Part 2: Shia Interpretation of Hadith Thaqalayn Under Microscope

Is obedience to Amir/Caliph mandatory without any exceptions, just like it is for Allah and Prophet?

Praise be to Allah, since we don’t find any verse in Quran which explicitly and clearly declares that there were any sort of Guides/Imams after prophet(Saw) who were divinely appointed by Allah, it destroys the shia cult and their doctrine of Imamah, because they claim that believing in Imamah of divinely appointed infallible Imams is from fundamental principle of religion(usool e deen).

Since people of intellect and knowledge always asked the shias that how could it be that a fundamental principle of religion(imamah) is absent from quran or is not stated in clear and explicit words. Thus in order to defend their home-made beliefs the shias, misinterpret verses of Quran. And the most often misinterpreted verse is (4:59), though this verse still doesn’t provides any explicit words to form a fundamental principle of Imamah even if they misinterpret it, yet the shias rely on it. But the fact is that this verse is not in favor of the shias, it is against their belief of divinely appointed Imams, Because the complete verse destroys such beliefs that is why you find shias just quoting the half verse not the complete verse.

Here is the complete verse: O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end. Quran (4:59).


Who are meant by Ulil Amr?

Answer: Ulil Amr means “those in charge of your affairs”. For children, the walee al Amr is the father or mother. For a wife her husband is walee al Amr. For adults, they may be local community leaders and scholars, etc. And on a basis of Ummah, it is the legitimate Ameer or Caliph, So all of these are ulil Amr. Now for example if a father commands his son, his son has to obey him because his father is his walee al amr, except in those commands which are against shariah, like if he commands his son to stop offering Salah then the father is not to be obeyed. Now the shiatu dajjal claim that:

In this verse Wa (meaning “and”) has been used in the verse “obey … (wa) and …”. Wa is the conjunction of partnership. It therefore shows that the Prophet and the possessors of the Amr are partners in obedience.

This is true upto some extent but the point which shias fail to realize is that, Quran mentioned “Wa ‘atiu-Allah, wa atiu rasool, wa ‘ulil amri minkoom”(Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you). In the tafseer of this ayaah, the mufassireen stated that absolute obedience is to Allah and the messenger and this absolute obedience is not given to “those in authority over you”, rather our obedience to them is “conditional” to their obedience to Allah and His Messenger.This is noted by the implied language which is that Allah DID NOT say “wa atiu ulil amri minkoom(and OBEY those charged with authority), rather Allah kept it merely at “and those in authority over you” (without adding the word “OBEY” before it) as a sign to indicate a conditional obedience.

The first part of the verse actually is talking about the general case, and indeed in general cases Ulil Amr(those in authority) are to be obeyed unconditionally, but this is not the same when there is dispute between people and those in authority, because the second part of the verse shows us that, when there arises a dispute between the believers(this even includes the scenario when the dispute is between believers and ulil Amr)at that time the Ulil Amr looses his authority to be obeyed and his position is the same as that of believers at that time. And that time the judgment doesn’t relies on the opinion of Ulil Amr, but on what Allah and his prophet(saw) taught.

So we find that the first part of the verse which shias quote is talking about general obedience, which even the sunnis believe in, but the shias don’t consider the second part of verse which talks about the particular issue of dispute, because in that particular issue obedience is to due the one who sides with the teachings of Allah and his prophet(Saw). For example if there arises a dispute between the ruler(Ameer) and believers on issue of some secular issues then the teaching of prophet(Saw) in this scenario is that the Ameer should be obeyed even if people dislikes him, Thus the ruler is to be followed. But suppose there rises a dispute between ruler and believers because ruler commanded people to forsake salah(prayer), then in that case the teaching of Prophet(Saw) is that, ruler is not to be obeyed. This is the reason the later part of the verse which talks about the issue where dispute takes place, it doesn’t includes the name of Ulil Amr(those in authority).

That is why even in different verses of Quran you don’t find Ulil Amr being mentioned:

Allah says: Obey Allah AND His Messenger” (2:32)

One who disobeys God and His Messenger is in plain error.(33:36)

All who obey Allah and the messenger are in the company of those on whom is the Grace of Allah,- of the prophets (who teach), the sincere (lovers of Truth), the witnesses (who testify), and the Righteous (who do good): Ah! what a beautiful fellowship!!(4:69)

Comment: Here we don’t find the inclusion of Ulil Amr(those in authority), because as we have said, obedience to Ulil Amr is not mandatory in all circumstances. That is why Allah even didn’t include Ulil Amr when he stated in Quran that whoever disobeys Allah and his messenger is deviant or among the category with whose obedience believers will get Grace of Allah.

Before we give you examples from authentic narrations we want to make our readers know that for whom was this verse revealed: sahi bukhari  6.108: Narrated Ibn `Abbas: The Verse: “Obey Allah and Obey the Apostle and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority.” (4.59) was revealed in connection with `Abdullah bin Hudhafa bin Qais bin `Adi’ when the Prophet appointed him as the commander of a Sariyya (army detachment).

Comment: so this verse was neither revealed for any infallible person, nor for any of the Caliph but regarding a companion of Prophet(Saw).

Now we will be providing our readers examples from authentic narrations which will explain the verse:

1. sahi bukhari 5.629: Narrated `Imam Ali:The Prophet sent a Sariya under the command of a man from the Ansar and ordered the soldiers to obey him. He (i.e. the commander) became angry and said “Didn’t the Prophet order you to obey me!” They replied, “Yes.” He said, “Collect fire−wood for me.” So they collected it. He said, “Make a fire.” When they made it, he said, “Enter it (i.e. the fire).” So they intended to do that and started holding each other and saying, “We run towards (i.e. take refuge with) the Prophet from the fire.” They kept on saying that till the fire was extinguished and the anger of the commander abated. When that news reached the Prophet he said, “If they had entered it (i.e. the fire), they would not have come out of it till the Day of Resurrection. Obedience (to somebody) is required when he enjoins what is good.”

Comment: From this narration we found that obedience to the one in authority was necessary but when there rose a dispute, the result was given in the favor of the ones who sided with the teachings of Prophet(saw), it wasn’t said that the one in authority should have been obeyed, because what the one in authority commanded was haram(unlawful).

2. Sayyiduna Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: A Muslim must listen to  and obey (the order of his ruler) in things that he likes or dislikes, as long as he is not ordered to commit a sin. If he is ordered to disobey Allah, then there is no listening and no obedience. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6725 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1839).

Comment: We find that obedience to ruler is compulsory in general case, as the first part of the verse(4:59) says us, but if the ruler orders to disobey Allah then there is no obedience to him.

3. Sahi bukhari 9.178:Narrated Junada bin Abi Umaiya: We entered upon ‘Ubada bin As−Samit while he was sick. We said, “May Allah make you healthy. Will you tell us a Hadith you heard from the Prophet and by which Allah may make you benefit?” He said, “The Prophet called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam, and among the conditions on which he took the Pledge from us, was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah.”

Comment: Even this narration teaches us the same principle. It also shows that Ameer(rulers) are not infallible.

In the following authentic narrations we will find that Prophet(saw) declared that the Ameers would be fallibles, yet they are to be followed.

1. Sahi muslm Book 020, Number 4573: It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Auf b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke God’s blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): Shouldn’t we overthrow them with the help of the sword? He said: No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them. You should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience.

2. Sahi muslim Book 020, Number 4570: It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Umm Salama (wife of the Holy Prophet) that he said: Amirs will be appointed over you, and you will find them doing good as well as bad deeds. One who hates their bad deeds is absolved from blame. One who disapproves of their bad deeds is (also) safe (so far as Divine wrath is concerned). But one who approves of their bad deeds and imitates them (is doomed). People asked: Messenger of Allah, shouldn’t we fight against them? He replied: No, as long as they say their prayer. (” Hating and disapproving” refers to liking and disliking from the heart.)

Comment: From the above  narrations we find that Prophet(Saw) himself declared that there would be Amirs(rulers) who would be doing bad as well as good deeds, yet prophet(Saw) commanded that they need to be obeyed. Now the point to note is that, these narrations proves that Ameers were not infallibles nor where they divinely appointed. They were to be general Muslims. The shias might say that these narrations talk about general Ameers. But the point those ignorants doesn’t ponder over is that if there existed divinely appointed Ameers apart from these, who were infallible, then prophet(saw) would have said that you should only obey the divinely appointed Ameers. Or atleast he(saw) would have said that, if anyone besides the divinely appointed Ameer becomes ruler you should withdraw yourselves from their obedience. Prophet(saw) wouldn’t have stopped people from fighting them. But on the contrary prophet(Saw) said that the Ameers(rulers) even if they are fallible should be obeyed. This itself proves that there was no existence of any sort of divinely appointed or infallible rulers and even the it was mandatory to obey the fallible Ameer(rulers) under general circumstances.

3. Sahi muslim Bk 20, Number 4554: It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al−Yaman who said: Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.

Comment: From this narration we find that the obedience to Ameer(ruler) is obligatory, had it been that they were divinely appointed then prophet(saw) wouldn’t have said that those Ameer(rulers) will not be led by the guidance of Prophet(Saw), and If at all there existed some other divinely appointed Ameer(rulers) apart from mentioned ones, then Prophet(Saw) wouldn’t have commanded to obey the bad rulers, He(saw) would have said that obedience is only for the ones who are divinely appointed, Whatever may be the circumstances.


Point to Ponder:

1. Shias say that every generation have a guide(i.e Imam) and present guide is their 12th (hidden) Imam. He is there to guide the shias in spiritual as well as social issues of life and they even claim that these same Imams are the ulil Amr for every respective generation. But if it was so then why didn’t Allah say that when you are in dispute refer to the ulil amr? Since according to shias every Imam is divinely appointed from Allah, So people in dispute should refer to him, this is one of the many reasons guides were appointed. But Quran by not mentioning ulil amr to be referred when dispute takes place cleared that all such interpretations of shias are invalid and incorrect, and the reason ulil amr was not included in the ones to be referred was just because even ulil amr could be wrong some times, since they are not divinely appointed nor infallible. Moreover some shias by applying their illogical philosophies some how try to convince people that even ulil Amr are to be referred in matter of disputes(though it is not mentioned in the verse), So lets see does this claim holds any ground? We know that hidden Imam of shias is the ulil Amr for them in this era. Now the question that should come in the mind of people is that how is the present ulil amr being able to solve the dispute between shias? We have seen countless dispute between followers of same Imam (example usoolis and Akbaris), yet none of the shias neither refer him, nor does Imam solve any dispute, but its just the  shia scholars who are referred by shias when they are in dispute(over religious issues) and they solve those disputes. So whether the shias confess it or not but presently the shia scholars are acting as ulil amr for shias, and this is the same Ahlesunnah says. And if shias yet behave in an ignorant manner by disagreeing with our exlanation and argue that Ulil Amr are only infallible Imams then they are ones who have done the crime of assigning the job of ulil Amr which was only for their hidden Imam to their scholars. Since the job(to be referred in matter of disputes) which was for ulil Amr is now being done by shia scholars, and none of the job which the ulil Amr should do, is being done by present hidden Imam of shias. [The irony here is that the shia scholars like Ayatullah Khamenei label themselves as Wali Amr ul Muslimeen, For example click this link to see the scan page of the front page of the book where the shia scholar is given this title ]

2. Many times even there rises disputes even between Shia scholars themselves in religious issues.(like believing in wilayat takweeniyah, etc), So now who solves those disputes ? Because present Ulil Amr of shias cannot be referred in this scenario.  Some shias might say that we can solve those disputes with the help of  Quran and authentic teachings of Prophet(Saw). Praise be to Allah, this is what Ahlesunnah say AND THIS IS WHAT QURAN SAID, since the Quran and sunnah of Prophet(Saw), should be referred in this era to solve disputes(where the shia Imam fails to fulfill his duty), THAT IS WHY ALLAH DIDN”T INCLUDE ULIL AMR IN THE LIST OF THOSE WHO ARE TO BE REFRRED IN MATTER OF DISPUTE. So saying that Ulil Amr is to be referred in matter of disputes is nothing but stupidity, because when Quran and sunnah can do that for even now, then what is the need of Ulil Amr to be referred? Moreover this just proves that unknowingly the shia scholars are doing the job of Ulil Amr and are infact Ulil Amr for shias , that is why Allah didn’t include in the verse Ulil Amr who is to be referred even in the matter of dispute, because even shias know that not every scholar of theirs is always correct.



Thus analyzing all these narrations collectively we find that , Obedience to Ulil Amr(those in authority) is compulsory in general circumstances which is why we find them partners in obedience with Allah(swt) and Prophet(saw)in first part of the verse(4:59). We even find that they will not be infallible or divinely appointed ones, yet their obedience will be mandatory. But when these fallible people in authority(ulil amr) command people to commit sin or haram(forbidden) deeds then they are not to be followed, which is what the second part of the verse (4:59) says, and that is why it didn’t include the Ulil Amr among the ones who are to be reverted in the matter of dispute.

Lastly, we would like to present before our readers a beautiful response from our esteemed scholar, who refuted the understanding of shias regarding this verse :

al-Qurţubī brings up the Imāmī opinion and refutes it in the following words:

وزعم قوم أن المراد بأولي الامر علي والأئمة المعصومون ولو كان كذلك ما كان لقوله فردوه إلى الله والرسول معنى بل كان يقول فردوه إلى الامام وأولي الامر فإن قوله عند هؤلاء هو المحكم على الكتاب والسنة وهذا قول مهجور مخالف لما عليه الجمهور

And a faction claimed that what is meant by ‘those in authority’ are `Alī and the infallible Imāms. Had that been the case, what would be the meaning of revert it back to Allāh and the Messenger’? It would have rather been ‘revert it back to the Imām and those in authority, for indeed his view among these people is consolidated over the Book and the Sunna. This opinion is obsolete and contradictory to what has been opined by the majority.” al-Jāmi` li Aĥkām al-Qur’ān wa al-Mubayyin limā Tađammanah min al-Sunna wa Āy al-Furqān [Tafsīr al-Qurţubī], of Abū al-`Abbās al-Qurţubī (d. 671), volume 6, page 432 [Beirut]


Explanation of Hadeeth: Whoever dies without an Imam dies death of Jahiliyyah.

Narration: Musnad tayalissi volume 1 page 259:

حدثنا أبو داود قال حدثنا خارجة بن مصعب عن زيد بن اسلم عن بن عمر قال سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول من مات بغير امام مات ميتة جاهلية ومن نزع يدا من طاعة جاء يوم القيامة لا حجة له
narrated abu dawood narrated kharijah ibn musab from zaid ibn aslam from ibn omar he said : i heard rasool allah saying: whoever dies without an imam he dies a death of jahilyyah and whoever breaks disobedience he comes in the day of judgement without a hujja.

Explanation: The injustice done with this narration is that people try to give this narration their own interpretations, and different people give different interpretations to it, to achieve their evil desires. Some ignorants who lack common sense argue that this narration proves that every human being SHOULD die with an Imam, otherwise his/her death is death of Jahilliayh(ignorance). But here we will explain this narration with the help of another authentic narration, because the best explanation could only be given by Prophet(Saw) and manier times we find that one narration explain the other similar narration. Like how one verse of Quran explains the other similar verse of Quran.

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims−if he died in that state−would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya. [Sahi muslim Bk 20, Number 4555]

So the above authentic narration explains us that what actually does the phrase “Whomever dies without an Imam dies the death of ignorance” means.

To further explain it let us give you an example:

Suppose we make a statement that: Whoever dies without treating his wife in a good manner dies the death of jahiliyya.

Now only a fool could argue that this narration proves that every man should be married. Where as infact this narration is only directed towards married people, it doesn’t include bachelors in it.

Similarly, the narration in question explains us that, when there is a legitimate Ameer/caliph then disassociating from his obedience and dying in that manner will mean that the person died without an Imam which is like the death of Jahiliyah. But this condition is not applicable to those people among whom there is no Caliph or Ameer, like we explained in our example that the condition was not applicable to people who were bachelors. Importantly prophet(Saw) even prophesized that there will be a time when there be no community and no Ameer/caliph, which even strengthens our explanation.

Moreover Prophet (pbuh) prophesized the time without a Caliph:

sahi muslim Bk 20, Number 4553:It has been narrated on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al−Yaman who said: People used to ask the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) about the good times, but I used to ask him about bad times fearing lest they overtake me. I said: Messenger of Allah, we were in the midst of ignorance and evil, and then God brought us this good (time through Islam). Is there any bad time after this good one? He said: Yes. I asked: Will there be a good time again after that bad time? He said: Yes, but therein will be a hidden evil. I asked: What will be the evil hidden therein? He said: (That time will witness the rise of) the people who will adopt ways other than mine and seek guidance other than mine. You will know good points as well as bad points. I asked: Will there be a bad time after this good one? He said: Yes. (A time will come) when there will be people standing and inviting at the gates of Hell. Whoso responds to their call they will throw them into the fire. I said: Messenger of Allah, describe them for us. He said: All right. They will be a people having the same complexion as ours and speaking our language. I said: Messenger of Allah, what do you suggest if I happen to live in that time? He said: You should stick to the main body of the Muslims and their leader. I said: If they have no (such thing as the) main body and have no leader? He said: Separate yourself from all these factions, though you may have to eat the roots of trees (in a jungle) until death comes to you and you are in this state.

Comment: So this narrations shows that there would be a time when there will be no leader(Ameer)(as this it is happening in this era). Well seems prophet(Saw) didn’t have the beliefs like the shias, that earth can’t survive without a leader. He(saw) wasn’t surprised when question asked what should be done when there is no leader. He didn’t refute the question of people saying how could earth survive with without a leader. This itself is sufficient to understand how incorrect the home-made beliefs of shias are.

There are few more narrations which can be used to understand the narration in question:

إن عبد الله بن عمر أتى ابن مطيع فقال : اطرحوا لأبي عبد الرحمن وسادة فقال : ما جئت لأجلس عندك ولكن جئت أخبرك ما سمعت من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سمعته يقول : من نزع يدا من طاعة أو فارق الجماعة مات ميتة الجاهلية
الراوي: زيد بن أسلم المحدث: أحمد شاكر – المصدر: مسند أحمد – الصفحة أو الرقم: 9/23
خلاصة الدرجة: إسناده صحيح

1. Abdallah Ibn Omar came to Ibn Mutee’and said: “Ask Abi Abdul-Rahman for a cushion.” He said: “I didn’t come to sit with you, rather I came to inform you what I’ve heard from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, I heard him saying: “Whoever removes his hands from the obedience (i.e. disobeys the legal authorities of the Muslim rulers) or creates differences in the Jama’ah dies the death of the Jaahiliyyah.”

2. Sahi muslim Bk 20, Number 4559: It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.

Comment: This narration shows that, the Ameer/Imam will not be a infallible, because if it would have been an infallible or divinely appointed person then believers cannot dislike any of his act. And even it talks about separation from the main body of muslims, which has nothing to do in obeying a divinely appointed caliph, but a general elected ruler. Because if it was regarding divinely appointed ruler, then separation from main body of muslims wouldn’t have been another condition, because divinely appointed authorities are to be followed unconditionally(even we are to separate from main body of muslims).


Anyways let us nail this down from the clarification of one of the member of Ahlebayt:

Ibn Sa’ad said, Shababa bin Siwar told us, Fudhail bin Marzooq told us, I asked Omar bin Ali bin Al-Hussain bin Ali bin Abi Talib and Al-Hussain bin Ali bin Al-Hussain bin Ali bin Abi Talib: “Is there among you Ahlul Bayt someone that we must follow and those that dont know him died a death of Jahiliyah?

They said, “No, there is nothing like this among us.”

“Whoever said this about us is a liar”

So, I (Fudhail) said, “May Allah have mercy on you! This position was to be for Ali since the Prophet (pbuh) said it is to be for him, then to Al-Hasan since Ali left it for him, then to Al-Hussain for Al-Hasan left it for him, then to Ali bin Al-Hussain for Al-Hussain left it for him, then to Mohammed bin Ali for Ali left it for him.”

He replied (Omar bin Ali), “Wallah my father died and he said no such thing!”

“May Allah destroy them! It is that Khunais! That Khunais!”

I (Fudhail) asked, “Al-Mu’alla bin Khunais?”

He said, “Yes, Al-Mu’alla bin Khunais! I spent a long time thinking upon my bed about a group of people that Allah misguided due to Al-Mu’alla bin Khunais” [ tabaqaat ibn saad 5/249, dar al-kutub al-ilmiyah]


Were there any “divinely appointed” Guides/Ameers/caliphs/Imams  after prophet(saw) whose obedience mandatory for their respective generations?

The shias claim that after prophet(Saw) there were divinely appointed imams whose obedience was mandatory under all circumstances like that for Prophet(saw), but the fact is that such idea is completely absent in Quran. And Quran restricts such obedience to Prophet Muhammad(saw).

1. Obey Allah (Ta‘ala) and His Beloved Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa Sallam)

And obey Allah and the (Prophetic) Messenger that you may obtain mercy. (3:132)

Those are the limits set by Allah, and whoso obeys Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger, He (Allah) will make him enter Gardens (in Paradise) underneath which rivers flow, to abide therein. And that is the great success. (4:13)

And whoso obeys Allah and the (Prophetic) Messenger, they will be with those to whom Allah has shown favour, of the Prophets and the Truthful and the Martyrs and the Righteous, and the best of Companions are they! (4:69)

Whoever obeys the (Prophetic) Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah; and whoever turns away, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them. (4:80)

And the believing (Muslim) men and the believing (Muslim) women are protecting friends one of another; they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, and they establish regular Prayer and they give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and they obey Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger. As for these, Allah will have mercy on them. Undoubtedly, Allah is Mighty, Wise. (9:71)

And he who obeys Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger, and has reverential awe of Allah, and keeps his duty (to Him): then these it is that are the successful. (24:52)

Say (O Beloved Prophet): “Obey Allah and obey the (Prophetic) Messenger. But if you turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and you for that placed on you, and if you obey him, you will be rightly guided. And the responsibility of the (Prophetic) Messenger is only to convey (the Message) clearly. (24:54)

And establish regular Prayer and give the obligatory charity (Zakat) and obey the (Prophetic) Messenger, so that mercy may be shown to you (from Allah). (24:56)

O you who believe! Have reverential awe of Allah and speak the right word. He (Allah) will set right your deeds for you and will forgive you your sins, and whosoever obeys Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger, he has indeed gained a mighty success. (33:70-71)

The bedouins say: “We believe”. Say (to them, O beloved Prophet): “You do not (yet) believe, but rather say ‘We have submitted’, for the Faith has not yet entered your hearts. But if you obey Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger, He will not diminish anything of (the reward of) your deeds. Surely, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
The (true) believers are only those who have believed in Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger and afterward, have never doubted but have struggled with their wealth and their persons in the Way of Allah. It is they who are the truthful. (49:14-15)

And obey Allah and obey the (Prophetic) Messenger; but if you turn away, then (know that) the duty of our (Prophetic) Messenger is only to convey (the Message) clearly. (64:12)

Comment: Here we find that, the only condition to attain salvation and to be successful in this life and hereafter, and to obtain mercy of Allah is to obey Allah and His messenger(saw). Had it been that there was another divinely appointed person after prophet(Saw) then why would have Allah restricted obedience to Messenger ? He would have said Obey Allah and Imams of your times. But none of the verses says so. All of them restricts the ultimate Obedience to Allah(swt) and Prophet(Saw)

2. Follow the Commands of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta‘ala) and of his Beloved Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa Sallam)

And it befits not a believing (Muslim) man or a believing (Muslim) woman, when Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger have decreed a matter (for them), that they should (after that) claim any choice in their matter; and whoso disobeys Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger, he has surely gone astray in manifest error. (33:36)

Comment: Here too the command should have included divinely appointed Imams,but Allah the most wise restricted it to Allah and his Prophet(Saw), leaving no space for any sort of divinely appointed Imam after Prophet(saw).

3. The reward of believing in Allah and His Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa Sallam)

O you who believe! Be in reverential awe of Allah and believe in His (Prophetic) Messenger. He (Allah) will give you twofold of His Mercy and will appoint for you a light wherein you shall walk, and will forgive you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (57:28)

Comment: Again no mentioned of divinely appointed Imams, the command restricts to Prophet(Saw), proving that its was not mandatory to believe in any sort of divinely appointed Imams after Prophet(saw)

The messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers; they all believe in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers; (saying)We make no difference between any of His messengers; and they say: We hear and obey, our Lord! Thy forgiveness (do we crave), and to Thee is the eventual course.(2:285)

Comment: Most importantly, in this verse a set of most Important things that should be believed by muslims are mentioned here, but we find that there is no mentioning of divinely appointed imams. We should understand that why the fitna mongers hate and slander the Sahaba (ra) and Ahlesunnah and call them deviant and Munafiq.[Aauzubillah] It is because they (Sahaba) didn’t believe in the Wilayat and Imamate of ’12 Infallables’, they only believed in Allah, his angels, his books and his messengers.

4. He is closer to the believers than their own selves

The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.(33:6)

Comment: If there were any divinely appointed Imams after Prophet(saw) then why didn’t Allah say that Imams of their times are closer to the believers than their own selves, and their wives are mothers of believers, but nothing of such was mentioned, this command too restricts to Prophet(saw).


Lastly we would remind our readers what Allah said:

We had given to them ears and eyes and hearts, but neither their ears benefited them in the least, nor their eyes, nor their hearts, as they used to reject Allāh’s signs; and they were encircled by what they used to ridicule.” [46:26]

It is not for any person to believe, except by the leave of Allah, and He will put the Rijs(doubt) on those who do not reason. Quran (10:100)

8 thoughts on “Part 2: Shia Interpretation of Hadith Thaqalayn Under Microscope

  1. Mashallah beautiful explanation.

    Please watch this video too where Shaykh Dr. Tahir ul Qadri explains the meaning of Ulil Amr and explains that obedience to ulil amr is conditional.

  2. Brother i was talking with a shia member on other website about 12 caliph and the imam of our time. i gave him the answer that there is no any current imam right now . and our prophet SAW has given the answer that in the absence of imam what we should do:
    Prophet SAW said: You should stick to the main body of the Muslims and their leader. I said: If they have no (such thing as the) main body and have no leader? He said: Separate yourself from all these factions, though you may have to eat the roots of trees (in a jungle) until death comes to you and you are in this state.(sahi muslim Bk 20, Number 4553)

    the shia reply that this hadith is looking clearly illogic and against the message of islam because a muslim should do something to remove evils and not to take himself aside ..
    the shia member try to say that you should change the system rather than stand aside and eat the root..

    • Salamalaikum,

      Firstly we can understand from it that, it was an ADVICE for a sahabi, and it was based on a Prophecy that what is going to happen.

      Secondly the shia seems to have misunderstood that this hadeeth is going against the concept of Amal bil maroof wa nahi al munkar(enjoining what is good and forbidding what is wrong). That is why the shia argues that something should be done to remove the evils. But the fact is that the hadeeth DOESN’T says that if evil is being done you don’t object on it. Rather the advice of the Prophet(Saw) in this hadeeth was that we shouldn’t be a part of those groups who call towards hell, We should NOT JOIN such groups at any cost and that we should separate ourselves from such groups. The hadeeth is talking about not joining them and disassociating from such people, it isn’t talking about not stopping or not objecting the evil. For eg: If we say that: “separate yourself from those who curse sahaba”. Now does it mean that we stopped you from correcting those who curse sahaba? No, not at all , but what we said was JUST regarding not joining or disassociating yourself from such people. But you are free to criticize them and correct them.

      Allah knows the best.

  3. What is the meaning of “Jama’ah of Muslims” ?

    Answer: Jama’ah is a term used quite loosely these days to mean ‘majority’. When someone refers to the Jama’ah of Muslims they usually mean the majority of Muslims in a particular country or city. Its usage becomes frequent before the two Eids when Masjids and groups start blaming each other for creating division among Muslims and separating them from the Jama’ah because of celebrating Eids on different days. Without going into a Fiqhi discussion about when to celebrate Eid and whether to sight the moon globally, locally or use calculations, let us look at what Jama’ah actually means in Islam.

    The following Hadith is often quoted to make the point that if one does not celebrate Eid on the same day as the majority are celebrating, or the day that the government or the local religious authority (e.g. board of Imams) has declared Eid, then he is separating himself from the Jama’ah:

    “…he who separates himself from the community (Jama’ah) by even so much as a hand span and dies (in this state), he will die the death of Jahiliyyah.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

    However, a look at the full text of the Hadith reveals what our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) meant when he prohibited separation from the Jama’ah:

    “’The one who sees in his Ameer something which displeases him, let him remain patient, for he who separates himself from the community (Jama’ah) by even so much as a hand span and dies (in this state), he will die the death of Jahiliyyah.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

    In the above Hadith, distancing oneself from the Ameer (leader) of the Muslims is referred to as separating oneself from the Jama’ah. Another very similar Hadith narrated by Ibn Abbas states this point more explicitly:

    ”If anybody sees in his Ameer something which displeases him, he should remain patient, for he who separates himself from the authority (Sultan) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, he would die the death of the days of ignorance.” [Muslim]

    These Hadith make it clear that the Jama’ah that we are commanded to stick to is not just any group or community of Muslims; nor is it the majority of the Muslims in a particular country or city. Rather, it is the Muslim Ummah as a whole united under an Islamic leadership. Therefore, the existence of a Jama’ah is essentially linked to the existence of a leader.

    It must be understood, however, that in the above mentioned Hadith, ‘Ameer’ of the believers refers to a leader who implements the laws of Allah (SWT). Islam does not give legitimacy to the authority of those who do not rule by Islam. They are rather referred to as ‘kafir’ (disbeliever), ‘fasiq’ (rebellious) or ‘zalim’ (oppressor) in the Qur’an [Surah Ma’idah, verses 44, 45 & 47].

    The absolute necessity of the existence of a leader over the Jama’ah of Muslims is further expounded in the following Hadith:

    “Whoever removes himself from the Jama’at (the unified Muslim Ummah) by a hand span then he has taken Islam from his neck until he returns. Whoever dies and does not have a leader of the Jama’at over him then his death is a death of jahiliyya” [Hakim]

    However, when there is no Imam, are we required to follow the majority? The Hadith of Hudhayfah bin al Yaman (RA) sheds some light on this matter:

    Al-Bukhari narrated about Bisr ibn Obaydellah al-Hadhrami that he heard Abu Idrees al-Khoolani say that he heard Huthaifah ibn al-Yaman saying: “The people used to ask the Prophet of Allah (saw) about the good and I used to ask him about the bad in fear that it might catch me. So I said: O Prophet of Allah! We were in times of jahilliyah and mischief then Allah brought us this good, so is there any mischief after this good? He (saw) said: Yes. I said: Will there be any good after that mischief? He said: Yes, and it has smoke. I said: What is its smoke? He said: (Some) people guide without any guidance, you recognise some (from them) and deny some. I said: Will there be a mischief after that good? He said: Yes, (some) people who invite at the doors of hell, whoever accepted their invitation they throw him in it (hell). I said: O Prophet of Allah, describe them to us. He said: They are of our own skin (of our people) and talk our language. I said: What do you order me to do if that (matter) caught me? He said: Adhere to the jama’ah of Muslims and their Imam. I said: What if the Muslims have no jama’ah nor an Imam? He said: Then you abandon all those groups, even if you have to grab with your teeth the trunk of a tree till death comes to you as such.”

    In the above Hadith, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the time when there will be no Jama’ah and no Imam, he did not order us to follow the majority. This once again clarifies the point that Jama’ah does not mean majority.

    Therefore, it is incorrect to accuse each other of breaking away from the Jama’ah if the difference exists only on Fiqhi matters. It is well known that Islam allows difference of opinion and the Sahabah and the early scholars had difference of opinions amongst themselves. However, Islam does not allow political disunity amongst Muslims and hence the stern warning against distancing oneself from the community of believers and their ‘Ameer. This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered harsh punishment for anyone seeking to cause political disunity amongst the Muslims:

    “When you all (Muslims) are united (as one block) under a single Khalifah, and a man comes up to disintegrate you and separate you into different groups, then kill that man.” [Muslim]

    Also, there are many Hadith of our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) condemning nationalism or tribalism. The following Hadith is one of them and it exemplifies the meaning of unity in Islam:

    Whoever separates from the Jama’at and leaves obedience (to the leader of the Muslims) and dies then he dies the death of one of jahiliyya, and whoever sets out against my Ummah with his sword, and strikes the good of them and the evil of them, not keeping away from a believer due to his iman, and does not fulfil the covenant with the one who took it, then he is not from my Ummah and whoever is killed while under a flag of ignorance, getting angry for the sake of tribalism or fighting for the sake of tribalism or calling to tribalism then his death is that of jahiliyya. [Ahmed]

    Therefore, unity means sticking to the Jama’ah of the Muslims, being obedient to the Khalifah, not fighting the Muslims and staying away from nationalism. The existence of different Fiqhi opinions amongst Muslims is not disunity. Rather the existence of different countries and states based on nationalism and the absence of a leader that rules according to the Book of Allah are the real causes of disunity – something that our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) has prohibited and warned us against over and over again.

  4. This matn seems like a pure fabrication & the reason for this is that Imam Mehdi a.s is from the Ahlul Bayt right? We all agree on this & we have to follow him when He comes & are you telling me that He is not one of those that if u don’t recognise Him then u die death of Jahiliyah?

    • No! It isn’t a fabrication from any angle if you read this report in a sensible manner.

      It states: Is there among you Ahlul Bayt someone that we must follow and those that don’t know him died a death of Jahiliyah?“ they said, “No, there is nothing like this among us.”

      The ahlelbayt mentioned in there are those who were Alive/Present at that time, with Al-Hussain bin Ali bin Al-Hussain bin Ali bin Abi Talib. So Ahlelbayt there refers to just the members who were alive that time. So based on that he said that there is no one “among us”. But it doesn’t includes Imam mahdi who didn’t took birth by that time.

      And yes at that time there wasn’t any Caliph/Imam among Ahlelbayt, not following whom could imply death of Jahilliya.

  5. can I ask a question here. After the death of Prophet Muhammad SAW the rightfull emir or caliph according to sunni tradtion is Abu bakr r.a.

    So if the statement is true that: “whoever dies without an imam he dies a death of jahilyyah and whoever breaks disobedience he comes in the day of judgement without a hujja”

    Then everyone should follow Abu Bakr r.a.

    Then my question to you is who was the imam for the prophets daughter Fatima r.a.

    Even though she diesd shortly after the death of the prophet saw she must have an imam did she believbe abu bakr r.a. to be her imam?

    • Brother before we answer you question, we would like to clarify some basic points which will be beneficial to you and the viewers. Inshallah.

      Ahlesunnah believes that one shouldn’t disassociate from a Jama’ah and neither should break allegiance(bayah) from a Muslim Caliph/Imam. The Muslims must take orders from the Caliph/Imam and follow him in all those matters where they find that the Caliph is doing as per Quran and Sunnah. But as we know there could be instances wherein the views or interpretations of some matters differs between Muslims, thus we have the full authority to not follow the Imam/Caliph if anything he does seem to us to be different than how we understand a particular matter. But that doesn’t mean that the Muslims broke their Bayah to the Caliph, just because in certain aspect they disagreed with the Caliph. Let us give few examples for a better understanding, Umar(as) disagreed with Caliph Abubakr(as) on various issues for example, Umar(as) didn’t wanted that Khalid bin Walid should be the General of Army. During Caliphate of Umar(as), his own son Abdullah ibn Umar(as) disagreed with him and didn’t follow him on the issue of Hajj Tamattu, that mean Ibn Umar(as) broke his bayah to his father. Similarly during Caliphate of Ali(as), Abdullah ibn Abbas(as) didn’t disagreed with the view of Uthman(as) regarding burning the Sabaies alive, but that doesn’t mean He broke Bayah from Ali(as).

      So brother, as we see that disagreeing with a Caliph and not following him in certain matter doesn’t implies that certain individual broke his Bayah. Now coming to you question regarding Fatima(as), then indeed She believed Abubakr(as) to be the Caliph of believers and her as well. But if you ask us to provide a proof then, know that there isn’t a proof that she gave bayah to Abubakr(as), neither is there any proof where Fatima(as) rejected Caliphate of Abubakr(as). If you ask us the reason for this, then it could be because, it WASN’T NECESSARY for ALL THE WOMEN to physically approach the Caliph and give bayah, rather the Ameer of a Family can represent his family and give bayah for his whole family. Or a leader of a tribe can represent his whole tribe and give bayah on their behalf. So when Ali(as) gave bayah to Abubakr(as) then it will be considered bayah for his whole family, which includes Fatima(as). Similarly, we don’t think that people would find any evidence regarding wife of Umar(as) or Uthman(as) or Abbas(as), or his own daughter Ayesha(as), etc giving bayah to Abubakr(as), bu this will not mean that they didn’t consider Abubakr(as) to be their Caliph.

      However, we know that often the Shias argue that Fatima(as) disagreed with Abubakr(as) regarding the issue of inheritance, thus they try to stretch this and portray that she didn’t consider Abubakr(as) to be her Imam/Caliph, but this is just a deceit from Shias, because as we have shown using the examples that disagreeing with the view of Caliph doesn’t imply that people who disagreed with them broke their Bayah. It’s just a stupid shia argument, which lacks sense. Especially, when we know the character of Fatima(as) and Sahaba(as), as they were the people who never preferred worldly possessions over the akhirah. Its in fact thinking low of Fatima(as), that just because of a worldly possession(land of fadak), Fatima(as) broke bayah or didn’t give bayah to the one whom the believers choose as Caliph.

      So dear brother, we shouldn’t consider Sahaba(as) or Ahlelbayt(as) to people who are after this duniya, no not at all those were the people whose only Aim was Akhirah, they never bothered for this duniya. Abubakr(as) didn’t take a part of Jannah from Fatima(as), so that Fatima(as) would take such an extreme step. It’s just the satanic tricks of Shias to create doubts in the mind of Muslims. So think well regarding Sahaba(as) and Ahlelbayt(as), inorder to be successful in this life and hereafter.

      Allah knows the best.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s