We have seen that these evidences do not require any hadeeths to interpret them, and they are obvious to any open-minded Muslim who reads the Qur’an with sincerity. Now we will deal with some of the “responses” the author at allahuakbar.net poses. He lists several “standard” Shi’a responses to the objections he has raised, and attempts to refute them. The Shi’a “objection” is written in italics, and his “refutation” is written below.
Allaahuakbar.net states:
There are also no verses in Quran to tell us how to pray. We learn some of our duties from Hadeeth not Quran.
Prayer has been referred to EXPLICITLY and STRONGLY more than ninety times in Quran . In each of these verses one of the aspects of prayer is covered. Many of these verses talk about the details of prayer, like how to come prepared for prayer (ablution), prayer in travel, etc. Certainly with such a vast and strong reference from Quran , Muslims will refer to the Prophet to know the details. In comparison, the total number of the verses that Shia refers to for Imaamat is no more than 5 or 6 and yet non of them can be interpreted by a non-biased mind in the way that 12ers interpret it. In fact none of them are explicit and strong enough to prove Imaamat doctrine. This is while Prayer is not at all comparable with Imaamat. Imaamat is the fundamental of belief. Shia calls it one of the Osoole Din (Fundamental of religion). Prayer however according to Shia is one of the Foroo’e Din (Subsidiary) Imamat is important enough to convince Shia to separate themselves from the mainstream Islam. If the only difference between Shia and the Mainstream Islam was the way they perform prayer they would never become a sect out of the mainstream Islam.
One will quickly see that the author has not even dealt with the question, i.e., that the way of performing prayer is not dealt with in the Qur’an even though it is of vital importance. He says that the obligation is referred to explicitly and strongly, but that its method is not. He says, however, that the reality of prayer’s obligation is referred to with such emphasis that, undoubtedly, the Muslims would go to the Prophet (s) in order to learn how to do it.
Now, we have seen that the Qur’an contains countless stories of Prophets and Messengers, and the Divinely appointed guides sent to all peoples. However, the Qur’an does not specify the Twelve Imams after the Prophet (s) in detail. It does not specify the names of the other 124,000 Prophets, nor does it even specify that number. However, we learn from the Qur’an that always and everywhere there is a guide sent to the people. Did not Allah (swt) say:
Indeed, you are the Messenger, and to every people there is a guide.
This ayat is only summarizing one of the most singularly important themes in the Holy Qur’an: the constant, living presence of Divine guides who are not chosen by the Muslims of the time, but are appointed by God Himself. This is a reality confirmed again and again in the Qur’an, and the Sunnis are at a loss to explain why, in the middle of the seventh-century, right before a period of incredible violence and civil war, Allah (swt) stopped doing this, even though He said:
You will never find any change to the sunnah of Allah.
Sunnis ask why the names of the Twelve Imams, and why the number Twelve is not specified. We would use the exact same response as the Sunni author has with regards to prayer: that for the details of who the Imams are, for the details of their names and their number, there is no doubt that the true believers will go to the Prophet (s). Once they have been told:
Indeed, you are the Messenger, and to every people there is a guide.
then there is no doubt that the Muslims will ask the Prophet (s): “Who will be the guide, or guides, for the people after you?”
Sunni, however, seems to be unwilling to accept such a response. He says the doctrine of Imamate is a core matter of belief, and should be explained in the Qur’an. However, he has once again confused the issue. He has defined the Shi’a doctrine of Imamate as the belief in the Twelve Imams, which is false. The Shi’a belief in Imamate is that there will always be an Imam, in all times, and that he is sent by God, not elected by people. The belief in the Twelve Imams is a part of the doctrine of Imamate, just as the belief in the Five Glorious Prophets (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (as)) is a part of the doctrine of Prophecy. The Shi’a doctrine of Imamate is that there is always an Imam of some kind or another, whether he lives in hiding or openly amongst the people. There was an Imam present in the world, even when Abraham was living away from the people in the deserts of Makkah. Even though he was incommunicado from the rest of humanity (other than his immediate family), he was still the Imam of his time. The Twelve Imams are a particular group of such Imams, who have always existed in history. The question of who the Imams are after the Prophet (s), and how many there will be, is a matter of significance but a matter that was left to the Prophet (s), just as the significant matter of how to pray to Allah (swt) was left for the Prophet (s) to explain. The author’s confused definition of Imamate, and his misunderstanding about the Shi’a belief in Imamate, has led him to make this confused response to the Shi’a objection.
As such, we see the fact that Allah (swt) sends a guide to every people is confirmed in the Qur’an, and nobody can deny this. This is the belief in Imamate, and it is firmly present in the Qur’an. The subsidiary question of who the Imam of our time was, as well as the past generations who lived after the Prophet (s), is a specific matter that was left for the Prophet (s) to explain, which he did on numerous, numerous occasions.
Allaahuakbar.net states:
There are certain verses but you need to look at Hadeeth to understand their true meaning cause we are advised to learn Quran from the Prophet and Hadeeth is his teachings.
Why only when it comes to Imaamat, we need Hadeeth to help us? We don’t need a Hadeeth to understand from Quran that reading prayer, performing Hajj, fasting, Jihad etc. are obligatory upon Muslims. We don’t need Hadeeth to understand from Quran that a Muslim needs to believe in Oneness of God and his Prophets and the Hereafter. We don’t need Hadeeth to understand from Quran that God has angels, there were Prophets in the history of mankind and some of them had books, and that the destiny of man is in the hands of God. All of the sudden when it comes to Imaamat, Hadeeth becomes a vital tool to understand Quran . Quran how ever does not need a tool to be understandable. It is written in Quran that this book has been made easy to get guidance from. It is true that the Prophet explains certain verses of Quran but explaining is different from interpreting. Explaining means giving the details. Interpreting means giving the meaning. Quran needs no tool to be meaningful otherwise it wasn’t the book of guidance. Also there are many contradictory Hadeeth in explaining verses of Quran and at the end of the day it is impossible to verify exactly which ones are authentic. How could God expect people of our time to use Hadeeth to understand the MEANING of Quran? Is this the way that God says in Quran that Truth and False are separated and clear evidences have been shown? I don’t think so.
As we have seen, we do not need hadeeth to help us. The hadeeths explain more about who the Imam was after the Prophet (s), and who the Imam was after him, and so forth. But the reality of Imamate is concerned, and we do not need any hadeeths to realize that there are other infallible people in the world to be obeyed other than the Prophet (s). Did not Allah (swt) say:
Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and the holders of authority from amongst you.
Who, then, is the holder of authority from amongst us? George W. Bush? Certainly some Sunnis have embarrassingly argued that this ayat indicates upon the obligation to obey whoever holds temporal authority, but we have already seen the poverty of this argument. We know that we have been ordered to obey somebody who is from amongst our ownselves, but the Sunnis are at a loss to explain who this is. Such a person is infallible, or otherwise Allah (swt) would be ordering us to disobey Him when that person goes astray, which is illogical non-sense. The question of who this person is was answered by the Prophet (s) on the Day of Ghadeer. But the fact that such a person existed and would always exist is proven decisively by the Qur’an.
The author’s argument is also absurd, for the Sunnis continually contradict the Qur’an, and yet when they are asked about it, make the defense that the Sunni ‘ulama and companions knew the Qur’an better than us and we shouldn’t question it. Let us take the issue of divorce. We read in Surah at Talaq, verse 2:
Thus when they fulfil their term appointed, either take them back on equitable terms or part with them on equitable terms; and take for witness two persons from among you, endued with justice, and establish the evidence (as) before Allah.
Allah (swt) commands us to take two witnesses in a divorce. But according to Sunni fiqh, this is not necessary, because ‘Umar ruled that it was not necessary. As such, we see that ‘Umar, as well as the Sunni ‘ulama who follow him, have committed an enormous act of bid’a in removing this obligation from Islamic law. It is obvious that Allah (swt) is ordering us to take two witnesses, but Sunni fiqh contradicts this. Yet if a Sunni is asked about this, the immediate response is:: “I don’t know the tafsir of this” or “I don’t know if the hadeeths explain this differently” and so forth. According to the ordinary lay Sunni, then, the Qur’an is so complicated and arcane that when it says “take for witnesses two persons from among you” that we can’t figure out this means “take for witnesses two persons from among you.” Rather, we must do enormous research into tafsir, hadeeths, fatwas of various ‘ulama, and so forth, before we can understand what the Qur’an says.
As such, whenever Sunnis contradict the Qur’an, their universal defense is exactly the same as the supposedly Shi’a argument given above:
There are certain verses but you need to look at Hadeeth to understand their true meaning cause we are advised to learn Quran from the Prophet and Hadeeth is his teachings
Why is it, then, that Sunnis are allowed to say this, but Shi’as are not? Now, the Sunni author might respond that the Qur’an may be vague in matters of law, and never in matters of belief. Why, then, do they hold to the doctrine of bi la-kayf, “without asking how,” whenever they examine verses about the Hand of Allah? When Allah (swt) speaks of His Hand, while continually emphasizing that He has no body or physicality like us, then any rational person will read the Qur’an and understand that the Hand of Allah is a metaphor for the Power of God, just like people speak about the police as “the long arm of the law”. Sunnis, however, do not except this. They say that Allah (swt) does have a Hand, but we do not know what that means. This is the universally accepted doctrine of Sunni Islam. Now, isn’t the question about whether or not God has a Hand or not, whether and how He can be described in such ways, a more fundamental question than Imamate or Prophecy? This concerns the most fundamental aspect of our belief system, tawhid. Yet for Sunnis, it is enough to say: “We don’t know,” i.e., that the Qur’an is so complicated and arcane that we can’t possibly figure out what Allah (swt) is talking about when He refers to His Hand in the Holy Qur’an. As such, Sunni Islam makes the Qur’an out to be a lot more complicated and unreadable than we do, dismissing vast numbers of verses as inexplicable, even when they concern our most basic belief systems.
Allaahuakbar.net states:
Long and complicated analysis of certain verses of Quran to prove that even without the help of Hadeeth, they are proving Imaamat.
same argument goes here. Quran is not a book of riddles and puzzles. God does not expect an ordinary Muslim to have a search in Quran and have a professional analysis of the verses of Quran to understand what should be his belief and what are his duties as a Muslim. Of course it is very beneficial to analyse the verses of Quran to understand more from it. Quran is like an ocean. However to say that our fundamental belief can only derived from Quran after such an analysis is in contradiction with the use of Quran as a book of guidance. (For a detailed review of the verses that 12ers usually use and the discussion of the way they attempt to misinterpret these verses please refer to my other article: “The Quran refutes the Shiite concept of Imamate.” and this article also The Qur’ân and The Imamah.
How much analysis does it take to understand that when Allah (swt) says:
For every people there is a guide
that it means that, amongst ourselves, there is a living guide appointed by God? Rather, it takes a very complicated and artificial mind to think that this ayat means that Allah (swt) has not sent us a guide. Sunnis have to resort to enormous mental gymnastics to prove that the verses of Imamate do not indicate upon Imamate, and to prove that it is suitable for a liar, drunkard, homosexual, and murderer like Yazid to be the Imam of the Muslims. No sensible person would believe that the verse:
Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and the holders of authority from amongst you.
means that all Muslims in America have to obey George Bush, or whoever happens to hold temporal authority at the time. The Qur’an makes it as obvious as possible that He is in continual contact with us through the Imam of the time, whoever that person may be.
The only reason that such arguments become “long and complicated” is because of the absurd arguments which Sunnis make in order to explain away these verses. Following the path of our Imams (as), the Shi’a have learned to cover all the bases when they make an argument. Rather than waiting for the Sunnis to come up with a silly and bizarre interpretation of a verse, we present the refutation of that non-sense. It is only because Sunnis refuse to accept the obvious that we debates become long and complicated. Any reasonable person will understand that the verse
Indeed, you are the Messenger, and to every people there is a guide.
Means what it says it means: that we have a guide, someone other than the Prophet (s). And as will be seen, that guide can be no one other than Imam Muhammad ibn Hassan al-Mahdi (as).
Allaahuakbar.net states:
There are no mention of the name of our Prophet in Bible but still Christians need to believe in the Prophet.
I appreciate that this justification is very out of line but because I have heard it, I am going to address it here: Firstly we believe that Bible in fact gave the information about our Prophet but these verses were removed (Quran tells us). However the most important thing is that Christians are not expected to accept the Prophet only based on their Bible. Christians along with other human being are given a brand new guidance that is Quran. It is Quran that challenges Christians not merely their own book. The last point is that the comparison is illogical. We are asking for proof of the Shia doctrine from our book of guidance, what does it have to do with the proof of our Prophet in the Bible?! There are many belief that Christians have but are not in their Bible, we however as Muslims have to disregard any belief that is not supported by Quran. On the other hand, another misunderstanding here is that we are not asking about the name of a particular Imaam. We are asking about the CONCEPT of Imaamat. The concept of prophethood is well established in Bible (both old and new testaments). It is only after the establishment of this concept in the Christian holy book that they are expected to believe in ANOTHER prophet that is Muhammad (PBUH). The CONCEPT of Imaam (in the way that 12er Shia put it) however has not even referred to (in a convincing way) in Bible, let alone being established. Therefore from this respect too, the comparison is illogical.
No Shi’a with the ample education would give such an inane argument. Obviously we do not expect Christians to believe in Prophet Muhammad (s) on the basis of their corrupted version of the Injeel. The author is talking non-sense here.
But let us take this argument a step further: once we understand that living, Divine guidance is something that is always part of human life, don’t we see this elaborated and discussed in the Bible with the same degree that it is in the Qur’an? We read about the life of Jesus (as), albeit in a distorted form. We read about John the Baptist before him, indicating that there was another Divinely appointed being before Jesus (as). We read throughout the Bible the distorted stories of the Prophets, but we see that Prophets are always sent, again and again and again. While the historical details and the sometimes pornographic stories about the Prophets (as) are something that we would not accept (though, of course, the Sunnis have no problem attributing similar types of obscenity to the Prophet Muhammad (s) in books like Bukhari), we see that the Bible presents a similar reality as the Qur’an: that for every people there was a guide, and such people were appointed by God, not men. Was King David appointed by people, and elected? No, he was sent by God to be the King of the Jews. Was Jesus (as) made the Messiah by the election of the Jews and Gentiles of Jerusalem? Of course not, he was sent by God, so much so that He was created directly by the Hand of God without the medium of human sexual reproduction. This is the sunnah of Allah, the sunnah of Divine appointment (nass). But for Sunnis, all of this stopped in the middle of the seventh-century, for no reason. The Muslims were left in a state where they would go to war with each other, and absolutely nobody had a Divine mandate for the fighting that went on.
This is not reasonable. In reality, the doctrine of Imamate is as equally present in the Bible as it is in the Qur’an. When the author accepts that the concept of Prophethood is confirmed in the Bible, he misses the point: Imamate is a part of Prophethood, not separate. They are two manifestations of one fact: that the sunnah of Allah (swt) is to send and appoint guides:
Indeed, you are the Messenger, and to every people there is a guide.
Allaahuakbar.net states:
The verses of Quran are usually general and it is not the style of Quran to name people (i.e. Imaams)
No body asked for names. Only some general verses that give us the above doctrine. Something as simple as: “Oh Muslims, be aware that there will be certain Imaams for you after the Prophet from his generation who are appointed by God and you need to follow them”. It is as if (God Forbidden) God was worried about talking about Imaamat explicitly. Having said that, we have the name of Zaid (Ra) in Quran who was a SAHآBAH and his name is there to refer to a very minor issue. It is not unfair to ask for a single verse with the name of Ali in it if (according to Shia) he had such an important role (Imaam).
The verse:
Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and the holders of authority from amongst you.
is saying exactly the same idea expressed in the author’s made up verse:
“Oh Muslims, be aware that there will be certain Imaams for you after the Prophet from his generation who are appointed by God and you need to follow them”.
In the verse where Allah (swt) instructs us to obey the holders of authority from amongst us, we see that Allah (swt) is telling us that there are other holders of authority other than the Prophet (s), and that we must obey them. Allah has said: “From amongst you.” This indicates that there will be holders of authority from amongst the generations who come after the Prophet (s). So who is the holder of authority from amongst us? The author could never, of course, give an answer to the question. The most inane reply our opponents come up with is their interpretation of words “From amongst you” which according to them is the instruction to obey the ruler (elected by the humans). But the fact is that the words words “From amongst you” at no point tells us to elect or appoint a ruler by ourselves rather we are left to seek for ‘those people who are vested in authority and they are amongst us’. If the words “From amongst you” according to our opponents gives the notion to elect or appoint a ruler at our own then what they have to say about the following verse revealed for Prophet Muhammad [s]:
“Certainly a Messenger has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to the believers (he is) compassionate…” (Quran: 9:128)
Do the words “from among yourselves” means that Prophet Muhammad [s] was appointed or elected by the people?
As such, all the ideas that the author sought to express in his made up verse are expressed in a more succinct and beautiful way in the ayat al-amr quoted above. The very fact that Allah (swt) is giving the command tells us to be aware. It is obvious that it is addressing not just Muslims, but all mankind. We need to follow them. And these people are obviously mas’um (infallible), or it would be illogical for us to have to follow them in an absolute way. The only thing that this verse does not indicate upon which the author’s made up verse seeks to express is the family lineage. The author asked us to find a verse that said something like “there will be certain Imams for you after the Prophet from his generation.” But why on Earth would a Shi’a of ‘Ali ever believe that such a verse existed, or could ever exist? For Imam ‘Ali (as) was not from the generation of the Prophet (s), i.e. that he was not from the off-spring of the Prophet (s), than there is no reason Allah (swt) would have said: ‘Oh Muslims, follow the Imams (as) from the Prophet (s)’s progeny.” If He had said this, then it would have cut Imam ‘Ali (as) out of the Imamate, in which case the Prophet (s) would have been suspicious when he said: “Whoever I am the master of, then ‘Ali is his master as well” at the Day of Ghadeer. As such, we have a verse, the ayat al-‘amr (Obey Allah, and obey the Prophet and the holders of authority from amongst you) that says exactly what the Wahabbi author wants. Will he know abandon the foolish religion of ‘Umar and join the path of the Ahl al-Bayt (as)?
Allaahuakbar.net states:
Quran says “follow the Prophet”. There are Hadeeth from the Prophet that prove the doctrine of Imaamat and this should be enough for a Muslim if he wants to follow the Prophet.
Again why is that only for this article of faith we need to consult Hadeeth? Let’s test something. Take Quran in your hand and open it by chance. I can guarantee that no matter where it is opened, few verses before or after are about one of the Oneness of God, Prophet hood, Day of Judgement, Destiny of Human Being, or Duties of Muslims. Now how far you need to go in order to find a verse that (with the help of certain Hadeeth) could be interpreted as Imaamat in the 12er doctrine? How come for our other fundamental believes Quran is quite direct, even for our main duties as Muslims but when it comes to Imaamat, we need to refer to Hadeeth? This is inconsistency and God is far greater than having inconsistency in his perfect book. Hadeeth is not the second volume of Quran. Authentic Hadeeth is explanation of Quran not a secondith to see what is our religion? This is even more difficult when bare in mind that for every Hadeeth that Shia use to prove Imaamat, there are other Hadeeth that are in contradiction with it. In fact even Hadeeth (as a whole) are not structured in a way that could prove Imaamat. Such a justification is in fact the main reason for having different sects in Islam. Zaidis too have their own Hadeeth, same for Ismailis and same for Bahayees. All have the same problem, they are trying to understand their religion from the sources other than Quran. Please note that I am not denying the importance of Hadeeth (I am not a Quranist). However believing that certain parts of our fundamental belief has to be derived from Hadeeth rather than Quran is far different from using Hadeeth as a source to Prophet’s Sunnah. There are no use of discussing the ahaadeeth of the prophet with 12ers when it comes to the fundamental issues. To all Muslims except those who have made sects the fundamentals of belief need to be derived from Quran, if they are not then either they are wrong or they are not fundamental and thus not acceptable reasons for
Let us bear in mind, of course, that the Qur’an also says “follow the holders of authority from amongst you,” and the Sunni belief system is helpless to specify who that individual is now.
In any case, let us do our own test: if we open up the Qur’an, we will inevitably see, on every page, a discussion of Divinely appointed human being sent guide human beings from darkness into Light. This reality is so integral to the Qur’an that we cannot find a single page where this reality is not mentioned. We ask again:
Why is it when Allah (swt) has specifically said that for all people there is a guide, and that we learn from the Qur’an that throughout history such guides have always existed, that all of a sudden Allah (swt) ends this practice?
We know from history that the so-called companions of the Prophet (s) were, with rare exception, not the most exceptional human beings. There was mass slaughter and political strife for decades after the Prophet (s). There is nothing about the community of Muslims, much less the human race as a whole, that indicates that a people who had so recently been worshipping idols and statues were now longer in need of Divine guidance. The foolish author does not understand that Imamate is only one form of Divine guidance, and that it is the only type of Divine guidance that occurs after the sealing of Prophecy with the Prophet Muhammad (s). Imamate and Prophethood are, in essence, one reality, that of Divine Guidance manifested in human form. The Qur’an expounds upon this concept again and again, and yet for no apparent reason this stopped in the middle of the seventh-century. Why?
The argument about hadeeths is also ill-founded. When hadeeths contradict each other, the first thing we should do is compare them to the Qur’an. Those hadeeths that say that there is always a guide clearly conform with the verse
Indeed, you are the Messenger, and to every people there is a guide.
while the fabricated Sunni hadeeths that seem to indicate humanity has been left in the hands of innovators like ‘Umar clearly contradict the Qur’an. As such, a rational person who is endowed with faith in the Qur’an will go with the narrations that confirm that there is a Divinely-appointed guide for every people, and will reject the ones that contradict this reality. But if we do this, the standard Sunni responses will come into play: “We don’t know the tafsir of these verses, etc., etc.” This is blatant dishonesty.
In reality, the author is being extremely relativist here, and is speaking like post-modernists in the West. His basic belief seems to be that it is utterly impossible to prove anything based on hadeeths, and so we should just leave them. This is the same type of argument made by agnostics. “Well, there’s so many different religions. Christians have their Bible and Muslims have theirs and Hindus have theirs and how can we every know which one is right? As such, we should just leave this whole religion thing.” The fact that people differ about something, and the fact that they continually differ after a thousand years, does not mean that nobody is right and wrong. Jews have been arguing for 2,000 years that Jesus was an imposter. Does that mean we should just leave the question, and not bother to discover whether or not he was really a Messenger of God? Of course not. The author’s approach is to dismiss everything that makes him uncomfortable as being a side issue, and this leads him to basically deny the value of all hadeeth literature. While he states that he is “not a Qur’anist” and does not deny the value of hadeeths, in practice this is what he does. It is obvious from the entire tone of his article that he does not believe in the hadeeth literature at all. If we look at his previous statement:
Allaahuakbar.net states:
Any groups of people tend to elect some one as their leader. And the rational and most reasonable way to do so is by election. This is a routine social/political practice. Certainly no system of public election was established at that time and the election of Aboobakr was done through negotiation of present people. You might think that it was not a good choice or that not all qualified people were presented at the time, that’s your opinion but it has nothing to do with looking for evidences in Quran about it.
We see that he doesn’t really have much faith in the Quran’s ability to decide the question as to who the Prophet (s)’s successor was. As such, this person does not really believe that much of anything can be proven. Hundreds of companions report that the Prophet (s) made them pledge allegiance to ‘Ali, but this proves nothing because it’s a hadeeth. The Qur’an does not give any evidence as to who the Prophet (s)’s successor is, so we should abandon it on this issue. Rather, we should follow the author’s blind speculation that we have to follow whoever comes into power (whether it be through election or otherwise) for the sake of unity. Is this Islam?
Allaahuakbar.net states:
There are not explicit verses because if they were, Quran was in danger of fabrication.
This is actually guessing God’s intentions and is very close to Kufr. From where one could come to this conclusion? Is there any verse in Quran that says God has not revealed certain things because if he does, you will change Quran? In fact the verses of Quran are supportive to the opinion that nothing has been left out for us from Quran and that God keeps Quran safe and that the Prophet should not be worried about delivering the verses. This is in fact attributing Taqqiyyah to God himself (God forbid).
The author’s prejudices continue to blind him. There are explicit verses in the Qur’an, and if a Shi’a says that there are not, than he is an ignorant person who needs to study his religion better. The Prophet (s) was explicitly ordered to nominate a successor. We are explicitly ordered to follow others than the Prophet (s), who are also infallible. We are explicitly told to love the Prophet (s)’s family, and that they have been purified from all impurity. We are explicitly told that a guide has been sent to us, someone other than the Prophet (s). What more is needed?
Allaahuakbar.net states:
Finally among the classic scholars of Shia at the old times there were some of them who hold that Quran is changed by Sahabah and that certain verses are removed from it.
In fact this is the most logical reply that one can get. However no Shia scholar these days refer to this response. They have changed their minds about this opinion (although among them there are still some individuals that do not deny the possibility). However every one knows that this is opposed to the verse of Quran where God promises to keep the book. Also if this is the case then how we know that there weren’t some verses in Quran in support of (say) Baha’ollah or (say) George w. Bush? By this assumption no basis will remain to hold any opinion as a Muslim. On the other hand, God could reveal as much as needed about Imaamat (like 98 verses about prayer). Just imagine how difficult would it be if some one wanted to remove all the verses about prayer from Quran, God could do the same for Imaamat.
There is far more hadeeth literature about corruption of the Qur’an in the authentic Sunni literature than the Shia hadeeth literature. These include:
Abu Musa al-Ashari invited the Quran readers of Basra. Three hundred ( 300 ) readers responded to his invitation. He told them you are the readers and the choice of the People of Basra. Recite the Quran and don’t neglect it. Otherwise a long time may elapse and your hearts will be hardened as the hearts of those who came before you were hardened. We used to read a Chapter from the Quran similar to Bara’ah in length and seriousness, but I forgot it. I can remember from the Chapter only the following words: “Should a son of Adam own two valleys full of wealth, he should seek a third valley and nothing would fill Ibn Adam’s abdomen but the soil. We also used to read a chapter similiar to the Musabbihat and I forgot it. I only remember out of it the following: “Oh you who believe, why do you say what you do not do? Thus a testimony shall be written on your necks and you will be questioned about it on the day of judgment.”
Sahih Muslim Chapter CCCXCI, p500, Tradition #2286
Anas reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: “If the son of Adam were to possess two valleys of riches, he would long for the third one. And the stomach of the son of Adam is not filled but with dust. And Allah returns to him who repents.”
Sahih Muslim (English), Chapter CCCXCI, Tradition #2282
Anas b. Malik reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying this (the sentence of the above tradition), but I do not know whether this thing was revealed to him or not, but he said so.
Sahih Muslim (English), Chapter CCCXCI, Tradition #2283
We read in the Arabic-English version of Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 8, hadeeth 817. When Umar performed his last Hajj, he said:
Certainly Allah sent Muhammad with the truth and revealed him the Book. One of the revelations which came to him was the verse of stoning. We read it and understood it. The Messenger of God stoned and we stoned after him. I am concerned that if time goes on, some one may say ‘ By God we do not find the verse of stoning in the Book of God ‘; thus, the Muslims will deviate by neglecting a commandment the Almighty revealed. Again, we used to read in what we found in the Book of God :Do not deny the fatherhood of your fathers in contempt because it is a disbelief on your part to be ashamed of your fathers.
Muslim reported in the book of nursing ( al-Ridha ), v10 pages 29 (Arabic), that Aisha said the following:
There was in what was revealed in the Quran that ten ( 10 ) times of nursing known with certainty makes the nursing woman a mother of the nursed child. This number of nursing would make the woman ‘Haram’ to the child. Then this verse was replaced by ‘ five known nursing ‘ to make the woman forbidden to the child. The Prophet died while these words were recorded and read in the Quran.
Once again in Sahih Muslim Book 004, Number 1316 we see that the words recited by Ayesha and other wives of Holy Prophet [s] in yet another verse cannot be found in the current Quran though again Ayesha testifies that those words should have been in the original version:
Abu Yunus, the freed slave of ‘A’isha said: ‘A’isha ordered me to transcribe a copy of the Qur’an for her and said: When you reach this verse:” Guard the prayers and the middle prayer” (ii. 238), inform me; so when I reached it, I informed her and she gave me dictation (like this): Guard the prayers and the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer, and stand up truly obedient to Allah. ‘A’isha said: This is how I have heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).
And the author shall not try any feeble attempt to bring the usual ‘abrogation’ excuse in his response since if that was the case, the Sahabah themselves should have mentioned the fact in the above cited traditions on the contrary we see that Ayesha emphasized that those words were being recited till the death of Prophet [s] but unfortunately wee see all Sunni scholars these days refer to this response. We will inshallah deal the issue of supposed Tahreef in Quran in a separate article very soon.
As for the opinion of the Scholars, here we present the ‘research’ of the esteemed Deobandi Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri known as ‘Imam al Asr’ [Imam of the time]:
“The tahreef of meanings in Quran has not been taken place in a lessor amount. In my eyes, this is proved by research that the tahreef of words has taken place in Quran and either this tahreef was done intentionally or by mistake”
Faiz al Bari Shrah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3 page 395, Kitab al Shahadaat
The vast majority of our own hadeeth literature says that no such change occurred, though we do have some hadeeths that contradict this and say that the Qur’an has been changed. However, we have been taught by our Imams (as) that when two hadeeths contradict each other, we should accept the one that contradicts the Sunni hadeeths. Since the Sunni hadeeth literature is pretty explicit that the Qur’an has been changed, and very few explicitly saying that it hasn’t, then we should therefore reject those Shi’a hadeeths that say the Qur’an has been changed on the grounds that they accord with the Sunni hadeeth literature.
But since the author says that the Qur’an does not say anything about who the Imam should be, then there is no basis whatsoever to claim that somebody is legitimate or illegitimate as a leader. Based upon the author’s strange belief-system, we must accept people like Yazid as our leader, even when they murder and rob the Prophet (s)’s family. Since the Qur’an is absolutely silent on who the Imam should be, and since one can never disagree with the de facto Imam on the basis of Qur’an, then there is really no grounds to ever disagree with a leader whatsoever or to say that he was unjust. Now, the author at allahuakbar.com seems to know this through his great study of Islam, but the grandson of the Holy Prophet (s) himself, Imam Hussain (as), didn’t seem to know this when he rose up against Yazid. It is obvious that Imam Hussain (as) believed quite firmly that, on the basis of the Qur’an, that Yazid could not be the successor of the Prophet (s). But according to the Sunni author, it would be impossible to reject Yazid as a khalifah on the basis of the Qur’an, because as he put it:
You might think that it was not a good choice or that not all qualified people were presented at the time, that’s your opinion but it has nothing to do with looking for evidences in Quran about it.
Allaahuakbar.net states:
Where in Quran it is said that Muslims should choose a khalifah by themselves?
Firstly it is not appropriate to answer a question with a question. Shia needs to adjust their doctrine with Quran and only after that it is appropriate to ask such a question.
Nevertheless this question only shows the misunderstanding of some brothers about the belief of the mainstream Muslims. Believing in Khulafaaye Raashedin is not a fundamental element of Islam. According to the main stream Muslims, there are only 6 Articles of Faith and 5 pillars of Islam and believing in khilaafath of Aboobakr is not part of either of them.
Any groups of people tend to elect some one as their leader. And the rational and most reasonable way to do so is by election. This is a routine social/political practice. Certainly no system of public election was established at that time and the election of Aboobakr was done through negotiation of present people. You might think that it was not a good choice or that not all qualified people were presented at the time, that’s your opinion but it has nothing to do with looking for evidences in Quran about it. It’s just a routine social practice that was and is and will be done in any society and no logical mind would expect a divine evidence for that.
First of all, it is perfectly appropriate to answer a question with a question in this case. The Sunnis are attacking the idea of Imamate, without providing any reasonable substitute. They are telling us that ‘Ali was not appointed by God, that no one was appointed by God, and that the Muslim umma was abandoned to the hands of people like ‘Umar who openly acknowledged their bid’a, such as ‘Umar’s prohibition of mut’ah.
Secondly, the idea that accepting the caliphate or imamate of the caliphs is not integral to Sunni Islam is non-sense. Sunni fiqh and belief system revolves around this fact, and the first argument why Shi’as are considered to be kafir is that they don’t love, adore and adhere to the first three. If any Wahabbi scholar, such as Bilal Phillips, read that the author at allahuakbar.net has said that it is not wajib to strictly adhere to the imamate of their khalifas and to consider them as Imams of the Muslims, Bilal Phillips would undoubtedly declare the author of this article as a kafir. Not only Wahabies, but prominent Hanafi works also affirm the obligation of having belief in the “Imamate” of Abu Bakar and Umar. A Sunni author in his anti-Shia book quoting from various Hanafi authority works declares the rejecter of their caliphs to be Kaafir. For example he quotes from Barjundi Sharah Naqayah, Volume 4 page 21 published in Lucknow which quoted Fatwa e Zaheeriya:
“The rejecter of the Imamate of Siddiq Akbar [ra] is Kaafir and some have said that such a person is ill-madhab and not a Kaafir while the correct view is that he is Kaafir and similarly the rejecter of the Imamate of Farooq Azam [ra] is also Kaafir according to correct view.
… Bahar al Raiq, Volume 5 page 131 published in Egypt states that the rejecter of the Imamate and Khilafat of Abu Bakr or Umar is Kaafir”
’Imam Ahmed Raza aur Shia Madhab’ page 53 (Ahmed Raza Publishers, Lahore)
The author cites similar kinds of edicts from Kiafaya Sharh Hidayah, Vol 1 (Bombay) and Mustakhlis al Haqaiq Shrah Kanz al Dhaqaiq, page 32 (Ahmedi publishers).
In order to show how ignorant the author is about the obligation of adhering to the imamate of their caliphs, let us cite the authority Sunni work ‘Hashiat al-Tahawi ala al-Maraaqi’ Volume 2 page 299:
“If somone denies the Khilafa of al-Siddiq he is kafir like the one who denied al-Isra”
We also read in ‘Sawaiq al Muhriqa’ by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Volume 1 page 138:
“The doctrine of Abu Hanifa may Allah be pleased with him is that whoever denies the khilafa of the Siddiq or Umar is kafir”
On Volume 1 page 139:
“It is written in al-Fatawei al-Badi’a that whoever denies the Imamate of Abu Bakr may Allah be pleased with him, is kafir”
If this is not suffice to show the ignorance of the author about the belief he is trying to defend, let us further cite from ‘Al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqa’ Volume 1 page 145:
“The Hanafi Imams have declared anyone who denies the khilafa of Abu bakr and Umar may Allah be pleased of them as Kafir. the statement is recorded in al-Ghaya and other books as it is mentioned in the book of Muhammad bin al-Hassan may Allah have mercy upon him and it appear that they took the judgment from their Imam Abu Hanifa may Allah be pleased with him”
Perhaps the author does not deem the revered Sunni scholars/authors of the above mentioned books amongst the mainstream Muslims!
Furthermore, if it is not wajib to accept them as rightly guided, then why is the author writing this article? What are we debating? If we don’t have to accept them, then why are we misguided? If it is a matter of choice and has nothing to do with Qur’an or sunnah, if we are allowed to have our own opinions on this issue (and, as we have seen, we are not allowed to), than why is it not a sufficient argument for the Shi’a to simply say: “We have no basis in Qur’an or sunnah for our Twelve Imams. However, we like them and we think they should be Imam.” This author really is confused, and seems to have no idea what he is talking about at all. He has said that the office of Imamate has nothing to do with Qur’an, that nowhere does Allah (swt) designate the successor of the Prophet (s), and that no one can come along and criticize a particular leader on the grounds that there is no Qur’anic basis for his Imamate. If this is true, then there is certainly nothing in the Qur’an about following the majority opinion, and as such the author should simply give up and say: “I like Abu Bakr, and you like ‘Ali. Let’s agree to disagree.” In the author’s view, it’s all about opinion, without any Islamic evidence. However, he decided to sit down and write this article as a manual for refuting Shi’as. Why do we have to be refuted if believing in Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman is not an important part of our belief system?
As for people getting together to elect a leader, the fact that this is a natural process means nothing. It is a natural process for people to blindly follow the traditions of their ancestors. This does not mean it is Islamic. Nowhere do we see Allah (swt) accepting the idea that people should appoint the Divine guide sent to every people. Rather, we see the opposite, and we see how the polytheists are cursed for wanting to have “their say” in who got to be the Prophet. If the author is actually attempting to argue that choosing the successor of a Prophet (s) is fine because people always select their own leaders, than this is the height of caprice. It is irrelevent what people normally do and what they normally do not do. People also normally disobey Prophets and fight against them, just as ‘Umar tried to murder the Holy Prophet (s) before claiming to become Muslim. The fact that something is the norm has nothing to do with religion.
Furthermore, it is not the norm that people select their leaders. They may do it to some extent in Western democracies, but in most of the world they don’t. In fact, we can more easily say that it is the norm for great leaders to be inherited by their sons or near family members. Certainly in the Prophet (s)’s time, this was the norm in almost every society on Earth. After all, that is what Mu’awiyah did with Yazid. As such, it was the norm for Imam ‘Ali (as) to become the khalifah, because he had the closest family relationship to the Prophet (s), and it was the norm for Imam Hassan (as) to become the successor to Imam ‘Ali (as), being the eldest son. That was the norm all over the world during the seventh century, so why shouldn’t people have just followed that traditional norm and immediately accept Imam ‘Ali (as) as their khalifah?
Allaahuakbar.net states:
Having said that, once the SAHآBAH of the holy prophet agree on a great SAHآBAH like Aboobakr (RA) to become the Khalifah, then it is the duty of all Muslims to obey him for the sake of Islam and unity.If a Shia asks me what is my proof about this, I will give him/her a source that Shia holds as a very strong proof:
Nahjolbalaqah, letter No. 6 of Imaam Ali to Mo’aviah (note that in some versions of Nahjul balagha. This letter is few numbers before or after): “People who did Bayat to Aboobakr and Omar, did bayat with me in the same way. So the one who is present cannot select any one else for Khalifah and the one who is absent cannot disobey people in their selection. Shurah belongs to Mohajer and Ansar, so if they gather around a person and appoint him as their Imaam this is to the satisfaction of Allah. If any one disapprove them on this or innovate something about it he should be taken back to the people who he has left (by accepting the appointed Khalifah), and if he refused to do so people has to fight with him as he is going to a path other than of Muslims.”
(Note that in the Shia websites like al-islam.org, certain words have been inserted in the translation -like the word “suppose” – without putting them in the brackets in an attempt to change the meaning of the text.)Now it’s up to the Shia brothers and sisters whether they want to attribute Taqyah or lie or politics or what ever to their Imam and whether they like to justify his comment in the same way that they justify verses of Quran.
(also please bear in your mind that we have an explicit verse in Quran that says “va amrohom shoora baynahom”, (and their affairs are done by consultancy between them). Surely the question of leadership is one of the affairs of Muslims. However I won’t use this verse to prove anything about Khilaafath in Islam. Unlike the Shia brothers and sisters, I am quite cautious about playing Lego with the verses of Quran)
So let us not compare apple with orange. Imaamat doctrine is a fundamental belief of Shia, election or selection of Khulafaaye Raashedin is just a routine and common socio-political practice.
We have noticed that some of the Ahle Sunnah get overly excited when they find this letter from Nahjul Balagha and submit it as conclusive proof that that Maula Ali bin Abi Talib [as] believed in the correctness of Shura to appoint a Khalifa. Unfortunately they fail to consider the context in which Maula Ali [as] used these words. Our opponents are not ignorant of the context; rather they treacherously suppress the context so that they can give their naïve adherents at least one piece of evidence to support the bizarre doctrine for selecting an Imam.
The contents of this letter needs to be looked at in terms of its historic context. Muawiyah was amongst those people who had professed to the soundness of the approach and system adopted by the handful of companions who had selected a Khalifa, because these same khalifas granted him positions during their reigns. Following the murder of Uthman, the adherents of this man made appointment methodology, swore allegiance to Ali [as] on the same principles. Muawiyah realized that Ali [as] knew Muawiyah’s evil malicious nature, and was aware that he would never grant him any position or privilege during his reign. Muawiyah was looking at what he viewed ‘ the biggest prize’ if ‘Ali (as) was going to give him nothing, then he might as well show his true colours and oppose him openly as a means of vying with him for the position of khalifa. Muawiyah sought to do this by raising objections over the method of selection adopted by the people, which lead to him becoming the khalifa. Alhamdolillah, the gate of knowledge, countered this reasoning with an argument that left him speechless. Maula Ali [as] pointed out to him that the people who believed in that method of selection had swore allegiance to Him [as] on the same principles that they had sworn allegiance to their previous caliphs whom Muawiyah supported (on the same principles), but when it came to Ali [as], Muaiwah’s filthy eyes began to find flaws in the method. Maula Ali [as] in his letter was logically and theoretically paraphrasing this fact. So his words for instance “Shurah belongs to Mohajer and Ansar, so if they gather around a person and appoint him as their Imaam this is to the satisfaction of Allah” were not His [as] notion rather he was paraphrasing the very flawed arguments which had been previously adopted for the selection of caliph. And when Muawiyah revealed his grudge against Ali [as] and started to create problems for him [as], Maula Ali [as] reminded him that the people amongst Muhajireen and Ansar who had given allegiance to the first three on certain principles had pledged allegiance to him on those very same principles. This therefore made the argument of Mu’awiyah null and void, he had no right to raise his filthy tongue on this issue since he was neither from the Muhajir nor from Ansar as recorded by Ibn Taimiyah:
“Verily Muawiya bin Abi Sufian and whoever is like him are from tulaqa who converted to Islam after the day of Makka conquest”
Majmoa al-Fatawa, Volume 35 page 64
Also see Majm’oa al-Fatawa, volume 28, page 579, Tahdeeb al-Kamal, volume 28, page 177 and Al-Istiab by Ibn Abdulbar, volume 3, page 1416.
Therefore, those who cite these words of Maula Ali [as] before the Shi’a should keep that context in their mind before rejoicing.
For those naïve followers of our treacherous opponents, let us spoon feed the situation and make it further understandable by citing an example.
Suppose five individuals A,B,C,D & E competing for a Local Authority business tender. Amongst these bids E is the only eligible person for that task and he meets every aspect of the tender. The first four individuals A,B,C & D share a decent relationship with each other, while D’s whole existence is influenced by an abhorrence and envy of E. The individuals A,B,C colludes together, and via back door diplomacy with the authority and without informing E, they allow A to secure the tender on the condition that B,C & D will get some sort of share from A. On enquiry by the eligible E, they advance the argument:
“The authority has selected him on the principle that the one who is present cannot select any one else for this task and the one who is absent cannot reject people in their selection. The selection method belongs to A,B,C,D and their supporters, so if they gather around a person, quit in his favour and chose him for the task this is to the satisfaction of the highest authority in federal.”
Despite this, when the individual A dies and there comes the time to chose another person to continue the task, the same episode is repeated with the same arguments advanced. Upon the death of C, when at last authority has no other choice but to resort the most eligible candidate i.e. E, the until now suppressed hatred of D for E arises and he objects to the method of appointment that he had previously supported, E paraphrases the arguments that had been previously been advanced to deny him the tender:
“The authority who had chosen A,B & C has chosen me on the same principles. So the one who is present cannot select any one else for this task and the one who is absent cannot reject people in their selection. The selection method belongs to A,B,C,D and their supporters, so if they gather around a person, quit in his favours and chose him for the task this is to the satisfaction of the highest authority in federal.”
This paraphrasing by E to D does not anyway endorse the validity of the method used to deny him his right, E has used this to silence D, who had supported the same approach that lead to the appointment of A,B and C.
Coming back to the letter of Maula Ali (as), what our Imam (as) was saying was ‘you cannot keep your cake and eat it’ i.e. affirm your belief in the method that brought the first three khalifas to power and then reject him, when the people who like him, upheld this concept likewise appointed him (as). Mawla ‘Ali (as) was through his pen showing Mu’awiya and all generations of Muslims what a hypocrite the son of Hind was.
We should also point out that whist showing his dissatisfaction over the translation of the sermon, he has advanced the translation from his own pocket wherein he forgot to mention the name of his third caliph which is the part of the actual letter.
Screen Shot of the Letter No.6 cited at www.allaahuakbar.net
But in any case, if there is anything wrong in the English (Shia) translation available on the internet then it is in the very first sentence where certain words are missing at the end as it should be:
Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me on the same principles as they had took allegiance to them.
The dissatisfaction of author and his likes was anticipated since they cannot draw their desired meanings from the cited letter of Nahjul Balagha because of its original context we presented above. Thus we see that some Sunni individuals also make a feeble attempt to put the word ‘right’ and in the letter and make the sentence look:
“So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegiance, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar.”
This is absurd since we see that the Arabic word for ‘right’ i.e ‘Haq’ cannot be found anywhere in the sentence of the letter of Maula Ali [as]. If the proponents of this translation try to use the Arabic word ‘LIL’ used in the sentence, then they really need to become rational since the word in this context does not mean ‘right’ and at best it can mean ‘belongs to’ or ‘confined to’. But even those who want to put ‘right’ in this sentence would earn nothing because as we all know that these were not the views of Maula Ali [as] rather he was addressing to Muawiyah according to his (Muawiya’s) beliefs.
If our opponents are insistent on the word ‘right’ and also portray this as the view of Maula Ali [as] rather than paraphrasing by him [as] then what will our opponents say about the words of Maula Ali [as] that he delivered straight afterwards, he [as] was given Bayah by the majority (those who adhered to the theory of Ijma) and it was on this basis that they deemed him their fourth caliph:
“This is the time when right has returned to its owner and diverted to its centre of return.”
Nahjul Balagha, sermon No. 2
Unlike the Letter No. 6, the words of Maula Ali [as] are quite explicit here and most importantly the word ‘Haq’ (right) has been clearly used. Can those of our opponents who always remain adamant to bring the word ‘right’ for Muhajir and Ansar in Letter No. 6 elaborate as to why Maula Ali [as] said the cited words of Sermon No. 2?
Some of our opponents also rejoice over the next sentence of the letter and they think that it shows that Maula Ali bin abi Talib [as] was satisfied with the selection of the first three:
“so if they gather around a person and appoint him as their Imaam this is to the satisfaction of Allah.”
The sentence is the continuation of previous paraphrasing kind of sentences and being the part of the letter this sentence is too in the very context which we mentioned above. Imam Ali bin abi Talib [as] in his brilliance, eloquence and rhetoric, was in fact addressing the ridiculous theory of Ijma that was set out at Saqifa and which, by the passage of time became the core belief of the Sunni school, the theory which suggests that selection of a person by a few of companions would mean that he is the caliph from whom Allah is satisfied and now no one can go against him. This is a belief which has puzzled the Sunni world to the point that they are left with no other choice but to believe in the caliphate of people like Yazeed (la) despite his homosexuality and alcoholism. Since Abu Bakar and Umar had previously used the precise notion to firm the foundation of their argument, Imam Ali bin Abi Talib [as] cited the same argument (in a paraphrasing manner) to refute the objection of Muawiyah.
The bottom line is, whatever translation one may do, Imam Ali bin Abi Talib [as] was not presenting his own views in this sermon rather whilst addressing Muawiyah, he was rhetorically paraphrasing the concepts which Muawiyah adhered to, since it is one of the basic aspects of a debate where you reject the stance of your opponent on the basis of beliefs of your opponents. This goes to the heart of all polemical debates, when Muslims seek to refute the doctrine of trinity from the Bible they do so, by citing verses from the Bible, not by citing the Qur’an. Citing the Bible does not in any way endorse Muslim belief of the text. Similarly Sunni / Shi’a polemics involves both parties supporting their stance from one another’s texts.
In the modern world, you will often see in court cases one lawyer citing comments of the opposing side, to highlight contradictions in their positions / actions that they had previously adhered to. This is common with employment law cases, when a senior partner objects to the procedures adopted to dismiss him, a stance that is destroyed is it can proven that the same officer had previously dismissed staff on the basis of the same procedure.
It is clear that the statement of Ali [as] doesn’t portray his own belief, rather it is making it Hujjah on Muawiyah, and hence this should be termed as “Ilzami”. An argument referred to as ‘ilzami’ or ‘ilzam alal khassam’ means to adopt the technique of proving your opponent wrong from what he firmly believes in. It is an accusing or argumentative style, where the beliefs of your opponent are applied in order to prove him wrong. The perfect example of this is any Shia-Sunni debate, in which the Shia give references from books of AhleSunnah and the latter give references from Shia books (though they are misquoted). For example, if a Sunni gives a reference from al-Kafi (a Shia book), then can he be accused of actually believing in al-kafi? Of course not, and if not, then the same rule should be applied when Hazrat Ali[as] is using the same technique of debate against Muawiya.
The greatest orator of humanity, the lord of eloquence and articulacy leaves no room for Muawiyah to escape after proving his [as] caliphate on devious Muawiyah, saying:
O Muawiyah! You say that caliphate can be established only through shura of Muhajireen and Ansar. Considering this as a principle, you accept the caliphate of the three prior to me. You should be knowing that I have been elected exactly in the same manner, on the same rules and principles which had made the ones prior to me, then what makes you to accept their caliphate and reject mine.
For understanding this conversation, one should view it in the context of the whole dialogue between Hazrat Ali [as] and Muawiyah. This series of letters and dialogues between Ali [as] and Muawiyah are very lengthy and include various letters written from both sides, therefore it is important that for understanding one letter, a person studies and understands all the letters and then extracts the true meanings. These letters are copied in history books and they prove that this letter was a refutation to Muawiyah and left no leeway for him to make excuses.
For example it is written in Iqd al-Farid that Imam Ali [as], after the battle of Jamal wrote to Muawiyah:
“(O Muawiyah) My general allegiance (bayah) that carried out in Medina has become obligatory (lazumtaka) on you, although you are in Syria, because the same people have paid allegiance to me who had paid it earlier to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman.”
Here it is, this letter carries the word “Lazoom” which proves that the letter and argument is “ilzami’ and that is why Muawiyah had to escape from the debate and ended up without arguments (like his Wahabi adherents).
The reply of Muawiyah to the letter by Imam Ali [as] is written on the next page of the same book, recording:
“(O Ali) I swear by my like, that the persons whom you claim of having paid allegiance to you had paid it, and you had nothing to do with the assassination of Uthman, paying allegiance to you would have been obligatory like Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, but the truth is that you provoked people for assassination of Uthman.”
Iqd al-Farid, volume 1, page 323
This letter by Muawiyah clearly resolves the issue, it shows that Muawiyah accepted Ali’s [as]’s explanation of Muawiyah’s belief, but Muawiyah doesn’t consider Ali [as] having fulfilled the criteria.
Let’s make it clear in points.
Muawiyah in reply:
This shows that Ali [as] had played his cards perfectly, he had trapped Muawiyah from his own pen, and proven his caliphate, but Muawiyah left with nothing else, had to say that Ali [as] wasn’t elected by the people who elected Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, though he accepted the criteria set by Ali [as] as Muawiyah’s belief of the right to caliphate.
Moreover, the Nasibis should be more careful in this regard, if the opinion is accepted that Hazrat Ali [as], is the fourth of the rightly guided caliphs of Sunnis, who believed in shura or consensus of the Muhajireen and Ansar to appoint a khalifa, then the caliphates of the first three rightly guided Sunni khalifas is destroyed because the caliphate of none of them conforms to the criterion, as we are going to mention in Reply Six:
As far as shura goes, we know that there is no shura in matters of Islamic law. There is no shura about whether or not salat is obligatory, for example. As such, how can there be any shura to determine whether or not it is obligatory to follow this individual, or that? Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book:
“It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have an option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plan error.” [33:36]
This clearly states that the affairs that should be decided by “Shura” can only be those in which Allah (swt) or the Messenger (s) have “no position”. This clearly excludes the idea of election / selection of Imams, Khalifas of a Prophet, as this requires the leader being appointed by Allah (swt), as we have previously demonstrated. Imamate entails certain shar’ia obligations. If somebody is appointed by God, then he must be obeyed, and that is a fiqh ruling. How can there be shura, then, to say that it is obligatory on us to follow Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, or whoever? There is no shura on such issues. Thenduty to follow a leader is a matter for Allah (swt) to decide, and He (swt) did just that, after the Prophet (s) it was obligatory for us to follow Imam ‘Ali (as) and the eleven Imams from his progeny (as).
The Sunni proponents of the cited letter of Maula Ali [as] who emphasize the concept of Shura mentioned in the letter for the selection of a leader/caliph/representative are also of the view that:
It is our challenge to our opponents who support the concept of Shura as proof of the legitimacy of the caliphate of their caliphs:
If these words echoed the personal conviction of Imam Ali (as), namely that Abu Bakr was the legitimate head of state appointed via a sound a sound legal principle, ie Shurah that was not open to challenge / question, did he back to this legal principle following of death of Rasulullah (s)? If this letter serves as an endorsement of the appointment of the first three Khulafa via Shurah, then according to Sahih Bukhari, why did Imam Ali (as) refrain from pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr for six months? We are told of this from Sahih al-Bukhari:
"When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect `Ali much, but after her death, `Ali noticed a change in the people's attitude towards him. So `Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance".
(Source: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith number 4240)
In light of the legal principle being espoused by Imam Ali (as), it would have been incumbent on Imam Ali (as) to pledge allegiance before everyone else, he should have rushed to back Abu Bakr for acquiring leadership via a mechanism that he personally deemed legitimate. Rather than do so, we witness the exact opposite, with Imam Ali (as) refraining from giving bayya for as long as Sayeda Fatima (as) were alive, There would have been no reason to delay pledging allegiance to a man who had been appointed via a Shurah mechanism that he personally recognised.
In fact, we read that Imam Ali (as) felt he had no choice but to pledge allegiance to his predecessors.
Abdallah Ibn Ahmed Ibn Hanbal recorded in Kitab Al Sunnah Vol. 1, pg. 563, Hadith No. 1316:
"No one in this Ummah met what I met. The Prophet (sawa) passed away then he mentioned something but the people gave Bay'ah to Abu Bakr. Then Abu Bakr died then he mentioned something and he gave it to Umar and I surrendered and gave bay'ah. Then the people gave Bay'ah to Uthman and I surrendered and gave bay'ah. And now the people people are comparing me to Muawiya."
The words "I surrendered and gave bay'ah" could hardly be viewed as a ringing endorsement of the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman via a consultation process that he backed. The act of surrender typically refers to a situation wherein one party voluntarily gives up or relinquishes control resistance to another party he is in conflict with. When someone surrenders, it generally implies a recognition that continuing to fight or resist would be futile or result in further harm or loss. It doesn't necessarily mean that the person agrees with or accepts the stance of their opponent. Surrendering can be a strategic decision made to avoid further conflict, that could bring with it more serious long term consequences. Imam Ali (as) surrendering and giving bayya is very different to endorsing ones right to rule be reliance on a legal principle that he presented to Mu’awiya. Had Imam Ali (as) affirmed the legal principle he was reminding Mu’awiya of, he wouldn't have delayed giving bayya after 6 months deeming it a surrender.
It is interesting to note that Ibn al-Hashimi is seeking to impose on us that Imam Ali (as) was reflecting his beliefs pursuant to those of his predecessors, when Umar ibn al Khattab,the chief architect behind Abu Bakr attaining power, himself said it was devoid of Shurah, evident from his own admission:
“One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed”
(Source: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith Number 6830)
If Abu Bakr coming to power was legally sound, then why was Umar threatening the death penalty of this methodology was repeated again in the future?
It should also be It is indeed very strange to see how the author has used the words of Maula Ali [as] to support his view by totally ignoring the context in which those words were written and at the same time he closes his eyes from the plethora of Shia texts narrated from the Imams of Ahlulbayt [as] wherein they [as] emphasized on the fact that Imamate is not the affair of the fallible and dissimilar people to decide, rather it the task of our Creator who knows what is best for the people. How can one forget the famous sermon of Shiqshiqiyyah wherein Imam Ali bin Abi Talib [as] raised points about his usurped right did not at any point advanced any that would suggest his satisfaction with the caliphate of Abu Bakar.
Beware! By Allah the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr) dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.
Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.
The author and his likes who often place emphasis on the following sentence of Letter 6 “so if they gather around a person and appoint him as their Imaam this is to the satisfaction of Allah” should also examine the Sermon of Shiqshiqiyyah wherein there is no evidence of Imam ‘Ai (as) supporting the notion that the caliph was supported with the satisfaction of Allah [swt] rather he [as] criticised the unrightfully caliph but in the end He [as] deemed patience to be the wiser stance.
We read in sermon 152 of Nahjul Balagha wherein Imam Ali bin Abi Talib [as] advanced the attributes of Imam and Imamate:
“Certainly the Imams are the vicegerents of Allah over His creatures and they make the creatures know Allah. No one will enter Paradise except he who knows them and knows Him, and no one will enter Hell except he who denies them and denies Him.”
We read the following words of Maula Ali [as] in Jame’a ahadith al-Shia, by Sayed Broujurdi, Volume 1, page 178 and also in Da’am al-Islam by Qazi al-Nu’aman al-Maghrebi, Volume 2, page 353, hadith 1297:
“You have to obey the one where there is no excuse in abandoning his obedience, the obedience of us Ahlulbayt. Verily Allah has linked our obedience to the obedience of Him and His messenger, and (Allah) stated that in a verse in his book, because of us Allah conferred grace upon us and you, And made the obedience of Him, His messenger and those vested with authority from the family of the messenger.”
Amir al-Mumineen Ali bin Abi Talib [as] also said:
“The one who disobeys Allah is not to be obeyed; and verily obedience is of Allah and of His Apostle and those vested with authority. Verily, Allah ordered (the people) to obey the Apostle because he was sinless and clean (pure), who would not tell the people to disobey Allah; and verily He ordered (the people) to obey those vested with authority because they are sinless and clean (pure), and would not tell the people to disobey Allah”
as-Saduq: ‘Ilalu ‘sh Shara’i', Volume 1 page 123
Imam Ali (as) also said:
Verily when the Lord of glory and honour created the creation and chose the best of his creation and chose the preferred of his slaves and sent messengers from them (the preferred slaves) and revealed on him (prophet Muhammad) his book and established for him the religion and ordained the law, Allah all mighty and glory commanded and said:‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you’ verily that (verse) is exclusively about us Ahlulbayt not other than us, so you turn back upon your heels and turned back of your faith and rejected the command and broke the covenant, verily though you (by your deed) do not harm Allah, surly Allah ordered you to refer it to Allah and to the messenger and to those who vested with authority among you who are the proper investigator of knowledge, verily you agreed but then you denied Allah said to you ‘fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me’.
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 32, page 96
Since the above mentioned traits cited by Imam Ali [as] were necessary for a Imam therefore we see that when the people who had been following the man made caliphate and the theory of Ijma and Shura for the selection of a Caliph/Imam gave oath of allegiance to Him [as] after the delay of so many years, Maula Ali [as] clearly stated:
“This is the time when right has returned to its owner and diverted to its centre of return.”
Nahjul Balagha, sermon No. 2
We read in Man La Yehdrhu al-Faqih, by Seduq, Volume 4 page 420:
عن محمد بن علي ماجيلويه رضي الله عنه عن أبيه عن أحمد بن محمد بن خالد عن الهيثم بن عبد الله النهدي عن الحسين بن علوان عن عمرو بن ثابت عن سعد بن طريف، عن الأصبغ بن نباتة قال: قال أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) في بعض خطبه: ” أيها الناس اسمعوا قولي واعقلوه عنى فان الفراق قريب، أنا إمام البرية، ووصى خير الخليقة، وزوج سيدة نساء الأمة، وأبو العترة الطاهرة والأئمة الهادية، أنا أخو رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) وصيه ووليه ووزيره وصاحبه وصفيه، وحبيبه وخليله، أنا أمير المؤمنين وقائد الغر المحجلين وسيد الوصيين، حربي حرب الله، وسلمى سلم الله، وطاعتي طاعة الله، وولايتي ولاية الله، وشيعتي أولياء الله، وأنصاري أنصار الله، والذي خلقني ولم أك شيئا لقد علم المستحفظون من أصحاب محمد (صلى الله عليه وآله) ان الناكثين والقاسطين والمارقين ملعونون على لسان النبي الأمي وقد خاب من افترى “
Asbagh bin Nabata said: ‘The commander of believers in one of his sermons said: ‘O people listen to my speech and understand it because death is near. I am the Imam of people, I am the Wasi of the best creature ever (prophet), I am the husband of the best woman of this nation, I am the father of the pure Itra and Imams of guidance, I am the brother of Allah’s Apostle, I am his Wasi and his Wali and his Wazir and his companion, and his friend and his dearest one and his Khalil. I am the commander of believers and the leader of honored ones and the master of guardians, my war is Allah’s war, my peace is Allah’s peace, obeying me is obeying Allah, my custody is Allah’s custody, my followers are friends of Allah, my followers are the followers of Allah…..”
Hadi Najafi said: ‘No error in the chain’ (Mosoat Ahadith Ahlulbayt, v9 p7).
Allaahuakbar.net states:
On the other hand, let’s look at the present situation is Iran. Is there any divine command about how to establish a leadership in the occultation of Mahdi? Let’s remember that there were no religious system of governing after the occultation of Mahdi for about 1000 years after the recent revolution of Iran and emerging of the theory of Welayate Faqih. Those who know about Shia and Iran appreciate that Welayate Faqih of Khomeini was only a theory that he derived from some ahaadeeth. Not all Shia scholars agree with that (like Khoiee and his followers). Among the classic Shia scholars only few had referred to this theory and most like Sheikh Ansari had the opinion that it is difficult to derive such a theory from ahaadeeth (refer to Makaseb of Sheikh Ansari). Also among those recent scholars who accept the theory there are un-agreements about the extend of the theory and that how it could be put in practice (Like Montazeri, late Shirazi, etc.). So again as I referred to in the article, Shia too ended up with the same situation as the mainstream Muslims that is to elect a leader by themselves in the absence of any direct divine command.
Iran is Iran, and the political theory of wilayat al-faqih in Iran has not been accepted by various Shi’a ‘ulama. The fundamentals of Shi’aism does not believe that we can elect a replacement for the Imam (as) and similarly wilayat al-faqih is not considered as a replacement for the Imamate, as Imam ar-Rida (as) said:
No one stands in the place of the Imam, and there is no replacement for him.
All the Twelvers Shia agree that Imam Mahdi [as] is ‘wali amr al muslimeen’. The difference is with the interpretation of the various hadith that say the scholars are the hujjah of the Imams on the people. A fallible can never replace an infallible. Scholars interpreted and deduced from Hadith that there needed to exist a form of leadership during the occultation that pave the way for the reappearance of the Imam (as), and not a leadership to replace the Imam (as). As previously said, there is no replacement for him rather; we must await his return, as has been commanded to us in innumerable hadeeths. Therefore, the logic to compare the Sunni concept of Khilafah with Wilayat al-Faqih is flawed.
It is very easy to twist the facts, but with a single twist, that can be unrolled again. The basic difference is that the political system of wilayate faqih has been constituted in connection and in support to the belief of Imamate, whereas the Sunni system of Khilafat was raised in opposition of the belief. The system of Wilayat Fqih paves the way for the reappearance of the Imam of the time, while Khilafat had snatched the right of the Imam of the time. Here the difference lies, at a time when Khilafat was engineered, the divine guide of the time was present and asking for his right, but at the time when Wilayat al Faqih has been established, the Imam of the time is in occultation, its not a parallel system to Imamate, it is an assistance to that.
Shias in no way hold the system of Wilayat al Faqih on par with imamate, it is just that a Islamic political system was needed when an Islamic state was formed. Since the Imam of the time was in occultation, someone had to rule that Shia state, now do the authour and Nawasib say that no one should have ruled that state? Or would they call anyone as Imam who would rule that country? This is stupidity. Since one or the other system had to be followed, the system of Wilayat al Faqih was formed, but again the point remains the same, this is done at a time when the need for a temporary ruler was there, since the Imam of the time was in occultation, but the Khilafat’s basis were laid on snatching the right of the Imam of the time. Don’t the author and idiot Nawasib find any difference between the two?
