would not have done that.” When ‘Uthman returned, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam asked him whether he had performed tawaf around the Ka’bah. He replied: “It was not appropriate for me to perform tawaf when Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had not performed it.” He then narrated the entire incident.

 

Correspondingly, Molana ‘Ali Bakhsh Khan has written in one article which I quote verbatim:

 

Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam declared his hand to be the hand of ‘Uthman in order for him to acquire the honour of Bay’at al Ridwan. A hadith appears in Rowdah of al Kulayni that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam took pledges from all the Muslims. He then placed his one hand on the other hand for the pledge of ‘Uthman since he was (hostage) by the polytheists.

Besides emphatic forgiveness and divine pleasure from this hadith, another fine point comes to mind. The hand of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was understood as the hand of ‘Uthman and the hand of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is that hand which was termed as the Hand of Allah metaphorically.

یَدُ اللّٰهِ فَوْقَ اَیْدِیْهِمْ ۚ

The hand of Allah is over their hands.

Thus, a balanced person will term ‘Uthman as the hand of Allah or the hand of Nabi. Or are you still adamant that this is exclusively for Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu?

 

This hadith even ascertains that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had full trust in the friendship and support of his friends. When the people said that Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu is lucky since he has the opportunity to perform tawaf of the Ka’bah, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said that it is impossible for him to perform tawaf without him. And this was the case as Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not perform tawaf without Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This has been compiled in a couplet by the author of Hamlah Haydari:

طلب کرد پس اشرف انبیاء ز اصحاب عثمان صاحب حیا

The most honoured messenger told the modest ‘Uthman (to evaluate the situation in Makkah)

با وہم ہماں گفت خیر البشر کزاں پیشتر گفتہ بد با عمر

The best man (Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said to ‘Uthman the exact same thing he said to ‘Umar before

ببو سید عثمان زمیں در زمان بمقصد رواں شد چوں تیر از کماں

‘Uthman immediately took up the task and moved swiftly to fulfil his objective like an arrow out of a bow

چو اورفت از اصحاب روز دگر بگفتند چندی بہ خیر البشر

خوشا حال عثمان با احترام کہ شد قسمتش حج بیت الحرام

رسول خدا چوں شنید ایں سخن بپا سخ چنیں گفت با انجمن

بہ عثمان نداریم ما ایں گماں کہ تنہا کند طوف آں آستاں

After he left, the Sahabah told the best man, on the second day: “How lucky is ‘Uthman! He has the fortune of performing tawaf in the haram.” When Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam heard this, he announced to the entire crowd: “I do not think that ‘Uthman will perform tawaf around the Ka’bah without us.”^[10]

 

The same author writes that Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu reached Makkah and told Abu Sufyan, “Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam intends to perform tawaf.” He responded, “This is not possible. But if your desire then you may perform tawaf.” Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu refused, upon which Abu Sufyan had him imprisoned.

 

نجوشیدش آنگہ بدل مہر خون بہ عثمان چنیں گفت آں سرنگوں

کہ گر میل داری توطوف حرم بکن مانعت نیست کس زیں حشم

و لیکن محال ست آں بے گزاف کہ آید محمد براۓ طواف

چو بشنید عثمان از و ایں سخن چنیں داد پاسخ بآں اہر من

کہ طوف حرم بے رسول خدا نباشد بر پیر و انش روا

ازیں گفتہ سفیان بر آشفت پیش بگرد انداز سوی او روی خویش

بہ فرمود پس بادگر مشرکاں کہ عثمان و آں دہ کس از پیرواں

نیا بند رفتن بہ نزد رسول اگر شاد باشند ازیں گر ملول

چوں عثمان از و ایں حکایت شنید علاجے بہ جز صبر کردن ندید

مقید نمودندش اعداۓ دین بیان نجاتش کنم بعد ازیں

Love’s blood boiled at that moment, so Abu Sufyan told ‘Uthman, “Perform tawaf if you wish. There is no obstacle for you to attain this honour. However, it is impossible for Muhammad to perform tawaf.” When ‘Uthman heard this, he immediately retorted, “It is not permissible for his followers to perform tawaf without him.” Abu Sufyan was enraged with this and turned his face away. He addressed the polytheists, “Do not allow ‘Uthman and his accomplices to return to Muhammad whether they are pleased or not.” Upon hearing this, ‘Uthman found no option but to bear patiently. Thus, the enemy imprisoned him. I will narrate the story of his release hereafter.^[11]

 

We beseech the Shia to have a neutral approach to how their mufassirin, muhaddithin and historians write regarding the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and how they acknowledge their steadfastness, patience and iman. Yet they harbour hatred and brand those as renegades and disbelievers whose iman and Islam satisfied Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam; the thought of their deviation did not cross his mind; they remained obedient to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in adversity and calamity and their steadfastness and patience was praised by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. May Allah forbid! I cannot understand how the Shia brand such truthful Muslims and solid believers as hypocrites and how they reject such clear verses and authentic narrations. After studying these verses and ahadith, is it possible for a person to doubt the greatness of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and is it possible for the thought of hypocrisy and apostasy to cross his mind?

It is strange that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala did not suffice on using ambiguous terms to refer to them but rather stated categorically and emphatically, thus removing the doubts of all those who reject. Had Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala only customary praised those who brought iman on Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the rejecters would have had scope for interpolation. Conversely, when Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala clearly states that He is pleased with those who pledged allegiance at the hands of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and even mentions the place, under the tree, and further states that they have not pledged allegiance at the hands of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam but rather at Allah’s hands, now who can doubt the iman and lofty character of such persons? It could be assumed that only a few had pledged allegiance who had not turned apostate according to the Shia. However, when the Shia scholars have acknowledged the fact that there were 1400 Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum present and that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala revealed these verse in their favour and further attested that no one broke his pledge except one hypocrite; it is totally baffling that such corrupt ideologies are still believed regarding these personalities. If anyone thinks that the Shia have absolutely no conviction on the Speech of Allah, the ahadith of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the statements of their Imams then it is acceptable. Had they had conviction, they would not hold such filthy beliefs.

It is our fervent supplication that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala grants you a spark of iman so that you yourselves can recognise the corruptness of your beliefs and understand for yourselves that which we explain to you. Analyse these beliefs and see if they have even a spark of iman. If there is, then show me!

نالہ حزنیت کو آہ آتشنیت کو لاف عشق بازی چند عشق رانشا نیھاست

Who hears your grief, misery and sighs

Very few will recognise the signs of love in love

 

 

 

NEXT⇒ Verses of the Qur’an Complimenting the Sahabah continued

---

^[1]  Surah Al ‘Imran: 110

^[2]  Surah Al ‘Imran: 195

^[3]  Surah al Towbah: 100

^[4]  Surah al Hajj: 40

^[5]  Surah al Hashr: 9

^[6]  Surah al Fath: 18-21

^[7]  This narration is in accordance to Shia traditions which I have proved further on. I have quoted it from Kashf al Ghummah.

^[8]  The author of Taqlib al Maka’id’s name is Sayed Muhammad Qilli ibn Sayed Muhammad Hussain. One of his pious ancestors is Sayed Sharf al Din. When Halaku Khan attacked, he emigrated from Khurasan to India and stayed in Kathur village in Barabanki district. Sayed Muhammad Qilli was born in that very village on Sunday the 5th of Dhu al Qa’dah 1188 A.H (1774). Nawab Shuja’ al Dowlah passed away the same month and year. The author of Tadhkirat al ‘Ulama’ has listed him among the senior students of Molana Dildar ‘Ali Nasir Abadi known as Ghufran Ma’ab who served as a judge and mufti in Meerut for many years after which he resigned and moved to Lucknow where he began authoring books. In those days, there was a huge uproar regarding Tuhfah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah. He prepared himself to refute it — just as his teachers and other Shia scholars were doing — to completely annihilate the effects of this book. He wrote an answer to chapter 8 of Tuhfa in Tash’id al Mata’in wa Kashf al Dagha’in; an answer to chapter 1 in Saif Nasiri; an answer to chapter 2 in Taqlib al Maka’id; an answer to chapter 7 in Burhan Sa’adat and an answer to chapter 11 in Masari’ al Afham. He died on the 9th of Muharram 1260 A.H (1844) in Lucknow and was buried in the shrine of Ghufran Ma’ab.

^[9]  Nur Allah ibn Sayed Sharif ibn Nur Allah well known as Shahid Thalith (the third martyr) amongst the Shia. He was born in 1549 A.H (956) in Shostar — a city of Khoztan province of Iran. His ancestry was related to the government of Tabarstan Amil or Mazandran. Qadi Nur Allah Shostari learned intellectual and religious sciences under his father. He learnt other sciences by Mir Saif al Din Muhammad and Mir Jalal al Din. He travelled to India in 1571 due to the political unrest and was the guest of Hakim Abu al Fath Gaylani in Fatehpur Sikri. Hakim Abu al Fath Gaylani introduced him to Akbar (1556–1605). Since Qadi Nur Allah had a high level of education, capability and a sound temperament, Akbar appointed his as judge in Lahore in 1586. This was the first time in history that a Shia was appointed as a judge in India. In 1591, Akbar sent Qadi Nur Allah and Qadi ‘Ali to Kashmir to investigate the mismanagement and financial malpractice there. Qadi Nur Allah was appointed as the judge of the Agra army in 1599. In 1603, he had intention to return to Iran but Akbar prevented him.

He wrote few books prior to coming to India and wrote on various sciences after coming to India. He continued writing on tafsir, hadith, isometrics, logic, philosophy, history, etymology, Arabic grammar and many other subjects. He wrote approximately 104 books. Majalis al Mu’minin, Ihqaq al Haq and Masa’ib al Nawasib are among his well-known works. Ihqaq al Haq was written in refutation of ‘Allamah Rozbaha’s Ibtal al Batil, which had been written in refutation of ‘Allamah Hilli’s Kashf Haq.

He was killed during the reign of Jahangir (1605-1627) on Friday the 18th of Jumada al Thani 1019 corresponding to the 7th of December 1610. The author of Sahifah Nur Sayed Saghir Hussain Zaidi has written concerning the reason for his murder that Jahangir was infuriated at him because he wrote disrespectful words about Khajah Ajmeri — whom Akbar and Jahangir held in high esteem — and it was believed that he wrote a treatise in which he spoke offensively about Sheikh Salim — after whom the king was named Salim. In short, he was killed due to his blasphemy against pious saints. His grave is in Agra in the vicinity of Dayalbagh. Sayed Muhammad Mansur Hussaini Nayshapuri build a tomb on it in 1774, 164 years after Qadi’s murder.

^[10]  Hamlah Haydari vol. 1 pg. 207 line 2

^[11]  Hamlah Haydari vol. 1 pg. 207 line 22