This Nasibi Azam Tariq (la) evidenced the filth of his lineage in the form of following words:
… In order to erase the mistake of the Imam and to avoid the embarrassment for getting back to initial statement they had to say that Allah (swt) got Bada’ in such and such matter…
Had this stupid and ignorant Mullah bothered to ponder over the Holy Quran, he would have come to know that Allah (swt) had promised Musa (as) for thirty days but later on He (swt) changed it to forty days and his nation went astray during that delay. Why didn’t Allah (swt) tell him about forty days in the first instance? Does Allah (swt) lie (God forbid)? Only filthiest Nawasib of the highest order would come up with such a conclusion from the verses that contain the incident of Musa (as) whereas the people of truth who use their brains will never fall into such depths blasphemy and narrow-mindedness.
Then the Nasibi mullah cited the following tradition from Usool al-Kafi, Kitab al Hujjah, Chapter 82 page 233 (Lucknow):
Ali ibn Muhammad and Muhammad ibn al-Hassan have narrated from Sahl ibn Ziyad and Muhammad ibn Yahya from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa all from al-Hassan ibn Mahbub from abu Hamza al-Thumali who has said the following. “I heard abu Ja’far (a.s.) say, “O Thabit, Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, had set up a time limit for the affair in the year seventy but when al-Husayn (a.s.) was murdered Allah’s anger became more intense on the people on earth. He delayed it until one hundred forty. When then spoke to you about it and you publicized this hadith and disclosed the secret. Allah thereafter has not set up a time limit for it available with us. Allah deletes whatever He wants and establishes whatever He wants, with Him is the original book.…
[Khutbaat e Jail, page 46-52]
First of all let us cite the meaning of the word ‘Amr’ (affair) used in this tradition put forward by Allamah Baqar Majlesi:
“It means the revelation of truth and its triumph over falsehood by one of the Imams, it doesn’t mean the appearance of the twelfth Imam”
We cited this because many the ignorant Nasibi mullahs use this tradition to prove that according to this Shia tradition, Allah (swt) kept changing the time of the appearance of Imam Mahdi (aj).
Secondly it is possible to assume that the promise for the establishment of the real Islamic state would have been conditional during the 70 AH but Allah (swt) is not bound to reveal those conditions to anyone. There is no confusion whatsoever if promises are not fulfilled for its conditions not being met and for that matter one can just check the words of Allamah Shabeer Ahmed Uthmani cited before or Nawasib can issue the edicts of Kufr against him as well. The conditions must have been that if Muslims aided Imam Hussain (as) and attained success against the Kafir and Munafiq rulers, the actual Islamic government would certainly be established otherwise it would not. But we saw that most so called Muslims preferred to aid the tyrannical / hypocritical rulers others just kept away from the truth. Consequently, Allah (swt) didn’t fulfill his promise. All such things are within the eternal knowledge of Allah (swt) but He does not disclose such details to his people even to his chosen ones. Only Allah (swt) knows the reasoning of such concepts. Allah (swt) had made a conditional covenant with Bani Israel to give them governance but those stupid people just like their beloved Nasibi adherents thought that the promise was unconditional and they would have permanent eternal leadership, whatever happened. Today’s Jews are still waiting for the fulfillment of that promise in fact they are using every method to attain domination over the world. Allah (swt) addressed Bani Israel in the Quran:
[Shakir 2:40]
O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and be faithful to (your) covenant with Me, I will fulfill (My) covenant with you; and of Me, Me alone, should you be afraid.
This means that if Bani Israel fulfilled their covenant, Allah (swt) would likewise fulfill His covenant with them, failure to do so would lead to Him (swt) entering into a covenant
With Bani Ismaeel
The author states:
When Imam Baqir (as) didn’t find any reply for the time and again change in God’s decisions therefore he just said that those who mentioned the time of the reappearance of Mahdi were liars. It is mentioned in Usool al-Kafi page 223 that: ‘Narrator says that he asked Imam Baqir (as) whether there is any particular time for the appearance of Mahdi to which he replied that those who mentioned the time were liars, were liars, were liars.
[Khutbaat e Jail, page 50]
First of all it should be noted that Shaykh Baqir Majlisi termed the cited tradition as ‘weak’ in his famed work ‘Miraqt al-Uqul’ Volume 4 page 175.
Secondly, the Nasibi author and his ilk should know that there isn’t any contradiction between ‘Kazab al Waqtun’ (those who mention the time are liars) and the Imams mentioning the time in front of their people. Some impatient people of their own would accord suggest the time of the appearance of Mahdi (as). The Imam had nothing to do with such unfounded speculation. This was because the Muslims and in particular the Shia of Ahlulbayt (as) were subject to untold oppression from tyrannical leaders that they hated with a vehemence. In light of such persecution they yearned for the quick establishment of a real and actual Islamic government. The desire for salvation, led to some speculating over the time of al-Mahdi (as). It was the speculations of such people that Imam Baqir (as) rejected. It is also crucial to note that the reports relating to the establishment of Islamic government in 70 H were not popular around the era of 70 H and Imam Baqir (as) addressed such comments during His own period of Imamate. This was hence the conditional Taqdeer of Allah (swt) which were not fulfilled because conditions on the ground were not met.
The author unveils the intensity of his grudge and extremism in this manner:
Allah had designated Ismaeel, the elder son of Imam Jafar as Imam after him and it is obvious that the twelve envelopes which were revealed to Holy Prophet having the name of each Imam must have contained an envelope with Ismaeel’s name as well and Ismaeel must have born from the thigh of her mother and must have possessed the all the signs of Imamate….The words of another tradition which has been recorded by Shaykh Saduq in Risala Eitiqa`ad are: ‘Allah never had Bada’ in anything like he had in the case of my son Ismaeel.
[Khutbaat e Jail, pages 51-52]
Its is quite strange that this stupid mullah has made self made assumptions, like Ismaeel was the Imam to succeed Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) hence he ‘must have’ born from thigh and a envelope of his name ‘must have’ revealed! We want to ask these Nawasib that when you are using tense of ‘an unconfirmed past event’ one after another is it just for propaganda purposes and apportion blame on your opponents? Making mere assumptions of one’s own and then attributing the same to others can only be the work of Nawasib and no Muslim can do such an impudent act. The revelation of name by name envelopes isn’t any unsound thing. Didn’t Allah (swt) bestow a tablet to prophet Musa (as)? Where is the evidence that an envelope of Ismaeel’s name was revealed? Blaming others on the basis of mere assumptions using the words ‘must have’ is nothing but sheer dishonesty.
This act is known as “Musadira alal Matloob” in debating terminology, it means that you make an assumption and then make that assumption a criterion; you judge things according to that assumption, without even confirming whether the assumption is right or wrong.
This is similar to the doctrine of Khilafat, we say that no one can be Khalifa, unless Allah appoints him. But idiot Nasibis, reject this by arguing that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and others became khalifas even though Allah (swt) did not appoint them, the Shi’a doctrine is therefore false! Isn’t this ridiculous, making a wrong assumption, and then citing that as the criteria for debates? Those who are unaware of the basic rules of religious debates have become the self proclaimed champions of it. This is again an assumption!
Azam Tariq and other Nasibi mullahs have adopted treachery and sheer deceitfulness as their routine clothing. One of the examples of their deceit is the paragraph of Shaykh Saduq cited by Azam Tariq al-Nasibi wherein he deliberately removed the context and stole its middle part while the original sentences are:
“Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) stated that Bada’ took place in my son’s case, thus He (as) said that such thing never appeared in any case from Allah (swt) like the one took place in the case of my son Ismaeel because Allah (swt) removed him from the earth before me so that it would known that he was not the Imam after me.”
Eiteq’adat by Shaykh Saduq, page 29, published in Delhi
Since the deceiving of people by Shaytan could have caused people go astray Allah (swt) blocked the path of this deceit and thus took the life of Ismaeel during the lifetime of his father Imam Jafar (as) thus making it crystal clear that Ismaeel was not an appointed Imam as opposition could have taken place in that case. Despite this, opposition appeared and a sect namely Ismaili came into existence which still exists. The words clearly show that whatever happened was from the absolute knowledge of Allah (swt) not some fresh knowledge that appeared to Him (as) at that time (God forbid).
The author has used assumptions one after the other and has been very deceitful whereas Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) as recorded by Shaykh Saduq clearly stated that the death of Ismaeel took place during His (as) life to make it clear that he was not designated for Imamate neither in his (as) life nor afterwards. In order to uproot some kind of confusion, Allah (swt) from his wisdom matched it with the death of Ismaeel. Allah (swt) has already stated: “Surely Allah does not love the treacherous”. (8:58)
It should be quite clear that it isn’t sufficient to be an elder son in order to become an Imam rather there are many other qualities required. Allah (swt) has already named all the twelve Imams and it is sufficient for us that those names are present in Shia Athna Ashari books in fact in Sunni books as well and to assume that ‘an envelope with his name must have revealed as well’ is nothing but foolhardiness. The shortage in brain cells caused the stupid author to concoct assumptions and blame others, we see that similar attitudes were present amongst the people of previous eras. Ibn Abdul Barr records a very interesting incident bears relevancy to this discussion:
It was said to Hadrath Ali: ‘O Ameer al Momineen! There are some people who say that Allah (swt) has no knowledge of future events until it takes place’. Ali said: ‘ May their mothers weep for them. On what basis do they say this?’. He was told that they cite the words of Allah: ‘And verily We shall try you till We know those of you who strive hard (for the cause of Allah) and the steadfast, and till We test your record’ Ali said: ‘One who didn’t attain knowledge, is dead…’
Jam’e Bayan al-Ilm wa Fazla, Volume 1 page 138 (Beirut)
So we once again saw that those who stay away from the original people of knowledge i.e. the door of the city of knowledge, concoct stupid assumptions and draw absurd analogies. Just like their Nawasib ancestors the modern day proto-type read and interpreted the Quran on their own, they also went astray by falling into the quagmire of assumptions and analogies against the Shia of Ali (as) and then set out to lead naive Sunni Muslims astray.
The illiterate author makes another senseless objection, which we are presenting here in concise form:
“Why Imam Jafar (as) did not make his dead son alive or why any other Imam didn’t do so while according to Shia belief Imams possessed such an ability”.
“Ismaeel was designated Imam after Imam Jafar Sadiq but since he died during the life of his father therefore the decision of Allah (swt) went wrong thus He made Musa Kazim as next Imam. Had Allah (as) knew that Ismaeel had such a short life then such embarrassment would never have taken place”.
These are some of the most impudent questions and objections. Allah (swt) may grant the knowledge of Taqdeer to his chosen ones but has not allowed for them to disclose it. Sometimes the permission to disclose is there and sometimes Allah (swt) doesn’t give the knowledge of conditional Taqdeer to anyone.
When it has been made clear that Ismaeel hadn’t even been named as Imam, then why the need to resurrect him? Moreover, had Ismaeel (as) been appointed an Imam even for a day, the number of the Imams of Shia Athna Ashari would been 13, not 12, so such a claim by anyone is baseless.
The foolish Mullahs will not abandon his ignorance but in order to save naive people from their filthy and lethal trap, allow us to mention that Allah (swt) made Harun (as) caliph and Wasi of Prophet Musa (as) but Harun (as) died during the life of Musa (as) then Yusha bin Nun was appointed as Musa’s (as) caliph and Wasi. Didn’t Allah (swt) know that the life of Harun (as) was shorter than Musa (as) and He (swt) initially appointed Harun (as) as Caliph but later on He (swt) felt something due to which He (swt) took the life of Harun (as) before Musa (as)? (God forbid). Wasn’t Allah (swt) capable enough to increase the life of Harun (as)? The questions which Nasibi mullahs so as to portray the doctrine of Imamate as fake and imperfect, we will respond by citing the Imamate and Caliphate of Harun (as) to evidence his stupidity. One of the revered Sunni clergymen Allamah Abdul Kareem Shahrastani states about the caliphate of Harun (as):
“The Jews are of the view that Musa (as) handed over the signs of Torah and Alwah [tablets] to his Wasi (successor), his servant and one who was supposed to lead on affairs after Him (as) i.e. Joshua bin Nun so that he could transfer these signs to the children of Harun (as), because Amr was similar between Musa (as) and Harun (as) due to the fact that when Allah (swt) sent the first revelation to Musa (as), He (as) narrated the supplication of Musa (as): ‘And make him share my task [Amr]’ [20:32]. Thus, Harun (as) was the Wasi of Musa (as). When Harun (as) died during the life of Musa (as) the Wasiyat (successor ship) then temporarily transferred to Joshua bin Nun so that he could transfer it to the two sons of Harun (as) Shabeer and Shabar on a permanent basis. This is because Wasiyat and Imamate can be granted on a permanent basis or can be given temporarily to someone.”
1. Al Malal wal Nahal, Volume 1 page 211 (Published in Egypt)
2. Eqd al Jaman fi Tarikh Ahl Zaman, by Badruddin Aini, page 17 (Maktaba Ghazzali, Syria)
This reference also confirms the fact that just like this nation, the chain of succession and Imamat was also present in previous nations. Just like Musa (as) designated his successor during his life similarly Holy Prophet (s) also designated his successor during his life and this time the successorship was not given on temporarily rather the permanent chain of Imamate and Wilayah started from Ali (as). The meaning of Hadith Manzilah becomes further clear in the light of above mentioned fatcs. The ignorant Nawasib who abruptly raise questions on the issue of Imam Jafar (as)’s son Ismaeel, would no doubt raise similar questions in the case of Musa (as) and Harun (as). Only idiots raise such questions, a pious believer would never have the audacity to interfere on the affairs and wisdom of Allah (swt).
After citing the very incident of Bada taken place in respect of Ismaeel, Ansar.org states:
The same thing happened with Al-Hadi (the tenth Imam for the twelver Shias). Al-Hadi had announced that his son, Muhamed, was to be the next Imam. Nevertheless, Muhamed died before his father did. Hence, Al-Hadi gave the next leadership to his other son Al-Hasan Al-Askari and said, “O’ son, thank Allah, for He made a new decision about you.” [Al-Kafi, vol.1, p.326-327. Basa’er Al-Darajat by Al-Saffar, p.473. Al-Irshad by Al-Mufeed p.337. Al-Ghaybah by Al-Tusi, p.122]
First of all we should point out that the translation that Ansar.org has provided namely “He made a new decision about you” should have been “He has granted you a new task” i.e. (Imamate).
Secondly, there is nothing objectionable from the incident of Bada being applied by Allah (swt) in the case of the Imamate of Hassan Askari (as) exactly it was just like the previous episode of Ismaeel. Whilst we see abstruse issue here, the following tradition will make the matter crystal clear:
Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from Ishaq ibn Muhammad from abu Hashim al-Jafari who has said the following. “I was in the presence of abu al-Hassan (a.s.) after the death of his son, abu Jafar. I felt like wanting to say, “The two; abu Jafar and abu Muhammad at this time are like abu al-Hassan Musa and Ismaeel, the sons of Jafar ibn Muhammad (a.s.).” At that point abu al-Hassan turned to me before I spoke and said, “Yes, O abu Hashim, Allah applied Bada’ in the case of abu Muhammad after abu Jafar, a fact that was not known for him. Similarly He (swt) applied Bada’ in the case of Musa after the death of Ismaeel as an issue through which his condition came to light. That is what you thought to yourself. Even though people of falsehood may dislike it, abu Muhammad, my son will be the succeeding Imam after me. With him is the knowledge that he will need and with him is the means of Imamat (Leadership with Divine Authority).”
Al-Kafi, Volume 1 Kitab al-Hujjah Chapter 75 Hadith 10
As stated by Ansar.org Sheikh al-Tusi also recorded same event in his authority work ‘Al-Ghayba’ page 201 in the following words:
Abu Hashim Dawoud bin al-Qasim al-Jaffari said: ‘I was with Abi al-Hassan (as) at the time of his son Abu Jaffar’s death and he was directed and guided to him. Then I was thinking and saying to myself that this is the similar case like that of Abi ibrahim and Ismail. Then Abu al-Hassan came close and said: ‘Yes Aba Hashim, Bad’a by Allah about Abu Jaffar and he replaced him with Aba Muhammad, as it was Bad’a by Allah with regards to Ismaeel.’
So we come to know whatever had happened (Bada) in the case of Ismaeel and Imam Musa Kazim (as) exactly same later on happened in the case of Muhammad and Imam Hasan al-Askari (as), and that is what Ansar.org has too accepted i.e. “The same thing happened with Al-Hadi”. And since we already have fruitfully discussed the incident of Ismaeel thus there shalll not be anything to object or mock at whether about that incident or this one since both are similar kinds of situations.
But in order decide the matter of Bada once for all, let us now once again recall as to what had happened in case of Ismaeel and Imam Musa Kazim (as) that Shias believe and compare it with what had happened with the three people of Israel that Ahle Sunnah believe and for that purpose, one doesn’t need to learn rocket science, just compare these two terms used in the two respective books: Shaykh al-Tusi records:
Bada by Allah to Ismaeel
Bada by Allah to test them (Leper, Blind and Bald-headed men)
Since there is no difference between what has been recorded by Bukhari with regards to the story of three Israeli men and what has been recorded by Shia scholars with regards to the incident of Ismaeel and the difference is only that in Shia sources it was Ismaeel or Muhammad where as in Sunni sources there were three Israeli men, so what the heck is there for Nawasib to make the issue against Shias?
The Nasibi author under the title ‘Prophet Lut (as) casted doubts on the appearance of Bada’ from Allah (swt)’ states:
Azam Tariq states:
In Usool al Kafi, Kitaab al Nikah under Baab al-lawatat there is tradition of which I am mentioning a small part. When angels brought the news of wrath [Azaab] to Lut (as), He (as) said: ‘O messengers of my Lord, what instructions do you have from my Lord?’ They said: ‘We have instructions to catch this nation in morning’. Lut (as) said: ‘I have something to say to you’. They ask: ‘What is it?’ Lut (as) said: ‘You should catch this nation right now because I am afraid that my Lord may get Bada’ about these people’.
La hol Wala Quwah Ilah Billah…Will there remain any reliability on any statement of Allah (swt) after this belief? Then it is also quite possible that Allah (swt) may get involved with Bada’in the statements of establishing Qayamah, distributing hell and heaven, weighing the deeds on the day of judgement etc… (astaghfurallah)
[Khutbaat e Jail, page 57]
The author would have not exhibited such stupidity had he glanced over the incident of prophet Yunus (as) before raising an objection about al-Kafi that Lut (as) feared the appearance of Bada’ from Allah (swt) but since like other filthy Nawasib of Sipah-e-Sahabah, the author is permanently overcome by Shaytan that means they stay aloof from the truth.
These idiots when talking about Shias adopt only one eye to examine the facts (no doubt they are the followers of the one eyed Dajjal), which why they formulate complete lies, or half truths tailored as lies.
As for the notion that ‘with the presence of the belief of Bada’ there remains no reliability on the statements of Allah (swt) for establishing day of Qayamah, distribution of hell and heaven etc’ there would not have appeared such doubts in the vulgar and cheap brain of the author had this ignorant mullah understood the tradition of Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) mentioned previously. The Imam (as) said that there are two kinds of affairs, firstly established affairs and secondly dependent affairs. There is no Bada’ in established affairs but that may happen in dependent/contingent ones. The establishment of Qayamah, the distribution of hell and heaven and the weighing of deeds etc are established affairs and they are not related with any conditions, where as most of the our routine affairs are conditional and dependent. The nature of such conditions, whether they are being fulfilled or not (etc) EVERYTHING is in the eternal and absolute knowledge of Allah (swt). Knowledge of Allah (swt) surrounds each and everything. Since the Nawasib are themselves at the peak of ignorance their filthy minds quickly generate the views about Allah (swt) being ignorant of something because of Bada’ (nauzobillah) which in other words means that in the mirror of Bada’ the Nawasib watch the reflection of their ugly faces.
Moreover, about the status of the cited tradition, Shaykh Baqir Majlisi stated that it is a ‘weak’ tradition, see Miraq al-Uqul, Volume 20 page 390.
After quoting the above Shia tradition, the Nasibi author has also used statements of Imam (as) about the rewards of believing in Bada. So ,as for the tradition that having faith in Bada’ is the most exalted worship (ibada’h), then who can make the ignorant mullahs understand that it is a confirmed fact that Bada’ means the eternal and absolute knowledge of Allah (swt) which can also be compared with the complete details of the happenings in the entire universe a concept that affirms the highest and absolute degree of Allah (swt)’s authority that not only brings faith in Him (as) but is the actual faith on which all kinds of worship are based. One who gets involved in doubts neither understands the authority and unlimited Qudrah of Allah (swt) nor has he has accepted it. Sadly we see that the mindless mullahs are busy in making sound things unsound with their minds on account of their worship of Satan.